Principal source: Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk, 2002. Caesalpinia decapetala
Compiler: IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)
Updates under progress with support from the Overseas Territories Environmental Programme (OTEP) project XOT603, a joint project with the Cayman Islands Government - Department of Environment
Review: Eden Wildy. Alien Invader Plants Project. Wildlife & Environment Society of SA. South Africa.
Publication date: 2010-01-27
Recommended citation: Global Invasive Species Database (2024) Species profile: Caesalpinia decapetala. Downloaded from http://iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=510 on 26-11-2024.
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).\r\n
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).\r\n
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).\r\n
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).\r\n
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.