Global Invasive Species Database 100 of the worst Donations home
Standard Search Standard Search Taxonomic Search   Index Search

   Caesalpinia decapetala (tree, shrub)  français     
Ecology Distribution Management
Info 		Impact
Info 		References
and Links 		Contacts


         Management Information

    Preventative measures: A Risk Assessment of Caesalpinia decapetala for Hawaii and the Pacific was prepared by Dr. Curtis Daehler (UH Botany) with funding from the Kaulunani Urban Forestry Program and US Forest Service. The result is a score of 20 with the weed likely to cause significant ecological or economic harm in Hawaii and on other Pacific Islands.

    Chemical: Possible control methods include helicopter foliar, ground foliar, cut stump and basal bark (Starr Starr & Loope 2003). Foliar spray, while costly, may be the best way to treat plants due to the numerous thorns and thicket like structure that would make basal bark or cut stump treatments difficult (Starr Starr & Loope 2003). Metsulfuron methyl based herbicides are currently registered for the control of C. decapetala. The herbicide should be applied when the weed is actively growing (before flowering) and should be used with a wetting agent (Rolles Undated). C. decapetala is also sensitive to foliar applications of glyphosate and triclopyr and to soil applications of tebuthiuron. Adequate coverage of C. decapetala foliage in dense infestations is difficult. Timely repeat applications (3-9 months) of triclopyr ester at 113.4grms/acre (0.25 lb/acre) allows gradual reductions and opening of the canopy and eventual control. This strategy not only stresses the C. decapetala over a longer period but also controls newly germinated seedlings. Accessible stems may be basal bark treated with triclopyr ester at 20% product in diesel or crop oil in very low volume applications (PIER 2002).

    Physical control: C. decapetala is extremely prickly, and attempts at physical control must be done carefully. Molokai Invasive Species Committee (MoMISC) has targeted C. decapetala for eradication and is experimenting with control methods. Heavy machinery would not be an option in Hawaiian gulch due to steep and difficult terrain (Starr Starr & Loope 2003).

    Biocontrol (Hill Klein & Williams 2002; Kalibbala 2009): Several surveys have been conducted in the weeds native range for phytophagous insects. Two species have been evaluated for biological control, a leaf-mining gracillariid moth (Acrocercops hyphantica) - which was rejected because it was not host specific - and the seed-eating weevil (Sulcobruchus subsuturalis) which was released in South Africa from 1999 onwards. The female weevil lays her eggs on the mature seeds and the larvae develop inside the seeds (Hill Klein & Williams 2002). The first post-release evaluation of the efficacy of the weevil (see Kalibbala 2009) found that the weevil was not well established at study sites and that weed seedling recruitment was high. S. subsuturalis had failed to maintain high populations on the target weed, possibly due to weevil egg predation by native ants and attacks by native parasitoids. The author recommendeds continuing to release S. subsuturalis using improved strategies (see Kalibbala 2009).

    Integrated Pest Management: In terms of cultural control the residents of Hawaii could be discouraged from planting or spreading C. decapetala. Machinery and gear should be cleaned, especially if working in areas of C. decapetala. A substantial number of non-weedy alternative species are currently available for use as replacement species for street and garden plantings (NSW North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee 2009).

    Legislative In terms of noxious weed acts C. decapetala is currently not on the Hawaii state noxious weed list, but is a good candidate for listing. C. decapetala is declared a noxious weed in South Africa (PIER 1999). It is also listed as a weed by the following three sources: Greening Australia project, University of Hawaii Botany Department, and Department of Land and Natural Resources. français     



         Location Specific Management Information
    China
    Three fungi and five arthropods are reported to be associated with Caesalpinia. In China, the fungus Phyllactinia caesalpiniae Yu, also known as Phyllactinia corylea (Pers) Karst., infects C. decapetala. Five arthropod species are known to damage cat’s claw.
    East Maui (Maui Is.)
    With sharp thorns all the way to the ground, controlling C. decapetala in this steep gulch in Halehaku would be difficult. At this location, C. decapetala may not be a feasible target for eradication, but through delineation of the area and education, it may be possible to keep it from invading throughout the watershed.
    New South Wales
    The New South Wales North Coast Weed Advisory Committee proposes a Regional Weed Management Plan for C. decapetala which aims to control current infestations and prevent the future spread of the weed and has the following objectives:
    1. To completely restrict human spread of C. decapetala by 2009;
    2. To eradicate all isolated and scattered infestations by June 2011; and
    3. To reduce all core infestations by 60% by 2013.
    The main opportunity existing with C. decapetala is its current isolated distribution in the north coast region. It is more efficient and easier to control these infestations at this early stage.
    Legislative: C. decapetala is currently declared a Class 3 noxious weed for the whole of the area covered by the North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee. Where the weed is present on private or public lands, enforcement would be in accordance with provisions under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.
    Chemical: Metsulfuron methyl-based herbicides are currently registered for the control of C. decapetala in Australia. A permit has been approved for the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on the plant. These herbicides have shown some success controlling the plant. The main issue regarding control of the plant is poor access. Most success has been found by controlling the edges of the plant and gradually working towards the middle over time.
    Great care is required in controlling infestations in riparian zones, wetlands and other significant environments in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts such as off-target damage to native plants and aquatic fauna species such as frogs from herbicides.
    Biocontrol: No biological control agents are currently available in Australia for the control of C. decapetala. Due to the restricted current distribution of the plant it is more economical to eradicate the plants using a range of other methods rather than biocontrol.
    Integrated Pest Management: The Catchment Action Plan (CAP) for the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority recommends that resources be directed to restoring significant habitats such as riparian zones. As C. decapetala could potentially have a severe impact on these areas, there may be opportunities for funding and improved coordination and involvement from a range of stakeholders. In some situations there are opportunities for environmental restoration projects using Green Corps, Work-for-the-dole and / or Conservation Volunteers Australia participants. Green Corps workers have already been involved in control programs on some C. decapetala infestations.
    Some environmentally aware members of the community are aware of this plant. This is evidenced by the small number of infestations present, but the large number of people / groups acknowledging the potential impact of the species. The potential of this weed has been noted and DECC - NPWS, bush regenerators, Landcare groups and green corps participants have been undertaking some control for a number of years. There has been some success but community groups need more support and a more coordinated approach is required.
    Future educational extension programs highlighting the threat posed by the weed and its identification include the following:
    • Field days;
    • Identification brochures;
    • Media releases;
    • Training days for community groups etc. on control options, and;
    • Control trials.
    Raoul Is. (Kermadec Islands)
    A concerted effort has been made to control Mysore thorn on Raoul Island, and it is now uncommon, although it is not possible to inspect disturbed cliff sites (Timmins and Braithwaite, 2002). This species is subject to an eradication programme on Raoul Island, and is ranked Category A(i) - known to have the potential to significantly alter the vegetation of Raoul Island. Eradication commenced in 1974. Raoul Island has been divided into 13 weeding blocks for the purpose of controlling and eradicating alien plants since 1972, which make up 64% of the vascular plant flora on Raoul Island. These are divided into active plots which are searched at least twice a year, and null plots which are searched at least once every two years. Grid searching is used to examine the areas with easier access, while steep cliffs are searched using binoculars or a telescope. This is carried out when plants such as C. decapetala are in flower (June-November). Aerial surveillance is carried out periodically which has been useful in identifying flowering trees such as Senna septemtrionalis, mature vines of Passiflora edulis or trees of Olea europaea ssp. cuspidata. The initial knockdown phase involved for most species the cutting of mature individuals and painting of stumps with herbicides, or scattering herbicide granules around them. Blanket spraying was used to treat dense, inaccessible infestations. Subsequent searches involve the removal of any seedlings or young plants found. If a mature plant is found, the fruit is removed for burning, the stem is cut and herbicide applied. Information regarding the eradication programme is stored on an Access database. Helicopter application of herbicide was used in the case of C. decapetala. Areas of C. decapetala vines were burned and cleared, to hasten the decline of seeds in the seedbank. This species once occupied 22 ha of Denham Bay, but since 2000 only 600-700 plants have been removed, the majority of which were seedlings. Between 1997 and 2000, 44,877 individual plants were removed. The importation of alien plants to Raoul Island is prohibited.
    South Africa
    Manual: Seedlings can be uprooted. When larger plants are slashed care should be taken to remove the entire root system as Mysore thorn coppices easily.
    Chemical: It is also recommended to apply a herbicide after cutting (Stalk Immersion: try Garlon 4 50ml/10l water; Foliar spray: use Garlon 4 50ml, Roundup, etc 300ml or Muster 150ml/10l water).
    Integrated Pest Management: Mysore thorn is a declared noxious weed in South Africa. Indigenous species suggested as alternatives to this invasive are coast climbing thorn (Acacia kraussiana), spiny splinter bean (Adenopodia spicata) and grey nickernut creeper (Caesalpinia bonduc).
    Biocontrol (Hill Klein & Williams 2002; Kalibbala 2009): Several surveys have been conducted in India and Malaysia for phytophagous insects. Two species have been evaluated for biological control, a leaf-mining gracillariid moth (Acrocercops hyphantica), which was rejected because it was not host specific, and the seed-eating weevil (Sulcobruchus subsuturalis) which was released in South Africa in 1999. The female weevil lays her eggs on the mature seeds that have already fallen from the pods, and the larvae develop inside the seeds. This biological control agent is extremely easy to mass rear, and well over 100 000 have been released by dispersing seeds containing larvae in infested areas. Most of the releases have been made in the Limpopo Province, and establishment has been confirmed. It was anticipated that the weevils would reduce the number of seeds available for the regeneration of C. decapetala after clearing operations (Hill Klein & Williams 2002).

         Management Resources/Links

    1. Alien Invader Plants, 2004
            Summary: Notes on Mysore thorn in South Africa, includes information on common names, management, dispersal and alternative species to use.
    Available from: http://www.geocities.com/wessaaliens/species/mthorn.htm [Accessed 17 June 2003].
    3. Daehler, C.C; Denslow, J.S; Ansari, S and Huang-Chi, K., 2004. A Risk-Assessment System for Screening Out Invasive Pest Plants from Hawaii and Other Pacific Islands. Conservation Biology Volume 18 Issue 2 Page 360.
            Summary: A study on the use of a screening system to assess proposed plant introductions to Hawaii or other Pacific Islands and to identify high-risk species used in horticulture and forestry which would greatly reduce future pest-plant problems and allow entry of most nonpests.
    7. IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)., 2010. A Compilation of Information Sources for Conservation Managers.
            Summary: This compilation of information sources can be sorted on keywords for example: Baits & Lures, Non Target Species, Eradication, Monitoring, Risk Assessment, Weeds, Herbicides etc. This compilation is at present in Excel format, this will be web-enabled as a searchable database shortly. This version of the database has been developed by the IUCN SSC ISSG as part of an Overseas Territories Environmental Programme funded project XOT603 in partnership with the Cayman Islands Government - Department of Environment. The compilation is a work under progress, the ISSG will manage, maintain and enhance the database with current and newly published information, reports, journal articles etc.
    9. National Pest Plant Accord, 2001. Biosecurity New Zealand.
            Summary: The National Pest Plant Accord is a cooperative agreement between regional councils and government departments with biosecurity responsibilities. Under the accord, regional councils will undertake surveillance to prevent the commercial sale and/or distribution of an agreed list of pest plants.
    Available from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/plants/accord.htm [Accessed 11 August 2005]
    14. Swaziland's Alien Plants Database., Undated. Caesalpinia decapetala
            Summary: A database of Swaziland's alien plant species.

         Results Page: 1  
ISSG Landcare Research NBII IUCN University of Auckland The Global Invasive Species Database is managed by the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. It was developed as part of the global initiative on invasive species led by the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) and is supported through partnerships with the National Biological Information Infrastructure, Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research and the University of Auckland. Conditions of use.