Water primrose: Chemical control using herbicides

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    80%
  • Certainty
    60%
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

  • A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young cultivated water primrose within two months.
  • A before-and-after field study in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate controlled water primrose, causing 97% mortality when mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined with TopFilm.
  • A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela3, found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled, replicated laboratory study conducted in 2007 in the USA (Champion et al. 2008) found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA (triethylamine) stopped the growth of young cultivated creeping water primrose Ludwigia peploides in comparison to untreated plants. Plants stopped growing and were damaged at concentrations of 0.25% by volume and above. Within two months, 0.25 % triclopyr TEA killed 100 % of treated creeping water primrose. Creeping water primrose seedlings were collected from the wild and cultivated in glasshouses. The plants were grown in water-filled 40 litre tubs containing a bed of sand for at least two months. Herbicide was applied to run off at between 0.25% and 5.00% concentration by volume. Ten plants were tested at each concentration and monitored regularly for signs of herbicide damage. Ten plants were left untreated as controls.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after field study conducted from 2006 to 2007 in the UK (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 2007) found that the herbicide glyphosate combined with a non-oil soya sticking agent, reduced the abundance of creeping water primrose Ludwigia peploides. After 56 days, the biomass of creeping water primrose was reduced by over 97% compared with the biomass before treatment. When glyphosate was combined with TopFilm, it reportedly killed the plant. A solution of 360g/litre of glyphosate (Roundup Pro Biactive) was applied at a rate of 6 litres/ha and the non-oil soya sticking agent was applied at a rate of 450 ml/ha. Further details of the experimental treatments, such as area treated, are not provided.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled, replicated, randomized study at the National Institute for Agricultural Research, Venezuela (Suárez et al. 2004) found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose Ludwigia spp. coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants.  Treatment of 60 g active ingredient/ha produced the highest percentage control, with average reduction in water primrose coverage of 80%.  The trial was conducted in a randomized block design with five treatments and four repetitions. Treatments were undertaken in experimental plots marked with fixed 0.25m2 metal frames. Sempra, formulated as water dispersible granules at a concentration of 75% halosulfuron-methyl by weight, was applied to rice crops 26 days after sowing at the following range of doses 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 g active ingredient/ha.   The herbicide was applied with a manual sprayer.  Weed coverage and rice crop quality were then evaluated.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Aldridge, D., Ockendon, N., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species. Pages 569-602 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species
Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species - Published 2017

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species Synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust