Action

Control invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as Himalayan Balsam, Japanese knotweed)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

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 randomized, replicated, controlled study in summer 1993 in a pastureland in the Krivoklat Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Pysek et al. 1995), found that removing all flower heads (umbels) of giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum reduced seed production by 95% in that year. The effect on seed production of removing all flower heads and leaves was not significantly different from removing flower heads alone. Removing only the terminal flower head showed no significant difference in seed production compared to the control. The timing of flower head removal was planned to coincide with the peak flowering period. The study site was divided into eight blocks of four plants, with one plant in each block receiving each of four tissue removal treatments: removal of all flower heads and leaves, removal of all flower heads, removal of the terminal flower head and control.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in July 2002 and June 2003 in ten pastureland sites in Slavkovský les Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Pysek et al. 2007) found that giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum seed production was dramatically reduced by removal of flower heads (umbels) and less heavily reduced by removal of leaves. Timing of tissue removal also significantly affected seed production, with 80% of plants that had flower heads removed on 2 July 2003 regenerating and producing some seed compared to 30-60% of plants that were treated on 9-10 July 2002. For treatments that removed the whole plant, cutting the stem above the basal rosette was equally as effective as removing the basal rosette, and cutting 15 cm below the ground was the only treatment that killed the plants. Additionally, they found that 84% of cut flower heads could still produce seed if left on the ground, and 24% of these seeds germinated. The 2002 experiment used 10 different tissue removal treatments, each applied to one randomly selected plant at each of ten sites. The 2003 experiment used 70 plants randomly selected at one site. Two different treatments, cutting 5 cm above the ground and cutting just above the leaf rosette, were applied to ten plants each on 7 June, 20 June and 2 July. Ten plants were also used as a control.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2018) Farmland Conservation Pages 245-284 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet 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