Study

Integrating herbicide and mechanical control treatments with fire and biological control to manage an invasive wetland shrub, Mimosa pigra

  • Published source details Paynter Q. & Flanagan G.J. (2004) Integrating herbicide and mechanical control treatments with fire and biological control to manage an invasive wetland shrub, Mimosa pigra. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 615-629.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Use herbicide to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1997–1999 in a floodplain wetland invaded by mimosa Mimosa pigra in the Northern Territory, Australia (Paynter & Flanagan 2004) reported that crushing the vegetation with a bulldozer did not reduce cover of non-mimosa vegetation one year later. In one of two comparisons, amongst plots previously sprayed with herbicide, crushed plots had greater cover of non-mimosa vegetation (55%) than uncrushed plots (33%). In the other comparison, amongst plots not sprayed with herbicide, non-mimosa vegetation cover did not significantly differ between treatments (crushed: 38%; uncrushed: 15%). Meanwhile, mimosa was never more abundant in crushed than uncrushed plots, and often significantly less abundant. This was true for mimosa coverage, density and above-ground biomass (see original paper for data). Before intervention, the abundance of both mimosa and other vegetation were statistically similar in plots destined for each treatment (data not reported). Methods: Eight pairs of 100 x 200 m plots were established on a mimosa-invaded floodplain. In late 1998, the vegetation was crushed in eight plots (one random plot/pair) by driving over it with bulldozers. Four crushed and four uncrushed plots had been sprayed with herbicide earlier in April 1998. Vegetation was surveyed before crushing (late 1997/early 1998) and one year after (late 1999), in four 1–5 m2 quadrats/plot and by aerial photography (mimosa coverage). This study was in the same area as (1), but used a different experimental set-up.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Use herbicide to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1997–1999 in a floodplain wetland invaded by mimosa Mimosa pigra in the Northern Territory, Australia (Paynter & Flanagan 2004) found that spraying the vegetation with herbicide did not reduce the cover of non-mimosa vegetation 1–2 years later. In three of six comparisons, non-mimosa cover was higher in sprayed plots (55–74%) than unsprayed plots (15–38%). In the other three comparisons, there was no significant difference between treatments (sprayed: 32–47%; unsprayed: 15–38%). Sprayed plots consistently had lower mimosa coverage (six of six comparisons) and density (six of six comparisons). Results for mimosa biomass were mixed, but never significantly higher in sprayed than unsprayed plots (see original paper for data). Before intervention, the abundance of both mimosa and other vegetation were statistically similar in plots destined for each treatment (data not reported). Methods: In April 1998, thirty-two 100 x 200 m plots were established, in four sets of eight, on a mimosa-invaded floodplain. Twenty-four plots (six random plots/set) were sprayed with herbicide in April 1998 and/or January 1999. In half of the plots, vegetation was also crushed with bulldozers in late 1998. Vegetation was surveyed one year before spraying (late 1997/early 1998) and approximately 1–2 years after the latest spray (late 1999), in four 1–5 m2 quadrats/plot and by aerial photography (mimosa coverage). This study was in the same area as (6), but used a different experimental set-up.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
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