Environmental Management

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 691–706 | Cite as

The Effectiveness of Management Interventions Used to Control Ragwort Species



Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea and S. aquaticus) causes major losses to agricultural revenue and induces livestock morbidity throughout parts of Europe, North America, and Australasia. The introduction of legislation in the U.K. and Australia has meant that landowners can be prosecuted if the plant spreads to adjacent land, which has led to an increase in activities attempting to control these species. Commonly used interventions include natural enemies, herbicide applications, manual and mechanical removal. Through the use of explicit systematic methodology involving comprehensive searches and detailed inclusion criteria, data from primary research are collated for each type of intervention. Meta-analyses show that 2,4-D, Asulam, Clopyralid, and MCPA are effective at reducing ragwort densities. However, when the datasets were analysed for their effectiveness against individual species, 2,4-D and MCPA were only effective against S. jacobaea, while Asulam was only effective against S. aquaticus. Natural enemies Longitarsus jacobaeae and a combination of L. jacobaeae and Tyria jacobaeae appear to have the potential to reduce S. jacobaea densities. Only applying T. jacobaeae does not appear to significantly reduce S. jacobaea densities, but does reduce the number of capitula per plant, seeds per capitula, viability of seeds, and dry weight of the plants. There is insufficient experimental evidence available to assess other interventions such as manual or mechanical removal. Further research into these types of interventions is recommended, as well as more detailed reporting of site characteristics and experimental design to allow full investigation of each intervention to explain possible reasons for variations in their effectiveness.


Systematic review Meta-analysis Tansy Senecio Tyria jacobaeae Longitarsus jacobaeae 


  1. Appleby AP (1979) Chemical control of tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). Symposium on Pyrrolizidine 23:161Google Scholar
  2. Bacon J (2000) Pedestrian and scrub weed-wipers. Enact 8:4–5Google Scholar
  3. Black WN (1976) Effects of herbicide rates and time of application on the control of tansy ragwort in pastures. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 56:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornemissza GF (1966) An attempt to control ragwort in Australia with the cinnabar moth (Callimorpha jacobaeae) (Arctiidae:Lepidoptera). Australian Journal of Zoology 14:201–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron E (1935) A study of the natural control of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L.). Journal of Ecology 23:265–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clay DV, Dixon FL (1998) The susceptibility of compositae weed species to clopyralid: Tests of agrochemicals and cultivars. Supplement to Annals of Applied Biology 132:32–33Google Scholar
  7. Coles PG (1967) Ragwort control with picloram. Proceedings of the 20th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. pp 32–36Google Scholar
  8. Courtney AD, Johnston R (1976) An extended season of herbicides application for the control of Senecio jacobaea, British Weed Control Conference:611–618Google Scholar
  9. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health cars. In: Eggar M, Altman DG (eds) Meta-analysis in context. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London, U.K, pp 285–312Google Scholar
  10. Defra (2003) Draft Code of Practice to Prevent and Control the Spread of Ragwort. UK Government Report: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon FL, Clay DV (2001) Effect of synthetic and natural-product herbicides on Senecio jacobaea (common ragwort). British Crop Protection Council Conference - Weeds 2001, Vols. 1, 2:721–726Google Scholar
  12. Dixon FL, Clay DV (2004) Effect of herbicides applied pre- and post-emergence on forestry weeds grown from seed. British Crop Protection Council Conference, Farnham, U.KGoogle Scholar
  13. Eadie IM, Robinson BD (1953) Control of ragwort by hormone-type weedicides. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 19:192–196Google Scholar
  14. Eggar M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) (2003) Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London, U.KGoogle Scholar
  15. EN (English Nature) (2003) The Herbicide Handbook: Guidance on the use of herbicides on nature conservation sites, English Nature Management Handbook Series, English Nature, Peterbourgh, U.KGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbes JC (1977) Chemical control of marsh ragwort (Senecio aquaticus Huds.) in established grassland. Weed Research 17:247–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forbes JC (1978) Control of Senecio jacobaea (ragwort) by autumn or spring herbicide application. Weed Research 18:109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forbes JC (1982) Evaluating herbicides for selective control of Senecio jacobaea in grass/clover swards. Proceedings of the 1982 British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds:375–379Google Scholar
  19. Forbes JC, Kilgour DW, Carnegie HM (1980) Some causes of poor control of Senecio jacobaea L. by herbicides Scotland, Ireland, grassland weed ragwort. British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds:461–468Google Scholar
  20. Fryer JD (1953) The use of 2:4-D for the control of ragwort, Proceedings of the 1st British Weed Control Conference. pp 211–224Google Scholar
  21. Ganeshan S (1992) Direct effect and indirect interactions between flea beetles and cinnabar moths on the ragwort. M.Sc. Thesis, Imperial College, London, U.KGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman GT, Gillham ME (1954) Ecology of the Pembrookeshire islands II. Stokholm environment and vegetation. Journal of Ecology 42:296–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R (1988) Comparative Plant Ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin Hyman, London, U.KGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper DR (1976) Asulam for tansy ragwort control in alfalfa: Field efficacy and selectivity factors. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, U.S.A. 124 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris P (1974) The impact of the cinnabar moth on ragwort in east and west Canada and its implication for biological control. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control 8:119–123Google Scholar
  27. Harris P, Thompson LS, Wilkinson ATS, Neary ME (1976a) Reproductive biology of tansy ragwort, climate and biological control by the cinnabar moth in Canada, IV International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 163–173Google Scholar
  28. Harris P, Wilkinson ATS, Thompson LS, Neary ME (1976b) Interaction between the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae and ragwort, Senecio jacobaea in Canada, IV International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 174–180Google Scholar
  29. Hawkes RB, Johnson GR (1976). Longitarsus jacobaeae aids moth in the biological control of tansy ragwort. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 193–196Google Scholar
  30. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician 55:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James RR, McEvoy PB, Cox CS (1992) Combining the cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae) and the ragwort flea beetle (Longitarsus -jacobaeae) for control of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea): An experimental analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:589–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. James TK, Mortimer J (1983). Control of ragwort and nodding thistle in lucerne with hexazinone. Proceedings 36th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  33. James TK, Rahman A, DeJong P (1997). Flazasulfuron for control of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) in pasture. Proceedings 15th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference, pp 477–481Google Scholar
  34. Landis RJ, Koch GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Makepeace W, Thompson A (1982). Ragwort control using a rope wick applicator. Proceedings 35th New Zealand Weed and Pest Conference, pp 256–260Google Scholar
  36. Martin P, Thompson A, Saunders AE, Rahman A (1986) Effect of plant type on the response of ragwort to rates and times of 2,4-D application. Proceedings 39th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 179–182Google Scholar
  37. McClements I (1992) Marsh ragwort (Senecio aquaticus) biology and control. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, U.KGoogle Scholar
  38. McEvoy PB (1985) Depression in ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) abundance following introduction of Tyria jacobaea and Longitarsus jacobaeae on the central coast of Oregon. Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  39. McEvoy PB, Cox C, Coombs E (1991) Successful Biological Control of Ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, by Introduced Insects in Oregon. Ecological Applications 1:430–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement: Review. Lancet 354:1896–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muller-Scharer H (1991) The impact of root herbivory as a function of plant density and competition: survival, growth and fecundity of Centaurea maculosa in field plots. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:759–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagel WP, Isaacson DL (1974) Tyria jacobaea and tansy ragwort in western Oregon. Journal of Economic Entomology 67:494–496Google Scholar
  43. Naish RW (1975) Dowco 290: A new growth regulator herbicide. Proceedings of the 28th New Zealand Weed Pest Control Conference, pp 177–180Google Scholar
  44. Pemberton RW, Turner CE (1990) Biological control of Senecio jacobaea in Northern California, an enduring success. Entomophaga 35:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2001) Effectiveness in conservation practice: Pointers from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15:50–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20:1647–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 132:409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidl L (1972) Studies on the control of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea L., with the cinnabar moth, Callimorpha jacobaeae (L.) (Arctiidae: Lepidoptera), in Victoria. Weed Research 12:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiban A (1976) Effects of herbicides on ragwort. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Aberdeen, U.KGoogle Scholar
  51. Simpson N (1993) A summary review of information on the autecology and control of six grassland weed species, English Nature Research Report No. 44, Peterborough, U.KGoogle Scholar
  52. Steinger T, Muller-Scharer H (1992) Physiological and growth responses of Centaurea maculosa (Asteraceae) to root herbivory under varying levels of interspecific plant competition and soil nutrient availability. Ocecologia 91:141–149Google Scholar
  53. Stevens A, Milne R (1997) The effectiveness revolution and public health. In: G Scally (ed) Progress in public health. Royal Society of Medicine Press, London, U.K, pp 197–225Google Scholar
  54. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (2000) Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester U.KGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson A (1974) Herbicide effects on ragwort and pasture. Proceedings of the 27th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 90–93Google Scholar
  56. Thompson A (1980) Ragwort population and control studies. Proceedings of the 33rd New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  57. Thompson A, (1983) Pasture weed control by rope wick applicator. Proceedings 36th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 96–98Google Scholar
  58. Thompson A, Saunders A (1984) A comparison of 2,4-D and MCPA, alone and in combination, for the control of ragwort. Proceedings 37th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp 33–36Google Scholar
  59. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 18:2693–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vrieling K, van Wijk CAM (1994) Cost assessment of the production of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L.). Oecologia 97:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitson TD, Hawkes B, Brown J, Humphrey D, Langland D (1986) Effect of herbicide treatments on tansy ragwort control. Research progress report Western Society of Weed Science 1986:53–54Google Scholar
  62. Windig JJ (1993) Intensity of Longitarsus jacobaeae herbivory and mortality of Senecio jacobaea. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolf FM, Guevara JP (2001) Imputation of missing data in systematic reviews: So what is the standard deviation? Cochrane Review Handbook. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  64. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Evidence-Based ConservationSchool of Biosciences, University of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamU.K.

Personalised recommendations