Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 747–760 | Cite as

The Effectiveness of Asulam for Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) Control in the United Kingdom: A Meta-Analysis

  • Gavin B. StewartEmail author
  • Andrew S. Pullin
  • Claire Tyler
Article

Abstract

Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) is a major problem for livestock-based extensive agriculture, conservation, recreation, and game management globally. It is an invasive species often achieving dominance to the detriment of other species. Control is essential to maintain plant communities such as grassland and lowland heath or if extensive grazing by domestic stock, particularly sheep, is to be viable on upland margins. Bracken is managed primarily by herbicide application or cutting but other techniques including rolling, burning, and grazing are also utilized. Here we evaluate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of asulam for the control of bracken. Thirteen studies provided data for meta-analyses which demonstrate that application of the herbicide asulam reduces bracken abundance. Subgroup analyses indicate that the number of treatments had an important impact, with multiple follow-up treatments more effective than one or two treatments. Management practices should reflect the requirement for repeated follow-up. There is insufficient available experimental evidence for quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of other management interventions, although this results from lack of reporting in papers where cutting and comparisons of cutting and asulam application are concerned. Systematic searching and meta-analytical synthesis have effectively demonstrated the limits of current knowledge, based on recorded empirical evidence, and increasing the call for more rigorous monitoring of bracken control techniques. Lack of experimental evidence on the effectiveness of management such as rolling or grazing with hardy cattle breeds contrasts with the widespread acceptance of their use through dissemination of experience.

Keywords

Systematic review Conservation management Herbicide Cutting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the authors, land owners, and organizations who responded to our enquiries and provided information, particularly Steve Clarke, George Wynn Darley, Matthew Denny, Rob Marrs, Robin Pakeman, Roderick Robinson, and the International Bracken Group. We have found the “bracken community” to be open, friendly, and supportive, which greatly facilitates research synthesis. We also thank anonymous reviewers for comments and our colleagues Helen Bayliss, Zoe Davies, Tam Kabat, and Phil Roberts at the Centre for Evidence Based Conservation. This work was funded by English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

References

  1. Bailey K (1987) Inter-study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results? Statistical Medicine 6:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulman C, Joy J, Bourn N (2005) Bracken for butterflies, butterfly conservation. Wareham, Dorset, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper H, Hedges LV (1994) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper HM, Ribble RG (1989) Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Knowledge 10:179–201Google Scholar
  5. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ (2001) Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds.), Systematic reviews in health care. Meta-analysis in context. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London. pp 285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. British Medical Journal 315:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton LJ (1990) Evaluation of metsulfuron methyl for bracken control. In Thomson JA, Smith RT (eds.), Bracken biology and management. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Sydney. Pages 291–297Google Scholar
  10. Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL (1989) Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 84:374–380Google Scholar
  11. Holroyd J, Thornton ME (1978) Factors influencing the control of bracken with asulam. Weed Research 18:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horton R (1997) Medical editors trial amnesty. Lancet 350:756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson LP (1981) Asulam for control of eastern bracken fern in Lowbush Blueberry Fields. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 61(2):475–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Report No. 4. 2nd ed. University of York, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawton JH, Varvarigos P (1989) Socio-economic aspects of bracken control. University of York, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Duc MG, Pakeman RJ, Putwain PD, Marrs RH (2000) The variable responses of bracken fronds to control treatments in the UK. Annals of Botany 85(Supplement B):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Duc MG, Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH (2000) Vegetation changes after treatment for bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) control, by herbicide, on upland and marginal areas of Great Britain. Journal of Environmental management 58:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Duc MG, Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH (2003) Changes in the bracken rhizome system subjected to long-term experimental treatment. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:508–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowday JE (1985) Asulam applied by rope wick applicator for controlling scattered bracken on a grassland nature-reserve. Annals of Applied Biology 106:90–91Google Scholar
  20. Marrs RH, Frost AJ (1996) Techniques to reduce the impact of asulam drift from helicopter sprayers on native vegetation. Journal of Environmental Management 46:373–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marrs RH, Pakeman RJ, Lowday JE (1993) Control of bracken and the restoration of heathland. V. Effects of bracken control treatments on the rhizome and its relationship with frond performance. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marrs RH, Johnson SW, Le Duc MG (1998) Control of bracken and the restoration of heathland 7. The response of rhizomes to 18 years of continued bracken control or six years of control followed by recovery. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morton S, et al. (2001) Meta-analysis of messy data: problems and solutions from a meta-regression analysis of spinal manipulation for low back pain. Cochrane 1:op024Google Scholar
  24. NHS (2001) CRD Report 4: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. 2nd ed. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/crdreview.htm
  25. Oswald AK, Richardson WG, West TM (1986) The potential control of bracken by sulphonyl-urea herbicides. In Smith RT, Taylor JA (eds.), Bracken: ecology, land use and control technology. Parthenon, Carnforth, Lancs. Pages 431–440Google Scholar
  26. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 703:125–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH (1994a) Bracken control and vegetation restoration: literature review. Report to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH (1994b) The effects of control on the biomass, carbohydrate content and bud reserves of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn), and an evaluation of a bracken growth model. Annals of Applied Biology 124:479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pakeman RJ, Sangster H (2000) Bracken control and vegetation restoration. In Taylor JA, Smith RT (eds.), Bracken fern: toxicity, biology and control. International Bracken Group Special Publication No. 4. Pages 195–196Google Scholar
  30. Pakeman RJ, Le Duc MG, Marrs RH (2000) Bracken distribution and control methods: their implications for the sustainable management of marginal land in Great Britain. Annals of Botany 85(Supplement B):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pakeman RJ, Le Duc MG, Marrs RH (2001) Integrating bracken control and vegetation restoration. Moorland Research Review 1995–2000. North York Moors National Park Authority, Helmsley, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Pakeman RJ, Le Duc MG, Marrs RH (2002) A review of current bracken control and associated vegetation strategies in Great Britain. Web Ecology 3:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pakeman RJ, Le Duc MG, Marrs RH (2005) Bracken control, vegetation restoration and land management. Rural Development Service, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Pakeman RJ, Small JL, Le Duc MG, Marrs RH (2006) Recovery of moorland vegetation after aerial spraying of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn) with asulam. Restoration Ecology 13:718–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paterson S, Marrs RH, Pakeman RJ (1997) Efficacy of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn) control treatments across a range of climatic zones in Great Britain. A national overview and regional examination of treatment effects. Annals of Applied Biology 130:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2001) Effectiveness in conservation practice: Pointers from Medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15(1):50–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2003) Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 11:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20(6):1647–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone D, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhone-Poulenc. N.d. Bracken management handbook: integrated bracken management—a guide to best practice. Rhone-Poulenc, OngarGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biological Conservation 132(4):409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowntree JK, Lawton KF, Rumsey FJ, Sheffield E (2003) Exposure to Asulox inhibits the growth of mosses. Annals of Botany 92:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharp S (1998) Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology. Stata Technical Bulletin 42:16–22Google Scholar
  44. Sheffield E (2002) Effects of asulam on non-target pteridophytes. Fern Gazette 16:377–382Google Scholar
  45. Snow CSR, Marrs RH (1997) Restoration of Calluna heathland on a bracken Pteridium-infested site in north west England. Biological Conservation 81(1–2):35–42Google Scholar
  46. Soper D (1996) Bracken: an interdisciplinary issue. Pesticide Outlook 7:16–20Google Scholar
  47. Stevens A, Milne R (1997) The effectiveness revolution and public health. In: Scally G (ed.), Progress in public health. Royal Society for Medicine Press, London. pp 197–225Google Scholar
  48. Stewart GB, Coles CF, Pullin AS (2005) Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biological Conservation 126(2):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SUP (Southern Uplands Partnership) (2001) Bracken control: a guide to best practice. SUP, GalashielsGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(6):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor JA (1990) The bracken problem: a global perspective. In: Smith RT, Taylor JA (eds.), Bracken: an environmental issue. Occasional Publication No. 40. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Sydney. pp 1–11Google Scholar
  52. Thompson SG (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal 309:1351–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 18:2693–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler C, Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Effectiveness of management interventions to control invasion by Rhododendron ponticum. Environmental Management 37:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitehead SJ (1994) The morphology and physiology of moorland bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and their implications for its control. Thesis. University of York, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams GH, Foley A (1975) Effect of herbicides on bracken rhizome survival. Annals of Applied Biology 75:109–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolf FM, Guevara JP (2001) Imputation of missing data in systematic reviews: So what is the standard deviation? Cochrane 1:pa 007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gavin B. Stewart
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Andrew S. Pullin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claire Tyler
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Biosciences, University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of WalesBangorUK

Personalised recommendations