Study

Autumn application of herbicides improves Macartney rose Rosa bracteata -infested coastal prairies near Benchley and Bloomington, Texas, USA

  • Published source details Scifres C.J. (1975) Fall application of herbicides improves Macartney rose-infested coastal prairie rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 28, 483-486

Summary

Macartney rose Rosa bracteata (native to China), was introduced to the USA in the early 1800s. It has become invasive and is a severe management problem on over 200,000 ha of rangeland in southeast Texas, particularly in the Gulf Prairies and western Quercus stellata savanna. Various herbicide control trials were undertaken near the village of Benchley and Bloomington town.

Benchley: On Macartney rose plants averaging 1 m tall x 2.5 m canopy diameter, several herbicides and herbicide combinations (equal amounts, 1:1, of each) were tested at 1.12 kg/ha: 2,4-D, 2,4-D with picloram or dicamba; 2,4,5-T and silvex each alone or with picloram or dicamba; and dicamba with picloram. Herbicides were applied on 26 September 1970 (sprayed from the ground in 94 l/ha of water plus 0.5% commercial surfactant) to l0 x 35 m plots (randomized complete block design; 3 replications).

Bloomington: On 3 October 1972 and 11 October 1973, various herbicides, herbicide combinations, application rates, and formulations were aerially applied to dense stands of Macartney rose on infested grassland.
 
One and two years after treatment, reductions in rose canopy cover were estimated in plots or along belt transects.

Best Macartney rose control was achieved with picloram combined with 2,4,5-T at 0.56 or 1.12 kg/ha; aerial application at 1.12 kg/ha reduced rose canopies by 70-80% after a year. This combination was equally effective applied in water containing 0.5% surfactant or in a diesel oil:water (1:4) emulsion. Alone, 2,4-D at 1.12 kg/ha (standard treatment) also had good results reducing canopies by 40-50%.

Herbicides more effectively controlled undisturbed rose than plants previously shredded (a generally ineffective mechanical control method) or sprayed e.g. picloram with 2,4,5-T at 0.56 kg/ha achieved a 50% canopy reduction on disturbed plants but over 70% reduction on undisturbed plants after one year.
 
Increasing the volume of the carrier from 47 to 94 l/ha did not adequately increase Macartney rose control to justify extra costs of the higher spray volume.
 
 
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at: https://www.uair.arizona.edu/holdings/journal/issue?r=http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/Volume28/Number6/

Output references

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 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