Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-lzpzj Total loading time: 0.458 Render date: 2021-03-08T10:33:20.676Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Efficacy of Mechanical and Herbicide Control Methods for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Cost Analysis of Chemical Control Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott R. Oneto
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Amador County Jackson, CA 95642
Guy B. Kyser
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, One Shields Ave., University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Joseph M. DiTomaso
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, One Shield Ave., University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Scotch broom is an invasive leguminous shrub in California and other Pacific Northwest states, as well as New Zealand and Australia. It is highly competitive in forest and shrub communities and can significantly impact reestablishment of conifer forests. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate mechanical methods (Weed Wrench, lopping), several herbicides, and herbicide application techniques for control of Scotch broom in a premontane site in California. Three herbicides were evaluated (glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr ester) for canopy reduction using foliar, drizzle, and basal bark treatments. All treatments were made in both fall and late spring. In addition, we conducted a cost analysis of the various herbicide treatments and application methods. Results indicate that both mechanical treatments were effective, but their optimum timing depended on soil moisture conditions. In addition, there were no significant differences among herbicides at both timings, among all rates, and for any application method. All herbicides provided effective control of Scotch broom. However, the cost analysis demonstrated that the drizzle application method with glyphosate was the most cost-effective treatment, due to low herbicide cost and reduced labor requirements. These results provide several options for Scotch broom control and give land managers considerable flexibility with timing, herbicide, and application technique in their management programs.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Affeld, K., Hill, K., Smith, L. A., and Syrett, P. 2003. Toxicity of herbicides and surfactants to three insect biological control agents for Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom). Pages 375380. In Cullen, J. M., Briese, D. T., Kriticos, D. J., Lonsdale, W. M., Morin, L., and Scott, J. K. eds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. C. 1990. Secrets of an Ecological Interloper: Ecological Studies on Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) in California. Ph.D Dissertation. Davis, CA University of California, Davis. 166 p.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. C. 1993. Seed germination in the exotic shrub Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) in California. Madroño 40:4761.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. 2000. Pages 145149. In Bossard, C., Randall, J., and Hochovsky, M. eds. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. and Rejmánek, M. 1994. Herbivory, seed production, growth, and resprouting of Cytisus scoparius in California. Biol. Conserv 67:193200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B. A. 2006. Effects of invasive scotch broom on soil properties in a Pacific coastal prairie soil. Appl. Soil Ecol 32:149152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and MacDonald, G. E. 2008. Approximate Herbicide Pricing. University of Florida IFAS Extension SS-ARG-16, Gainesville, FL. 4 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WG/WG05600.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2010.Google Scholar
Fogarty, G. and Facelli, J. M. 1999. Growth and competition of Cytisus scoparius, an invasive shrub, and Australian native shrubs. Plant Ecol 144:2735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist, A. J. 1980. Control of woody weeds with triclopyr. Pages. 249256. in Proceedings, Conference on Weed Control in Forestry, Nottingham, United Kingdom. University of Nottingham, England.Google Scholar
Gilkey, H. M. 1957. Weeds of the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR Oregon State College. 382 p.Google Scholar
Gill, J. D. and Pogge, F. L. 1974. Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link, Scotch broom. Pages 370371. In Schopmeyer, C. S. ed. Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States. Agricultural Handbook #450. Washington DC USDA Forest Service. 883 p.Google Scholar
Hoshovsky, M. 1986. Element Stewardship Abstract for Cytisus scoparius and Genista monspessulanus. Scotch Broom, French Broom (http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu). Arlington, VA The Nature Conservancy. 19 p.Google Scholar
Ketchum, J. S. and Rose, R. 2003. Preventing establishment of exotic shrubs (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link. and Cytisus striatus (Hill)) with soil active herbicides (hexazinone, sulfometuron, and metsulfuron). New For 25:8392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, J. W. 2001. Getting a handle on broom. Publication 8049. Oakland, CA University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 9 p.Google Scholar
McCavish, W. J. 1980. Forest weed control. UK Forestry Commission, Report on Forest Research 1980:1112.Google Scholar
McClintock, E. 1985. Brooms. Fremontia 12 (4):1115.Google Scholar
Motooka, P., Ching, L., and Nagai, G. 2002. Herbicidal Weed Control Methods for Pastures and Natural Areas of Hawaii. WC-8. Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Management and Human Nutrition, Food and Animal Sciences. Mānoa, HI Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 36 p.Google Scholar
Mountjoy, J. H. 1979. Broom—a threat to native plants. Fremontia 6 (4):1115.Google Scholar
Munz, P. A. and Keck, D. D. 1973. A California Flora. Berkeley, CA University of California Press. 1681 p.Google Scholar
Neubert, M. G. and Parker, I. M. 2004. Projecting rates of spread for invasive species. Soc. Risk Anal 24:817831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, W. T. and Cuthbertson, E. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia Inkata Press, Melbourne, Australia. 692 p.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. and Prasad, R. 1998. The biology of Canadian weeds, Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link. Can. J. Plant Sci 78:497504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwendiman, J. L. 1977. Coastal and sand dune stabilization in the Pacific Northwest. Int. J. Biometeorol 21:281289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A. W., Hodge, P., Paynter, Q., and Rees, M. 2002. Factors affecting invasion and persistence of broom Cytisus scoparius in Australia. J. Appl. Ecol 39:721734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. H. 1933. The viability of seeds. Kew Bull 6:257269.Google Scholar
USDA, NRCS 2005. The PLANTS Database. Vers. 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874–4490. http://plants.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Ussery, J. G. and Krannitz, P. G. 1998. Control of Scotch's broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link.): the relative conservation merits of pulling versus cutting. Northwest Sci 72:268273.Google Scholar
Watt, G. and Tustin, J. 1976. The economics of herbicides in New Zealand plantation practice. Pages 293301. In Chevasse, C. G. R. ed. The Use of Herbicides in Forestry in New Zealand. New Zealand Forest Research Service, Forest Research Institute Symposium #18. Rotorua, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 23 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Efficacy of Mechanical and Herbicide Control Methods for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Cost Analysis of Chemical Control Options
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Efficacy of Mechanical and Herbicide Control Methods for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Cost Analysis of Chemical Control Options
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Efficacy of Mechanical and Herbicide Control Methods for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Cost Analysis of Chemical Control Options
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *