Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T01:32:08.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
Guy B. Kyser  and
Joseph M. DiTomaso
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 author's E-mail: jmditomaso@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Glyphosateimazapyrtriclopyr esterScotch broom, Cytisus scoparius (L.) LinkCytisus scopariusScotch broomchemical weed controlmechanical weed controlWeed Wrenchloppinginvasivedrizzlebasal barkfoliarapplication technology
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 421 - 428
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

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 375–380. 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 40:47–61.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. 2000. Pages 145–149. 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 67:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B. A. 2006. Effects of invasive scotch broom on soil properties in a Pacific coastal prairie soil. Appl. Soil Ecol 32:149–152.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 144:27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist, A. J. 1980. Control of woody weeds with triclopyr. Pages. 249–256. 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 370–371. 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 25:83–92.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 1980:11–12.Google Scholar
McClintock, E. 1985. Brooms. Fremontia 12 (4):11–15.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):11–15.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 24:817–831.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 78:497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwendiman, J. L. 1977. Coastal and sand dune stabilization in the Pacific Northwest. Int. J. Biometeorol 21:281–289.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 39:721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. H. 1933. The viability of seeds. Kew Bull 6:257–269.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 72:268–273.Google Scholar
Watt, G. and Tustin, J. 1976. The economics of herbicides in New Zealand plantation practice. Pages 293–301. 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