Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - triclopyr

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    55%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

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 small, replicated, controlled, laboratory study conducted between 1999 and 2000 in New Zealand (Hofstra et al. 2006) found that the herbicide triclopyr reduced the growth of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum. After 17 weeks, plants treated with triclopyr had a lower dry weight (1–2 g) than that of untreated plants (274 g). Plants were grown for approximately two months prior to herbicide application in 60 l plastic tubs. Triclopyr was sprayed onto plants in three tubs at a concentration of 2 and 4 kg/ha and plants in four tubs were left untreated.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled field study conducted between 2001 and 2002 in a wetland in the Northern Island of New Zealand (Hofstra et al. 2006) reported treatment with the herbicide triclopyr reduced vegetation cover of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum plants soon after application, but after 28 weeks cover was similar to pre-treatment levels. Results were not subject to statistical tests. After 10 weeks and following a second herbicide application, vegetation cover of treated plants was lower (1.5%) than of untreated plants (47%). However, after 28 weeks, vegetation cover of treated plants (68–84%) was similar to that of untreated plants (97%). Authors reported that the increase in vegetation cover resulted from the encroachment of plants from outside sprayed areas rather than due to regrowth in treated plots. Triclopyr was applied at concentrations of 2 and 4 kg/ha. Each herbicide concentration was sprayed into three 5 x 5 m plots and three plots were left untreated. Herbicides were applied in early summer (December). A second application took place 51 days after the initial treatment.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, before-and-after field study conducted between 2002 and 2003 in two drains in the Northern Island of New Zealand (Hofstra et al. 2006) reported a reduction in the cover of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum after the application of the herbicide triclopyr. This result is not based on statistical tests. The areas occupied by parrot’s feather were greater before herbicide application (35 m2 and 128 m2) than following herbicide application (22 m2 and 2 m2, respectively). Authors reported that native species such as Potamogeton cheesemanii and Persicaria decipiens were either not affected or recovered quickly, although no data were presented. Triclopyr was applied at a concentration of 4 kg/ha into two sections with a low density of parrot’s feather (one 3 m x 2 km and the other 1 km long, being 3 m wide in the first 500 m and 1 m wide in the remaining 500 m). Application occurred during the spring and summer of 2002 to 2003 and vegetation cover was assessed visually.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A small, replicated, controlled, laboratory study conducted between 1999 and 2000 in New Zealand (Hofstra et al. 2006) found that the vegetation cover of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum plants treated with triclopyr was lower than that of plants treated with the glyphosate. One year after exposure, the vegetation cover of plants treated with triclopyr ranged between 0 and 13% whereas the vegetation cover of plants treated with glyphosate was 73%. The percentage cover of untreated plants was 83%. Plants were grown for approximately two months prior to herbicide application in 60 l plastic tubs. Triclopyr was applied at concentrations of 2, 4 and 8 kg/ha whereas glyphosate was sprayed onto plants in four tubes at a concentration of 3.2 kg/ha and plants in four tubs were left untreated.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A small, replicated, controlled, laboratory study conducted between 2007 and 2008 in the USA (Wersal & Madsen, 2010), found that the application of the herbicide triclopyr reduced growth in parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum. After six weeks, the dry weight of parrot’s feather plants treated with triclopyr was lower than that of untreated plants (3–6 vs 10 g/pot). Subsurface and foliar herbicide applications led to similar changes in biomass. Six weeks after application, triclopyr had controlled parrot’s feather by 15–70% (visual assessment with 0% corresponding to no control and 100% to complete control). Parrot’s feather shoots were propagated in 3.78 l pots and placed inside 246 l containers filled with water. Each herbicide rate (subsurface: 1.25 and 2.5 mg/l; foliar: 6.7 kg/ha) was applied to four 246 l containers, each holding four plants. Number of plants used as control is not presented and control in the context of the visual assessments was not clearly defined.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Aldridge, D., Ockendon, N., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species. Pages 555-87 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. 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 2021 cover

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, 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 the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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