Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 163 The genus Rubus in New Zealand Blackberry in New Zealand Taxonomy and distribution of blackberry In New Zealand, blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L. agg. and related species) com- S.R. Pennycook, NZ Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, New prises an assemblage of taxa of European, Zealand. Asian, and North American origin within the subgenus Rubus. The most recent taxo- nomic treatment (Webb et al. 1988), based Summary on determinations by A. Newton (Eng- In New Zealand, blackberry comprises at problems and costs in amenity and con- land) and R.E. Gereau (USA), recognized least 22 naturalized species and hybrids, servation areas, in farmland (c. $NZ10.5 17 species and one hybrid well established 18 of which are widespread, in a mosaic million per annum), and in plantation within New Zealand, plus two species of overlapping but imperfectly known forestry (c. $NZ10 million per annum). and two hybrids of very limited natu- distributions. There are four other natu- Almost all the invertebrate pests and dis- ralization. The composite taxon is wide- ralized Rubus species and five indig- eases present on blackberry are unsuit- spread throughout the North and South enous Rubus species. A small but ex- able as biological control agents because Islands, Stewart Island, and the Chatham panding Rubus berryfruit industry, with of the likelihood of collateral damage to Islands, wherever there has been settle- production areas throughout the country, commercial crops, and past research with ment or significant disturbance of the has an annual value of about $NZ12.5 imported agents has not resulted in any primary vegetation, up to altitudes of million. Initially introduced and spread successes. Phragmidium violaceum 1000–1200 m (Webb et al. 1988). Allan as a food source, blackberry became so (blackberry rust) was first observed in (1940) described the distribution as successfully naturalized that it was re- New Zealand in 1990; it is now widely es- common to locally abundant in wetter garded as the major weed of most of the tablished, but its long-term impact has areas, and more local in drier areas. Habi- North Island and wetter parts of the been mostly unspectacular and localized. tats are listed as: wasteland and cemeter- South Island during the first half of the Research should be directed towards ies; hedgerows, roadsides, and steep 20th century. Its pest status has now de- identifying more efficacious rust strains banks; hillsides and scrubby hillsides; clined because of improved pasture man- with a wider host range among those forest, plantation, and scrub margins agement techniques and potent new her- blackberry species (particularly R. ciss- and clearings; fernland, swamps, and bicides, but it is still ranked as the coun- buriensis and R. cissburiensis ulmifolius) damp places; streamsides, river banks, try’s fourth most serious weed, imposing which cause the most serious problems. and river flats and terraces; pasture, damp

Table 1. Distribution of Rubus fruticosus agg. and related species in New Zealand (from Webb et al. 1988, Wilson 1982, 1987, D.R. Given personal communication; areas and area codes from Crosby et al. 1976). North Island South Island ND AK CL BP WO TO TK RI WI WN WA HB GB NN BR WD FD MB KA NC MC SC MK OL CO DN SL SI CI R. argutus (NA) + R. caesiusA (E) + R. cardiophyllus (E) + + R. cissburiensis (E) + +++ ++ + + R. cissburiensis × ulmifolius (E) +++++ + R. echinatus (E) ++++ ++ ++++++ R. errabundusA (E) + R. erythrops (E) ++ R. erythrops × ulmifoliusA (E) + R. flagellaris (NA) ++++ + + R. laciniatus (?) + ++++++ ++ ++++++ ++++ R. leptothyrsos (E) +++ R. mollior (NA) + + R. mucronulatus (E) + + R. nemoralis (E) + + + R. ostryifolius (NA) + + + R. polyanthemus (E) + + + R. procerus (A) ++++++ ++ ++++ ++? R. tuberculatus (E) + + R. ulmifolius (E) ++ ++ + ++ ++++ + + ++ + R. ulmifolius × vestitusA (E) + + R. vestitus (E) + +++ + +++ A Taxa of very limited naturalization. (A) Asian origin, (E) European origin, (NA) North American origin, (?) uncertain origin. ND Northland AK Auckland CL Coromandel BP Bay of Plenty WO Waikato TO Taupo TK Taranaki RI Rangitikei WI Wanganui WN Wellington WA Wairarapa HB Hawkes Bay GB Gisborne NN Nelson BR Buller WD Westland FD Fiordland MB Marlborough KA Kaikoura NC North Canterbury MC Mid Canterbury SC South Canterbury MK Mackenzie (+ SD Sounds) OL Otago Lakes CO Central Otago DN Dunedin SL Southland SI Stewart Island CI Chatham Islands 164 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 Table 2. Other Rubus species in New Table 3. Commercial Rubus production in New Zealand, 1996–97 (from NZ Zealand (from Webb et al. 1988). Berryfruit Growers Federation statistics, G.I. Langford personal communication, H.K. Hall personal communication). Naturalized R. idaeus Raspberry Crop Growers Area Export Local Total R. phoenicolasius Japanese wineberry (ha) (t) ($NZ000) (t) ($NZ000) (t) ($NZ000) R. rosifolius Strawberry-raspberry R. rugosus Himalaya blackberry Blackberry 56 35 320 884 200 700 520 1580 Raspberry >70 247 54 222 1150 3780 1200 4000 Indigenous Boysenberry 107 206 1224 4193 1100 2440 2320 6630 R. australis Bush lawyer R. cissoides Bush lawyer Crop Main production areas Main varieties Other varieties R. parvus Creeping lawyer Blackberry Sth Manawatu 15 ha Smoothstem Loch Ness R. schmidelioides Bush lawyer Waikato 6 ha Thornfree Dirksen Thornless R. squarrosus Leafless lawyer Nelson 4 ha Black Satin Otago 4 ha Auckland 2 ha pasture, and neglected pasture (Webb et al. Raspberry Nelson 117 ha Skeena Taylor 1988). Canterbury 50 ha Marcy Field studies indicate that the indi- Waikato 26 ha Fairview vidual blackberry species tend to have dis- Otago 25 ha Heritage crete regional distributions, which largely Autumn Bliss reflect their patterns of introduction. Cur- Boysenberry Nelson 127 ha Riwaka’s Choice Tasman rent knowledge of these distributions is Hawkes Bay 19 ha RS4 Youngberry Mapua summarized in Table 1, on the basis of un- Bay of Plenty 15 ha published maps (D.R. Given personal Waikato 12 ha communication) derived from herbarium Other Waikato 10 ha Loganberry Aurora records. Species of European origin in- Bay of Plenty 3 ha Marion clude: R. cissburiensis, common in the Nel- Sth Canterbury 1 ha Ollalie son area; the hybrid R. cissburiensis ulmi- Tayberry folius, confined to the northern North Is- land, where it is one of the commonest in the South Island; strawberry-raspberry Introduction and spread of blackberries; R. echinatus, common on the (R. rosifolius; previously identified as R. blackberry Canterbury Plains and foothills, and in illecebrosus (Allan 1940, Given 1982)), con- Introduction, naturalization, and early Westland; R. erythrops, the predominant fined to Northland and Coromandel; and impact species in the vicinity of Otago Peninsula Himalaya blackberry, naturalized in Blackberry became established as a weed and Dunedin city; R. polyanthemus, the Northland, but also grown commercially in New Zealand by horticultural escape only species recorded from the Chatham as ‘Keriberry’. A single specimen previ- (Healy 1952). The initial introduction to Islands; and R. ulmifolius, probably the ously identified as R. spectabilis (Given New Zealand of most species, although only diploid, sexually reproducing black- 1982) is probably an early horticultural undocumented, was almost certainly as berry in New Zealand, widespread in the raspberry hybrid (Webb et al. 1988). food plants by early settlers. Other intro- three main islands, and the only species ductions have been ascribed to distribu- recorded from Hawkes Bay and Gisborne. Indigenous Rubus species tions of plants from the Melbourne Bo- The cut-leaved blackberry, R. laciniatus, is The indigenous New Zealand flora in- tanic Gardens in the mid 19th Century scattered throughout much of the North cludes five endemic species of Rubus (Webb et al. 1988). The initial spread of and South Islands, and is also present on subgenus Lampobatus (Table 2), known blackberry was deliberate; Guthrie-Smith Stewart Island; its importance tends to be colloquially as lawyers or bush lawyers (1953) cited early examples of seedlings over-estimated because of its ease of rec- (Webb et al. 1988). Four of the species are planted at regular intervals to form road- ognition. An exceedingly vigorous species scrambling lianes, common throughout side hedges, presumably as food sources. of Asian origin, R. procerus, is locally com- the three main islands in lowland to Involuntary distribution occurred via the mon in coastal Mid to North Canterbury, montane forest, scrub, and open habitats; excreta of human travellers, of sheep (de- and local in many areas of the North and the fifth, R. parvus, is a low-growing, scribed as having paunches black with in- South Islands, and possibly Stewart Island creeping shrub confined to the forests and gested fruit), and particularly of intro- (Wilson 1982, 1987); North and South Is- riverflats west of the main divide of the duced birds (Guthrie-Smith 1953, Healy land specimens of R. procerus can be sepa- South Island. Indigenous Rubus spp. are 1952). The earliest formal records of black- rated from each other as two distinct absent from the Chatham Islands. berry as a naturalized plant in New Zea- forms. Species of North American origin land are those of Hooker (1867) and Kirk include: R. flagellaris, previously identified Commercial Rubus cultivation (1870, 1871). as R. caesius (Given 1982), locally abun- Commercial production of Rubus While it was still only sparsely estab- dant in eastern Bay of Plenty; and R. berryfruits in New Zealand (Table 3) is a lished in the wild, blackberry—‘that fatal ostryifolius, widely distributed in North- small, but expanding, industry with an and perfidious plant’ (Guthrie-Smith land and eastern Bay of Plenty. annual value of approximately $NZ12.5 1953)—gained a black reputation among million, about half of this being export farmers for its propensity to kill sheep, Other naturalized Rubus species earnings. Production areas totalling about which frequently starved to death after Other species of Rubus naturalized in New 500 ha are scattered across both the North becoming entangled by the wool in the Zealand (Table 2) are: raspberry, with a and South Islands. The crops (in order of sprawling canes. This attribute (shared scattered distribution in both the North decreasing importance) are boysenberries, with indigenous Rubus spp.) is still a cause and South Islands; Japanese wineberry, raspberries, blackberries, and various of stock mortality in districts where exten- frequent in the North Island and scattered other Rubus species and hybrids. sive sheep grazing, with flocks mustered Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 165 only at infrequent intervals, is standard published during this period either made Northland distribution, is probably R. farming practice. rather cursory mention of blackberry flagellaris. (Marshall 1954, Skinner 1954, Bell 1955, The so-called ‘problem’ or ‘hard-to-kill’ Rampant blackberry Featherstone 1957, Dingwall 1958, Allo blackberries of Northland (Dempsey 1981, The expanding weed status of blackberry 1959, Moss 1961, Dingwall 1962, Leonard Anon. 1982) are R. ulmifolius and R. was understated by Leonard Cockayne, 1962) or did not include it among local cissburiensis ulmifolius, two taxa which are who mentioned it only briefly in his clas- problems (Schofield 1954, Symons 1956, also common in other districts further sic account (Cockayne 1958) of the early Rankin 1960). Moss (1961) claimed that in south. Therefore, it seems probable that 20th century vegetation of New Zealand. Taranaki the final round in the fight was their Northland reputation is based on He commented that it was: common on well in hand, with increased soil fertility prodigious root and crown development waste ground; an aggressive invader of and heavier stocking rates as key ingredi- under local soil and climatic conditions, forest clearings and openings in Phormium ents, and finance as the major limiting fac- reinforcing their inherent species charac- flax swamps; and abundant as extensive tor. Discussing the scrub weeds of the teristics. The third common Northland thickets in wet areas, with greatest luxuri- South Island, Leonard (1962) commented species, R. ostryifolius, does not share the ance in the north-east, west, and south- that blackberry was ‘still a considerable ‘problem’ reputation (J. Craw personal west of the North Island, in the north-west nuisance, but known farming techniques communication). Another species, R. and west of the South Island, and in the are now adequate for its control’; it was no procerus, has been included in some defi- Chatham Islands. Particular note was longer perceived as a major weed of farm nitions of Northland ‘hard-to-kill’ species made of the far-extending thickets of vari- land but as a weed of unproductive, low (e.g. Fussell and Walton 1997, Product ous subspecies of R. fruticosus on cleared fertility land; on arable land it could be Listings, p. 54), but apparently it was not land in western Nelson, Buller and north- overcome by cultivation, and on non-ar- observed by Williams (1977), thereby in- ern Westland. able land by spraying, followed by con- dicating its localized Northland distribu- By the turn of the century, blackberry centrated stocking. tion (Webb et al. 1988). infestation had reached horrendous pro- portions in many districts. A typical re- Current status of blackberry Blackberry in urban areas port from 1910 (Moss 1961) described In general, the current view of blackberry Esler (1988) described blackberry in Auck- some Taranaki dairy farms becoming im- in New Zealand is of a nuisance weed, land city as causing extensive invasion of penetrable thickets of blackberry, and oth- rather than the economically crippling, waste land, shrubberies, and pastures ers having their carrying capacity halved production-threatening problem of the within the urban area, obstructing access, by encroaching blackberry and ragwort past. This change is universally attributed suppressing useful plants, and hindering (Senecio jacobaea). Smallfield (1970) re- to superior modern methods of pasture but not preventing the regeneration of na- called a graphic example of the scale of the management, plus the availability, for the tive forest. His ‘weediness’ evaluation problem and the impotence of the indi- first time, of a truly potent blackberry- rated it as highly obstructive, highly sup- vidual landholder. On the basis of a ques- killing herbicide, viz. metsulfuron. Never- pressive of other plants, causing moderate tionnaire circulated to farmers in 1916–17 theless, in terms of the volume of herbi- impairment of comfort and health, having (Cockayne 1917), blackberry was per- cide sales for brush weed control, black- low long-term impact on native vegeta- ceived to be the paramount weed problem berry remains second only to gorse (Ulex tion, and having moderate potential to ex- in Nelson and in all North Island districts europaeus), and above broom (Cytisus sco- pand if uncontrolled. This evaluation except those in the drier south-east. It was parius) and bracken (Pteridium esculentum) placed it in his Group 2 of ‘threatening ranked as the most important weed in the (M.J. Cornwell personal communication). species with high potential’. He noted that North Island as a whole, and the tenth Moreover, the results of a recent nation- it was held in check with herbicides under most important in the South Island (even wide questionnaire, reported by Syrett the containment policies of Noxious though the blackberry-embattled districts (1988), still ranked blackberry as New Plants Authorities (now abolished), and of Northland and Westland were ex- Zealand‘s fourth most serious weed, after predicted that its incidence would de- cluded from the analysis because of insuf- gorse, nodding and winged thistles crease as waste land became better man- ficient replies). By 1924, national concern (Carduus spp.), and ragwort (Senecio aged or replaced by urbanization. had reached such a level that the Minister jacobaea), but above broom and Califor- of Agriculture offered a reward of £10 000 nian thistle (Cirsium arvense). Blackberry in the conservation estate [c. $NZ660 000 at 1997 values] for ‘an effi- Williams and Timmins (1990) listed black- cient, practical and economical method of The ‘problem’ blackberries of Northland berry as a significant problem weed (i.e. exterminating blackberry, otherwise than The taxonomic complexity of blackberry one that permanently alters the structure, by cultivation, seeding, tree-planting or populations in Northland came to the at- successional processes, and organisms live-stock manipulation’ (Nosworthy tention of farmers and advisers because of present in native communities) of pro- 1924). All aspects of the problem were perceived differences in the way various tected natural areas in all regions apart subjected to comprehensive review forms reacted to control measures. This from the drier areas of Otago and (Northcroft 1927a,b,c, 1928, 1929). Al- resulted in localized use of a confusing Southland (‘Southern South Island’), and though Northcroft (1927b) cautioned that medley of descriptive names. Williams within four vegetation categories, ‘Scrub ‘the weed is not so abundant as perhaps (1977) attempted to standardize usage by and forest margin’, ‘Shrubland or pakihi’, commonly supposed’, the ongoing impact describing collected Northland specimens ‘Wetland’, and ‘Fernland’. Blackberry of blackberry is attested by a barrage of and their distributions. He recognized R. problems were noted specifically in low- articles, recommendations, comments, laciniatus and four forms of R. fruticosus: land wetlands of ‘Eastern South Island’, in and opinions published in the New Zea- ‘pale-backed scrambling’; ‘green-backed wetlands of ‘Western South Island’, and land Journal of Agriculture from 1910 (Vol- scrambling’; ‘upright’; and ‘round- on the margins of shrublands and pakihi ume 1) through to the 1950s. stemmed’. His descriptions clearly in- of ‘Western South Island’. dicate that the first three forms can Wardle (1991) identified blackberry as Blackberry in retreat be equated with R. ulmifolius, R. ciss- a significant element in the invasion of From about the mid 1950s, the pest status buriensis ulmifolius, and R. ostryifolius, re- boulder fields, erosion debris, maritime of blackberry began to decline. A sequence spectively, all widespread in North- grasslands, and unconsolidated, shingly of reviews of regional weed problems land; ‘round-stemmed’, with its limited or stony coastal soils, as well as in 166 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 floodplains and wetlands (particularly (1982) found that blackberry was assessed was costed at about $NZ3.5 million (based those of the lower Waikato basin, as occasional on 31.8% of farmable land, on annual spraying with metsulfuron, at Wairarapa, and Chatham Islands). He common on 12.7%, and widespread on $NZ580 ha-1 in Year 1 and $NZ151 ha-1 in noted that it is widely abundant in sec- 2.1%. It was regarded as a minor manage- each subsequent year). This would be off- ondary vegetation, especially in wetter ment problem on 25.3% of farmable land set by an estimated benefit of c. $NZ1.2– districts, and rapidly covers large areas and a serious problem on 4.7%. 1.6 million in increased stock carrying ca- because of the rooting ability of collapsed Blackberry was one of the Vegetative pacity over the five year period (based on canes. Wardle (1991) described blackberry Cover Elements recorded and mapped in assumptions of a 20% decrease in the car- as being conspicuous in damaged bush (= the New Zealand Land Resource Inven- rying capacity of infested land, and a 7% indigenous forest) remnants, and threat- tory Survey of 1975–79 (Newsome 1987), annual increase in the area of neglected ening the survival of the endangered relic but the survey under-represented its ac- infestations). stands of unique Chatham Island bush by tual occurrence (P.F.J. Newsome personal The area of North Island farmland af- smothering seedlings and saplings, and communication). In an analysis of the in- fected by blackberry can be estimated as invading areas where the tree canopy has ventory data, Blaschke et al. (1981) men- about 63 000 ha, by extrapolation from the collapsed. tioned blackberry specifically in only one Auckland Regional Council estimate. The methods available for blackberry Vegetation Cover Category, ‘pasture and (Auckland Region covers about 4.8% of control in protected natural areas have blackberry-dominated scrub’, occupying the North Island, and probably ranks been listed (Williams and Timmins 1990) 23 300 ha in the North Island and 1300 ha somewhere in the lower mid-range of as hand removal and mechanical methods in the South Island. Blackberry must have blackberry infestation intensity.) (which have limited efficacy), and chemi- been included anonymously in many of In the Manawatu-Wanganui Region, cal and combination methods (which are the numerous ‘and other scrub’ categories the total extent of infestation is estimated effective on a local scale). of Blaschke et al. (1981), however, so that as about 70 000–90 000 ha (D. Harrison Control of blackberry in riparian retire- the disparity between their South Island personal communication). However, this ment strips (i.e. waterway-margin corri- data and the data of Bascand and Jowett figure encompasses blackberry as a major dors which have been fenced and retired (1981) is probably more apparent than problem in non-farmed areas as well as from farming for conservation purposes) real. a residual problem in farmland, where is a problem confronting several regional In a 1995 risk analysis for the Auckland blackberry is assessed as decreasing in councils (A.R. Hall personal communica- Regional Council’s Pest Management extent. (Manawatu-Wanganui Region tion). Blackberry invasion results in loss of Strategies (L. Vervoort personal commu- covers c. 19.2% of the North Island, amenity, interference with water flow, nication), the total area of blackberry in- containing an extremely wide spectrum of and prevention of establishment of species festation in the Auckland Region was esti- land use, topography, and climate; the with desirable bank-stabilizing attributes. mated as at least 3000 ha. Blackberry and impact of blackberry ranges from very A particular control problem is posed by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) were fifth high in the wetter north-west to almost nil riparian strips that have been planted equal in a ranking of the most important in the drier south-east of the region.) with native trees, where the susceptibility agricultural plant pests in the region, after These somewhat conflicting data sug- of the tree species and the proximity to African feather grass (Pennisetum macro- gest that the total area of New Zealand waterways impose constraints on herbi- urum), gorse (Ulex europaeus), pampas farmland affected by blackberry is about cide use. grass (Cortaderia selloana), and purple 90 000 ha, comprising c. 63 000 ha in the Annual expenditure by the Department pampas grass (C. jubata). A five year pro- North Island and c. 27 000 ha in the South of Conservation and regional councils on gram to control all blackberry infestations Island. blackberry control on public lands is esti- mated as about $NZ250 000 (derived from Table 4. Estimation of annual cost of blackberry herbicide applications on incompletely itemized, weed control ex- farmland in New Zealand (from G. Chalmers personal communication, J. penditure data). Smith personal communication). Blackberry in farmland $NZ000 In the 1970s, it was stated that blackberry Aerial spraying ‘still covers more than 100 000 acres 2500 ha @ ($200 herbicide + $90 application) ha-1 725 [>40 500 ha] of potentially productive pas- ture’ in New Zealand (Matthews 1975). Ground-based spraying This figure seems low in comparison with Herbicide: 4 million L @ $35 per 100 L 1400 other estimates (see below). Application: 2500 days @ $560 day-1 1400 In 1972–76, Bascand and Jowett (1981) 2800 systematically surveyed 66 000 km2 out of 3525 the total farmable area of 68 360 km2 in the South Island. They estimated that black- Table 5. Estimation of annual cost of blackberry to farming in New Zealand berry covered 0.41% of the surveyed land, (from G. Chalmers personal communication, L. Vervoort personal an area of 271 km2 (27 100 ha). Infestation communication). N.B. Non-herbicidal control methods and their benefits was particularly serious in the provinces have not been costed. of Westland (3.66% of farmable land cov- ered) and Nelson (3.49% covered). In the $NZ000 survey as a whole, 3.95% of sampling sites Control costs (on c. 5500 ha) had sparse blackberry cover and 0.32% Herbicide + application (refer to Table 4) 3500 had abundant blackberry cover; the corre- sponding provincial figures were 22.88% Lost production (on c. 84,500 ha) and 3.04% for Westland, and 26.92% and 20% reduced carrying capacity 6500 1.86% for Nelson. In a complementary 7% blackberry expansion 500 postal survey of the South Island, con- 7000 ducted in 1977–78, Bascand and Jowett 10 500 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 167 Current market research estimates (G. Table 6. Estimation of annual cost of blackberry to forestry in New Zealand Chalmers personal communication) indi- (from Hill 1997, J. Smith personal communication). cate that herbicides are being applied to about 4500–6500 ha per annum of farm- $NZ000 land for the purpose of blackberry control Direct costs (c. 2500 ha per annum of aerial applica- Year 0: 15 000 ha @ ($200 herbicide + $50 application) ha-1 3750 tions and c. 4 000 000 litres per annum (= Year 1: 5000 ha @ ($350 herbicide + $50 application) ha-1 c. 2000–4000 ha per annum at rates of + 10 000 ha @ ($70 herbicide + $50 application) ha-1 3200 1000–2000 litres per ha) of ground-based Year 2: 2500 ha @ ($350 herbicide + $50 application) ha-1 applications). This represents an expendi- + 2500 ha @ ($70 herbicide + $50 application) ha-1 1300 ture of about $NZ3.5 million per annum 8250 (Table 4), assuming aerial applications of metsulfuron and ground-based applica- Indirect costs tions (with about a 50:50 herbicide:appli- Interference @ $800 000 for gorse and blackberry; say 250 cation cost ratio) of either metsulfuron, Competition @ $15–30 million for all woody weeds; say 1500 triclopyr or picloram + triclopyr. 1750 The cost of blackberry infestation on 10 000 New Zealand farmland can be estimated as about $NZ10.5 million per annum, indirect costs attributable to interference severe damage (Hill 1989), however, al- based on herbicide costs and loss of pro- by gorse and blackberry infestation at though it remains the major insect pest of duction (Table 5). The costs and benefits $NZ800 000 per annum. An additional in- raspberries (Scott 1984). An Australian attributable to non-herbicidal control direct cost is the loss incurred if harvest is oecophorid moth, Eutorna phaulocosma, measures have not been estimated. delayed 1–2 years because of weed com- has become a widespread minor pest of petition, which Hill (1997) estimated to commercial Rubus crops since 1936 (Scott Blackberry in forestry have a minimum value of $NZ15–30 mil- 1984, Charles et al. 1987a), but causes no In New Zealand exotic forests (predomi- lion per annum for all woody weeds; com- significant damage on wild blackberries nantly of Pinus radiata), blackberry is petition by blackberry plants is probably a (Hill 1989). The complex of tortricid rarely a problem in the initial rotation but relatively minor component of this total. leafrollers can cause significant destruc- begins to make an impact when blocks are A combination of these various esti- tion of dormant buds in blackberries (J.G. felled and replanted. The total area of mates suggests a total cost of blackberry to Charles personal communication), but cutover forest being replanted is about New Zealand forestry of about $NZ10 also damages numerous commercial 28 000 ha per annum. Within this total, million per annum (Table 6). crops, including raspberries (Charles et al. about 15 000 ha per annum (mainly in the 1987b). An indigenous geometrid, Elvia central, eastern and northern North Is- Pests and diseases of blackberry in glaucata, damages young foliage of black- land) have a significant blackberry prob- New Zealand berry on the Chatham Islands, but on the lem, which imposes direct or indirect costs Insects and other invertebrates on mainland it has been observed only on in- from Year 0 to Year 7 or 8 of the rotation (J. blackberry digenous Rubus (J.S. Dugdale personal Smith personal communication). Thus the Twenty-one species of insects (including communication). Since 1946 an eriophyid total area of exotic forest being affected by beetles, bugs, scales, leafhoppers, flies, mite, Acalitus essigi, has been a cause of blackberry-related problems at any given and moths), five species of phytophagous arrested fruit development or ‘redberry time can be estimated as: (15 000 ha per or predatory mites, and one species of disease’ in cultivated blackberry (Hamil- annum) × (8–9 years) = 120 000–135 000 nematode have been recorded on black- ton 1949), but has had no significant im- ha. This area will continue to increase as berry in New Zealand (Table 7). Most of pact on wild populations. more first rotation forests are harvested these invertebrates are polyphagous (i.e. and replanted. they feed on many different plant species), Diseases of blackberry In Year 0 the affected area of about and those that are specific to Rubus have a Nineteen species of fungi have been re- 15 000 ha is treated with a pre-planting, wide host range within the genus. corded on blackberry in New Zealand (Ta- aerial application of herbicide, usually ei- The bramble leafhopper, Ribautiana ble 8), causing wilts, blights, root rots, ther metsulfuron, triclopyr + metsulfuron tenerrima, is probably the most frequently cane spots, and leaf spots. Most of these or glyphosate + metsulfuron, depending observed insect on blackberries (J.G. fungi are either infrequently observed or on the weed spectrum, which may include Charles personal communication), where cause only inconsequential symptoms on gorse (Ulex europaeus), broom (Cytisus sco- it causes only inconsequential direct dam- blackberry, and almost all of them also af- parius), buddleia (Buddleja davidii), pam- age to the leaves, but may be highly sig- fect a range of other hosts. pas grasses (Cortaderia spp.), Himalaya nificant as a putative vector of boysen- The cane wilt pathogen, Leptosphaeria honeysuckle (Leycesteria formosa), and berry decline (see below, under Diseases of coniothyrium, was considered as a possible woolly nightshade (Solanum mauritianum). blackberry). An indigenous chrysomelid biocontrol agent, but rejected because it In Year 1 the area is treated with a release beetle, Eucolaspis brunnea, can cause exten- was capable of inflicting heavy losses in spray of hexazinone, about a third (c. 5000 sive defoliation, but has a wide host range raspberry crops whilst causing ‘little or ha) by aerial application and two-thirds (c. of economically important plants, includ- no real damage to blackberry-plants’ 10 000 ha) by manual spot-spraying. In ing fruit trees and young plants of Pinus (Cunningham 1922), although ‘abundant Year 2 a second release spray of hex- radiata (Lysaght 1930, Kay 1980). An in- on blackberry throughout New Zealand’ azinone is applied to about a third of the digenous carposinid moth, Heterocrossa (Cunningham 1927). Cane infections by area (c. 5000 ha) either by aerial spraying rubophaga (Carposina adreptella auct.), the anthracnose or cane spot pathogen, or manual spot-spraying. From Year 3 to caused extensive vegetative damage to Elsinoe veneta, can cause stunting of Year 7 or 8 no direct costs of blackberry blackberry plants during a population ex- commercial Raspberry plants (Taylor control are incurred, but indirect costs re- plosion in the early 1910s, and was con- 1945), but do not significantly damage sult from interference with silvicultural sidered to be a promising biocontrol agent wild blackberries (Hill 1997). Severe infec- activities, particularly pruning and thin- (Cockayne 1912). It no longer occurs on tions of septoria spot, caused by Septoria ning. Hill (1997) estimated the total blackberries in sufficient numbers to cause rubi, can cause premature defoliation of 168 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 Table 7. Insects and other invertebrates recorded on blackberry in New Raspberry crops without any evidence of Zealand. yield loss (Taylor 1945); it is therefore un- likely to affect wild blackberries ad- On: Blackberry Rasp- Boysen- Indigenous Non-Rubus versely. The downy mildew pathogen, berry berry Rubus spp. hosts Peronospora sparsa, causes widespread in- Coleoptera fections of commercial Rubus plantings in Cerambycidae humid seasons, leading to crop losses due Oemena hirta (lemon tree borer) ? ? • + to ‘dryberry disease’ (Smith and Newhook Chrysomelidae 1961 – as Peronospora rubi), but a survey by Eucolaspis brunnea (bronze beetle) + + • + Hall and Shaw (1987) found that most spe- cies of wild blackberry were only mini- Heteroptera mally infected or showed no symptoms. Pentatomidae The only other fungi with worthwhile po- Dictyotus caenosus (brown shield bug) • • • + tential as biocontrol agents are the rusts Homoptera (see below, under Fungal rusts of black- Cicadellidae berry). Ribautiana tenerrima (bramble leafhopper) + + • + There are no records of bacterial patho- Zygina dumbletoni (Dumbleton’s leafhopper) + ? • + gens on blackberry in New Zealand Coccidae (Pennycook 1989, Young and Fletcher Ctenochiton perforatus (scale) • • + + 1997), nor any records of viruses or viroids Lecanium (Eulecanium) corni +• • +(Pennycook 1989, G.A. Wood personal (European fruit scale) communication). Of several viruses re- Diaspididae corded on raspberries and boysenberries Aulacaspis rosae (rose scale) + + • + in New Zealand (Pennycook 1989), black Flatidae raspberry necrosis virus and cherry leaf Sephena cinerea (grey planthopper) + + • + roll virus have been reported elsewhere to Ricaniidae infect Himalaya giant blackberry (Jen- Scolypopa australis (passionvine hopper) + + • + nings 1988). Hymenoptera Shoot fasciation and rosetting observed Tenthredinidae in wild blackberries in Auckland, Bay of Priophorus mori [P. brullei] (raspberry sawfly) + • • • Plenty, and Nelson (G.A. Wood personal Lepidoptera communication) are suspected to be Carposinidae symptoms of Boysenberry decline, a de- Heterocrossa rubophaga ++ + •structive graft-transmissible disease [Carposina adreptella auct.] (raspberry bud moth) (Wood 1991) now established in commer- Crambidae cial plantings of boysenberries and Rubus Udea flavidalis + •• + hybrids throughout the North Island and Geometridae in the Nelson area (G.A. Wood personal Elvia glaucata (lawyer looper) ? ? + • communication). ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma Oecophoridae australiense’ (the cause of Australian Eutorna phaulocosma (Blackberry bud moth) + + • • grapevine yellows, phormium yellow ? Hofmannophila pseudospretella •• • +leaf, papaya dieback, and strawberry little (brown house moth) yellows) has been isolated from boysen- Tortricidae berry plants suffering from boysenberry Apoctena flavescens + ••Prunus decline (R.L.S. Forster personal communi- Ctenopseustis obliquana complex + •• + cation). The vector is likely to be the bram- (brownheaded leafroller) ble leafhopper, Ribautiana tenerrima (J.G. Epiphyas postvittana (light brown apple moth) + • • + Charles personal communication), but Planotortrix excessana complex + + • + transmission has not been demonstrated (greenheaded leafroller) experimentally (Wood 1991). Pyrgotis plagiatana + •• + Acari Fungal rusts of blackberry in New Eriophyidae Zealand Acalitus essigi [Aceria essigi] (redberry mite) + • • • Kuehneola uredinis on blackberry Phytoseiidae The rust Kuehneola uredinis has been re- Typhlodromus pyri (predatory mite) • • • + corded on blackberry in New Zealand Stigmaeidae since early this century (Kirk 1909 – Agistemus longisetus (predatory mite) • • • + misidentified as Caeoma nitens; Cunn- Tetranychidae ingham 1923 – misidentified as Gymno- Panonychus ulmi (European red mite) + + • + conia peckiana). Although reported as a Tetranychus urticae (two-spotted spider mite) + + • + damaging disease in South Africa and the United States (Laundon and Rainbow Nematoda 1969b), in New Zealand it is widespread Aphelenchidae but relatively benign (Cockayne 1910, Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi + + • + 1912 – as Caeoma nitens; Cunningham 1927 (chrysanthemum leaf nematode) – as Kuehneola albida), and was never seri- Sources: Charles et al. 1987a,b, Collyer 1964, Dale 1972, Dugdale 1988, 1990, Hamilton ously considered as a potential biocontrol 1949, Knight 1976, Miller 1970, Scott 1984, Somerfield 1977, Spiller and Wise 1982, J.G. agent. Charles personal communication, J.S. Dugdale personal communication. Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 169 Table 8. Fungi recorded on blackberry in New Zealand (from Pennycook R. fruticosus agg. More precisely identified 1989, Herbarium PDD). hosts include R. echinatus, R. laciniatus, R. procerus, R. ulmifolius, and R. vestitus. In- On: Blackberry Raspberry Boysenberry Indigenous Non-Rubus fected Chatham Island specimens can be Rubus spp. hosts ascribed to R. polyanthemus, since that is Myxomycetes the only blackberry species recorded Physarum virescens •••+there. No specimens of P. violaceum have been collected from the Nelson area, Oomycetes where R. cissburiensis is the predominant Peronospora sparsa +++Rosa species, and only one specimen each from Ascomycetes Northland and Auckland, where R. ? Didymella applanata +•?•cissburiensis ulmifolius is the most common Elsinoe veneta ++••species. In inoculation tests with Euro- Leptosphaeria coniothyrium ++•Malus, Rosa pean isolates, R. cissburiensis, R. laciniatus, Nectria rubi +••+and R. ulmifolius have been rated as ‘mod- Deuteromycetes erately susceptible’ and R. polyanthemus, Botrytis cinerea ++•+R. procerus, and R. vestitus as ‘highly sus- Hendersonia rubi ••••ceptible’ (Bruzzese and Hasan 1986a); R. Pseudocercospora rubi ••+•echinatus was not included in these tests. Septoria rubi +++•In contrast, the illegally released strain(s) Verticillium dahliae ++•+established in Victoria (and the probable Basidiomycetes source of New Zealand infections) at- Abortiporus biennis •••+tacked R. laciniatus, R. polyanthemus, R. Gloeocystidiellum sacratum ••++procerus, and some R. ulmifolius hybrids in Hypholoma acutum +•••the field, as well as R. ulmifolius and R. Peniophora incarnata •••+vestitus in inoculation tests, whereas R. Peniophora lycii •••+cissburiensis, R. rosaceus (= R. erythrops), Phanerochaete sordida •••+and some other R. ulmifolius hybrids were Teliomycetes highly resistant to inoculation (Bruzzese Kuehneola uredinis • + (+) • and Field 1985). Phragmidium violaceum •••• Some initial outbreaks of P. violaceum in New Zealand were severe and conspicu- ous, with the leaves so heavily infected Phragmidium violaceum on blackberry Australia to New Zealand (Close et al. with uredinial pustules that they ap- In January 1990, Phragmidium violaceum 1978), there have been neither claims nor peared yellow and distorted, giving a gen- was recorded in New Zealand for the first accusations that the arrival of blackberry eral impression similar to a response to a time (Anon. 1990), at the Rakaia River rust was due to a deliberate release. Previ- hormone herbicide application. Seven mouth in Mid Canterbury. During Febru- ous arrivals such as antirrhinum rust years later, however, in 1997, most forest- ary and March 1990, unpublished surveys (Puccinia antirrhini), euphorbia rust ers and regional environmental officers by R.C. Close and by S.R. Pennycook, and (Melampsora euphorbiae), poplar rusts express a lack of awareness either of the additional collections, recorded P. viola- (Melampsora larici-populnea and M. incidence of rust symptoms or of any del- ceum at numerous other South Island sites medusae), oxalis rust (Puccinia oxalidis), eterious impact on blackberry popula- across Southland, eastern Otago, and east- willow rust (Melampsora coleosporioides), tions, suggesting that the disease is cur- ern South, Mid, and North Canterbury, and ‘new’ races of wheat stem rust rently exerting no more than subtle but found only K. uredinis in Westland, (Puccinia graminis) have all reached New biocontrol effects. Buller, Nelson, Marlborough, Kaikoura, Zealand within about a year of their being western Otago, and western Canterbury first recorded in New South Wales or Blackberry rust on other naturalized (Figure 1). There were some spectacularly southern Queensland (McKenzie in Rubus species severe rust outbreaks along the western press), and most have become established Phragmidium violaceum has not been re- edge of the Canterbury Plains, while initially over a northern or western range corded on any of the other species of Ru- blackberries barely 10 km further west that reflects their presumed flight path on bus naturalized in New Zealand. In labo- into the hills were unaffected. During this the prevailing trans-Tasman westerlies. In ratory tests with European isolates, R. same period (Feb–Mar 1990) P. violaceum contrast, P. violaceum took six years to idaeus and R. phoenicolasius were rated as was also first recorded in the Chatham Is- reach New Zealand after its release in Vic- ‘immune’, and R. rosifolius as ‘highly re- lands and in the North Island, at a single toria, and appears initially to have failed sistant’; R. rugosus was not tested, but the site in Taranaki. Since 1990 blackberry rust to colonize the West Coast of the South Is- closely related R. moluccanus was rated has spread over most of the country, al- land, but instead to have established in the ‘highly resistant’ (Bruzzese and Hasan though it has not yet been collected from south of the South Island and spread 1986a). certain areas (Figure 2). northwards up the eastern seaboard. The It is presumed that the introduction of obvious precedent for this southern trajec- Blackberry rust on indigenous Rubus P. violaceum into New Zealand was an air- tory is wheat stripe rust (Puccinia strii- species borne dispersal of the strain(s) illegally formis), which became established in Vic- Phragmidium violaceum has not been re- released in Victoria in 1984 (Marks et al. toria (O’Brien et al. 1980), reached South- corded on any of the New Zealand en- 1984). The fungus had spread widely in land one year later, and spread north- demic Rubus species. In laboratory tests New Zealand before the selected strain wards to wheat fields in the North Island with European isolates, all five species F15 was released in Australia (Bruzzese during the subsequent year (Harvey and were susceptible to rust infection and Lane 1996). Because of the well docu- Beresford 1982). (Bruzzese and Hasan 1986b), particularly mented history of chance dispersal of Most New Zealand collections of P. on the youngest leaves. On the basis of rusts and other biological material from violaceum are on hosts identified only as the degree of infection, R. schmidelioides, 170 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 R. cissoides, and R. australis have been (Bruzzese and Hasan 1986a). There have land-occupier, the regional councils as- rated as ‘moderately susceptible’, and R. been no records in Australia of the rust in- suming little more than a policing role in parvus and R. squarrosus as ‘resistant’ fecting R. moorei, the only Australian response to complaints. Wild blackberry member of subgenus Lampo- has been included by the regional councils batus (E. Bruzzese personal in a list of 110 species of National Surveil- communication). lance Plant Pests, which are prohibited from propagation, sale, distribution, and Blackberry rust on commercial commercial display throughout New Zea- Chatham Is. Rubus varieties land. Phragmidium violaceum has not been recorded from cultivated Chemical and mechanical control Rubus in New Zealand. Four of methods the blackberry varieties culti- Early efforts to control blackberry by vated in New Zealand means other than sprays or biocontrol (Smoothstem, Thornfree, Dirk- were reviewed by Northcroft (1929), Bell sen Thornless, Black Satin) (1939), and Hilgendorf (1948), and in- have been rated ‘moderately cluded afforestation, cutting and burning, susceptible’ in laboratory tests grubbing, stocking, and top-dressing. with European isolates; other Ploughing, followed by re-grassing, cultivated varieties tested (R. topdressing, and heavy stocking, is well idaeus, Aurora, boysenberry, lo- established as an effective method ganberry, Marion, Ollalie, (Montgomery 1941), and crushing can be youngberry) have been rated used (Lobb 1938, Walker 1938, 1944) as a either ‘immune’ or ‘highly re- substitute for, or as a prelude to, plough- 100 km sistant’ (Bruzzese and Hasan ing. Blackberry may continue to thrive 1986a). Elsewhere, loganberry along fencelines and in other protected has been recorded as suscepti- sites (Taylor 1981), however. Mowing is ble to P. violaceum (Wilson and widely used to control roadside thickets, Henderson 1966, Laundon and and bulldozing is used in some districts to Rainbow 1969c). prevent obstruction of waterways (R. Paulin personal communication). Brows- Figure 1. Distribution of Phragmidium violaceum Control of blackberry ing by feral or domesticated goats has (●) and Kuehneola uredinis (▲) collections in Responsibility for blackberry long been advocated as a simple method New Zealand, January–May 1990. Information control of blackberry control (Fairfax-Cholmeley source: Herbarium PDD. Until recently, blackberry was 1915, Scott 1924, Fawcett 1925, Wright classified throughout New Zea- 1927, Guthrie-Smith 1929, Northcroft land as a noxious weed under 1929, Hill 1939, Von Pein 1961, Levy 1970, the Noxious Plants Act 1978 Smallfield 1970, Batten 1979a, 1979b, (Parham and Healy 1981) and Crouchley 1980), and is still common prac- preceding acts. Local authori- tice in areas of low fertility hill country ties had an active role in its con- such as northern Hawkes Bay, Coro- trol, and administered central mandel, western central North Island, and government subsidies of 50% parts of Buller, Nelson, Marlborough, and Chatham Is. for materials and labour used Northland. Major drawbacks are that the by land-occupiers for black- plants are not killed and their crowns are berry control by spraying or not reduced, that browsed plants are said cultivation. Both the noxious to be less susceptible to herbicide treat- classification and the subsidies ment (Featherstone 1957), and that the have been discontinued. In goats may constitute an environmental radical local government re- hazard in their own right. forms in 1987–89, resource Over the years, numerous chemicals management became the re- have been tested for their effectiveness as sponsibility of newly created herbicides against blackberry; they have regional councils, with geo- been recommended with varying degrees graphic boundaries based on of conviction, and subsequently, most river catchments (Taylor et al. have fallen into disuse if not disrepute 1997); New Zealand is cur- (Northcroft 1927c, Montgomery 1941, rently covered by 15 regions, Brown 1948, Skinner 1954, Thompson administered by either regional 1954, Bell 1955, Elliott 1955, Johnston 1955, 100 km councils or unitary authorities. Featherstone 1957, Isaacs 1961, Dingwall In 1993 the Noxious Plants Act 1962, Leonard 1962, Boyd 1964, Patterson was replaced by the Biosecurity 1964, Pengelly and Ferguson 1964, Moffat Act, which allowed regional 1965, Patterson 1965, Moffat 1966, Taylor councils to develop individual and Patterson 1969, Upritchard 1969, Regional Plant Pest Manage- Bowers and Porter 1975, Matthews 1975, ment Strategies. This change Rae and Patterson 1975, Moore 1976, Figure 2. Distribution of Phragmidium violaceum has resulted in responsibility Forgie et al. 1977, MacDiarmid 1977, collections in New Zealand, up to January 1998 for blackberry management Thompson 1977, Cornwell et al. 1978, Yortt (from Herbarium PDD). devolving to the individual and Atkinson 1980, Dempsey 1981, Forgie Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 171 et al. 1981, Anon. 1982, Cornwell and Northland (Williams 1977 – as Table 9. Herbicide recommendations for Christie 1984, Park and Lane 1984). The ‘upright blackberry’). Conse- blackberry control in New Zealand (from current New Zealand recommendations quently, this region may not be Fussell and Walton 1997). N.B. Trounce® and are listed in Table 9; the choice of herbi- served adequately by a biologi- Grazon® in New Zealand denote different cide is influenced by the characteristics of cal control program based on ingredients from the same trade names in the site, the spectrum of other weed spe- P. violaceum; another pathogen cies involved, and the requirement for ei- may be required, such as Australia. ther selective or non-selective efficacy. Gymnoconia nitens. Strictly, the Well controlled latter name should be applied Amitrole Amitrole 400 Biological control – past investigations only to the endocyclic form, Chemagro amitrole 40AC Past research towards the biological con- confined to the United States Glyphosate trol of blackberry in New Zealand has (Laundon 1975); the hemicyclic (isopropylamine salt) (various) been reviewed by Cunningham (1927), form, found in Europe and Asia Glyphosate Northcroft (1928), Miller (1936, 1970), as well as North America, (mono-ammonium salt) Trounce® Syrett et al. (1985), Hill (1989), Johnston should be called Arthuriomyces Glyphosate-trimesium Touchdown® (1990a,b) and Sutherland and Hill (1990). peckiana (Cummins and Hirat- Hexazinone Velpar® 20G During the late 1920s, eight insect suka 1983). Hosts recorded in Velpar® DF species were selected as potential agents the United States (under both Velpar® L for blackberry control in New Zealand pathogen names) include R. Metsulfuron Escort® (Tillyard 1927). Several were successfully argutus, R. flagellaris, and R. Picloram + triclopyr Tordon® Brushkiller imported, and three of them—Coraebus ostryifolius, as well as boysen- Triclopyr Grazon® rubi, Dasineura plicatrix and Thyatira berry, loganberry, and rasp- Reasonable control batis—were studied to a limited extent, but berry (Farr et al. 1989), but Activated amitrole Amitrole 4L were not released because their threat to Laundon and Rainbow (1969a) Weedazol™ 4L berryfruit and other commercial crop question the authenticity of Picloram Tordon® 2G plants was perceived as outweighing any records on R. idaeus and Euro- Limited control possible benefit. There have not been any pean blackberries. Plants be- Picloram + 2,4-D Tordon® 50D subsequent attempts to use invertebrates come infected systemically, and SDA (simazine + dalapon as control agents for blackberry in New are generally stunted and do + amitrole) (various) Zealand. not produce fruit (Laundon and Terbuthylazine After the innocuous rust present on Rainbow 1969a). Susceptible + terbumetron Caragard® 500FW New Zealand blackberry had been cor- commercial crops can be grown Not controlled rectly identified as Kuehneola uredinis, au- successfully by using rust-free ® thentic material of Gymnoconia nitens (as nursery stock, and by roguing Bromacil Hyvar X Bromacil + diuron Krovar® 1 G. peckiana) and Phragmidium violaceum at the first sign of symptoms ® was imported in the 1920s, from the (Jennings 1988). There are erro- Dichlobenil Prefix D United States and England, respectively, neous early records of this rust Diuron Agro Diuron 800 Karmex® for biocontrol assessment. Both rusts (under various synonyms) in ® failed to establish infections on New Zea- New Zealand and Australia, Paraquat Gramoxone land blackberry plants over a 12-month but these are all based on Jolyn PQ 200 period of inoculations (Cunningham misidentifications of either Kuehneola fungicide programs tested on cultivars 1927). Gymnoconia nitens probably failed uredinis (Cunningham 1931) or Phrag- that require protection. for lack of a suitable North American midium rubi-idaei (Sampson and Walker blackberry host, but the failure of P. 1982). Acknowledgements violaceum was fortuitous, possibly because The establishment of P. violaceum has I thank A.R. Hall (Environment BOP) for of non-viable inoculum, inappropriate in- apparently failed to exert the degree of contributing financial support, and the cubation conditions, or a non-susceptible biocontrol that some spectacular initial in- numerous contacts who supplied infor- host species. The prospect of utilizing P. fections seemed to promise. One reason mation, opinions, and data – in particular: violaceum for blackberry control in New may be that several of the weediest black- L. Vervoort (Auckland Regional Council); Zealand was revived in the 1980s, when berry species are probably not susceptible R. Paulin (Canterbury Regional Council); scientists in Victoria began to study this to the rust strain(s) that have become es- A.R. Hall (Environment BOP); D. pathogen. Because of the probability of the tablished; in particular, the possible resist- Harrison (Manawatu-Wanganui Regional rust spreading across the Tasman Sea ance of R. cissburiensis and R. cissburiensis Council); J. Craw (Northland Regional spontaneously if it became established in ulmifolius should be investigated. Current Council); G. Chalmers, M.J. Cornwell, J. Australia, there was some New Zealand knowledge of the distributions of the dif- Smith (Du Pont (New Zealand) Ltd.); E. input into the range of Rubus species and ferent Rubus species and of the identity, Bruzzese (NRE Victoria); D.R. Given (Lin- varieties that were screened for suscepti- distribution, and host range of the rust coln University); J.G. Charles, R.L.S. bility to European isolates (Bruzzese and strain(s) present in New Zealand are inad- Forster, H.K. Hall, G.I. Langford, G.A. Hasan 1986a,b). There has been no formal equate. (The Australian F15 strain may Wood (HortResearch); J.S. Dugdale, P.F.J. research on blackberry rust since uniden- have already reached New Zealand, but Newsome (Landcare Research). tified strains of P. violaceum established in its main target species, R. discolor (= R. New Zealand in 1990, but it remains the procerus) (Bruzzese and Lane 1996), is not References most promising resource for useful of major concern in New Zealand.) Both Allan, H.H. (1940). A handbook of the biocontrol. these topics require urgent investigation naturalized flora of New Zealand. New as a prerequisite of any decision to release Zealand DSIR Bulletin 83, 112-113, 288. Biological control – the future additional, selected strains of the patho- Allo, A.V. (1959). Weed problems of the North American species, particularly R. gen. The susceptibility of commercial Ru- Bay of Plenty. Proceedings of the 12th ostryifolius, form a significant component bus crops to all candidate rust strains New Zealand Weed Control Confer- of the blackberry weed population in would also need to be documented, and ence, pp. 17-23. 172 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 Anon. (1982). Roundup and that trouble- Bruzzese, E. and Lane, M. (1996). ‘The Cunningham, G.H. (1923). The Uredi- some Northland blackberry. New Zea- blackberry management handbook’, p. nales, or rust-fungi, of New Zealand. land Journal of Agriculture 145, 18. 24. (Keith Turnbull Research Institute, Part I. Pucciniaceae, tribe Puccineae. Anon. (1990). Blackberry fungus disease Frankston). Transactions and Proceedings of the New arrives in NZ. Straight Furrow 46, 20. Charles, J.G., Dugdale, J.S. and White, Zealand Institute 54, 619-704. Bascand, L.D. and Jowett, G.H. (1981). V. (1987a). Preliminary studies of Cunningham, G.H. (1927). ‘Natural con- Scrubweed cover of South Island agri- Eutorna phaulocosma (Lepidoptera: trol’ of weeds and insects by fungi. New cultural and pastoral land. New Zealand Oecophoridae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 34, 244-51. Journal of Experimental Agriculture 9, Zealand Journal of Zoology 14, 519-26. Cunningham, G.H. (1931). ‘The rust fungi 307-27. Charles, J.G., White, V. and Cornwell, of New Zealand’, pp. 120-1. (John Bascand, L.D. and Jowett, G.H. (1982). M.A. (1987b). Leafroller (Lepidoptera: McIndoe, Dunedin). Scrubweed cover of South Island agri- Tortricidae) damage to buds of rasp- Dale, P.S. (1972). List of plant hosts of cultural and pastoral land. 2. Plant dis- berry canes in New Zealand. New Zea- nematodes in New Zealand. New Zea- tribution and managerial problem sta- land Journal of Experimental Agriculture land Journal of Science 15, 442-8. tus. New Zealand Journal of Experimental 15, 491-6. Dempsey, G.P. (1981). The failure of Agriculture 10, 455–92. Close, R.C., Moar, N.T., Tomlinson, A.I. fosamine and glyphosate to give long- Batten, G.J. (1979a). Controlling scrub- and Lowe, A.D. (1978). Aerial dispersal term control of blackberry in North- weeds with goats. New Zealand Journal of biological material from Australia to land. Proceedings of the 34th New Zea- of Agriculture 139, 31-2. New Zealand. International Journal of land Weed and Pest Control Confer- Batten, G.J. (1979b). Controlling scrub Biometeorology 22, 1-19. ence, pp. 152-5. weeds with goats. Proceedings of the Cockayne, A.H. (1910). Fungi as weed- Dingwall, A.R. (1958). The weeds of 32nd New Zealand Weed and Pest controllers. New Zealand Journal of Agri- Marlborough. Proceedings of the 11th Control Conference, pp. 292-6. culture 1, 214-15. New Zealand Weed Control Confer- Bell, J.E. (1939). Destruction of gorse and Cockayne, A.H. (1912). The blackberry- ence, pp. 9-13. blackberry. Methods of eradication and bud moth. A promising agent for con- Dingwall, A.R. (1962). The weeds of Can- control. New Zealand Journal of Agricul- trol. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture terbury. Proceedings of the 15th New ture 58, 111-16. 5, 372-4. Zealand Weed Control Conference, pp. Bell, J.E. (1955). Weed problems of the Cockayne, A.H. (1917). Noxious weeds in 15-22. Waikato. Proceedings of the 8th New New Zealand. Notes on a recent in- Dugdale, J.S. (1988). Lepidoptera – anno- Zealand Weed Control Conference, pp. quiry. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture tated catalogue, and keys to family- 7-12. 14, 339-44. group taxa. Fauna of New Zealand 14, Blaschke, P.M., Hunter, G.G., Eyles, G.O. Cockayne, L. (1958). ‘The vegetation of 262 pp. and van Berkel, P.R. (1981). Analysis of New Zealand’, 3rd edition, 456 pp. Dugdale, J.S. (1990). Reassessment of New Zealand’s vegetation cover using (H.R. Engelmann (J. Cramer), Wein- Ctenopseustis Meyrick and Planotortrix Land Resource Inventory data. New heim/Bergst.). (Reprint of 2nd edition, Dugdale with descriptions of two new Zealand Journal of Ecology 4, 1-19. published 1928). genera (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Bowers, A. and Porter, J.F. (1975). Prelimi- Collyer, E. (1964). Phytophagous mites Zealand Journal of Zoology 17, 437-65. nary investigations with DPX 3674 for and their predators in New Zealand or- Elliott, I.L. (1955). Pasture management weed control in forestry. Proceedings chards. New Zealand Journal of Agricul- and weed control. Proceedings of the of the 28th New Zealand Weed and tural Research 7, 551-68. 8th New Zealand Weed Control Con- Pest Control Conference, pp. 160-4. Cornwell, M.J. and Christie, M.S. (1984). ference, pp. 40-3. Boyd, P.G. (1964). Field observations with Preliminary results with DPX-T6376 for Esler, A.E. (1988). The naturalization of thiocyanate-activated amitrole. Pro- control of gorse and blackberry. Pro- plants in urban Auckland, New Zea- ceedings of the 17th New Zealand ceedings of the 37th New Zealand land. 6. Alien plants as weeds. New Zea- Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp. Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp. land Journal of Botany 26, 585-618. 115-18. 197-9. Fairfax-Cholmeley, R.E. (1915). Blackber- Brown, J.F. (1948). Control of blackberry Cornwell, M.J., Coackley, A. and Moore, ries: their control and eradication. New and gorse with hormone sprays. Trials R.W. (1978). Control of blackberry with Zealand Journal of Agriculture 10, 10-11. in Canterbury. New Zealand Journal of fosamine. Proceedings of the 31st New Farr, D.F., Bills, G.F., Chamuris, G.P. and Agriculture 77, 503-4. Zealand Weed and Pest Control Con- Rossman, A.Y. (1989). ‘Fungi on plants Bruzzese, E. and Field, R.P. (1985). Occur- ference, pp. 66-8. and plant products in the United rence and spread of Phragmidium Crosby, T.K., Dugdale, J.S. and Watt, J.C. States’, 1252 pp. (APS Press, St. Paul, violaceum on blackberry (Rubus frut- (1976). Recording specimen localities in Minnesota). icosus) in Victoria, Australia. Proceed- New Zealand: an arbitrary system of Fawcett, E.J. (1925). Goats and blackberry- ings of the VI International Symposium areas and codes defined. New Zealand control on hill country. Notes on man- on Biological Control of Weeds, ed. E.S. Journal of Zoology 3, 69 (+ map sheet). agement in Waimea County. New Zea- Delfosse, pp. 609-12. (Agriculture Crouchley, G. (1980). Regrowth control by land Journal of Agriculture 31, 9-12. Canada, Ottawa). goats X plus useful meat returns. New Featherstone, C.I. (1957). The progress of Bruzzese, E. and Hasan, S. (1986a). Host Zealand Journal of Agriculture 141, 9-11 chemical weed control in Hawke’s Bay. specificity of the rust Phragmidium and 13-14. Proceedings of the 10th New Zealand violaceum, a potential biological control Cummins, G.B. and Hiratsuka, Y. (1983). Weed Control Conference, pp. 7-12. agent of European blackberry. Annals of ‘Illustrated genera of rust fungi’, re- Forgie, C.D., Lobb, P.G. and Dryden, P.J. Applied Biology 108, 585-96. vised edition, pp. 114-15. (American (1981). A comparison of a picloram/ Bruzzese, E. and Hasan, S. (1986b). Infec- Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, triclopyr mixture with other herbicides tion of Australian and New Zealand Minnesota). for blackberry control. Proceedings of Rubus subgenera Dalibarda and Cunningham, G.H. (1922). A fungus dis- the 34th New Zealand Weed and Pest Lampobatus by the European blackberry ease attacking blackberry. Identified as Control Conference, pp. 148-51. rust fungus Phragmidium violaceum. raspberry cane-wilt. New Zealand Jour- Forgie, C.D., Saunders, D.G. and Plant Pathology 35, 413-16. nal of Agriculture 24, 23-6. MacDiarmid, B.N. (1977). Blackberry Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 173 control with triclopyr. Proceedings of Johnston, P.R. (1990a). Potential of fungi McKenzie, E.H.C. (In press). Rust fungi of the 30th New Zealand Weed and Pest for the biological control of some New New Zealand – an introduction, and Control Conference, pp. 71-5. Zealand weeds. New Zealand Journal of list of recorded species. New Zealand Fussell, A. and Walton, T. (1997). ‘New Agricultural Research 33, 1-14. Journal of Botany 36. Zealand Agrichemical Manual’, Weed Johnston, P.R. (1990b). Fungi as potential Marks, G.C., Pascoe, I.G. and Bruzzese, E. Control Section. (Wham Chemsafe, biological control agents of weeds in (1984). First record of Phragmidium Wellington). New Zealand. In ‘Alternatives to the violaceum on blackberry in Victoria. Given, D.R. (1982). Checklist of dicotyle- Chemical Control of Weeds’, Proceed- Australasian Plant Pathology 13, 12-13. dons naturalized in New Zealand. 13. ings of an International Conference, Marshall, L.N. (1954). Weed problems in Rosaceae. New Zealand Journal of Botany Rotorua, New Zealand, July 1989, eds. Otago and Southland. Proceedings of 20, 221-6. C. Bassett, L.J. Whitehouse and J.A. the 7th New Zealand Weed Control Guthrie-Smith, H. (1929). Blackberry con- Zabkiewicz, pp. 66-70. (New Zealand Conference, pp. 22-7. trol by goats. Striking success on a Ministry of Forestry, FRI Bulletin 155). Matthews, L.J. (1975). Weed control by Hawkes Bay station. New Zealand Jour- Johnston, W. (1955). Control of difficult chemical means. New Zealand Ministry nal of Agriculture 38, 16-19. scrub weeds. Proceedings of the 8th of Agriculture and Fisheries, Bulletin 329, Guthrie-Smith, H. (1953). ‘Tutira. The New Zealand Weed Control Confer- pp. 266-8. story of a New Zealand Sheep Station’, ence, pp. 61-4. Miller, D. (1936). Biological control of nox- 3rd edition, pp. 282-5. (William Kay, M.K. (1980). Eucolaspis brunnea ious insects and weeds in New Zea- Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh). (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Chryso- land. II. Biological control of noxious Hall, H.K. and Shaw, C.G. (1987). Bram- melidae). Bronze beetle. Forest and Tim- weeds. New Zealand Journal of Science bles: downy mildew on wild and culti- ber Insects in New Zealand 49, 4 pp. and Technology 18, 581-4. vated Rubus species in New Zealand. Kirk, T. (1870). On the naturalized plants Miller, D. (1970). Biological control of New Zealand Journal of Experimental Ag- of New Zealand, especially with regard weeds in New Zealand 1927–48. New riculture 15, 57-60. to those occurring in the Province of Zealand DSIR Information Series 74, pp. Hamilton, A. (1949). The blackberry mite Auckland. Transactions and Proceedings 8-26. (Aceria essigi). New Zealand Journal of of the New Zealand Institute 2, 131-46. Moffat, R.W. (1965). A summary of inves- Science and Technology, A 31, 42-4. Kirk, T. (1871). On the flora of the isthmus tigations with picloram on certain Harvey, I.C. and Beresford, R.M. (1982). of Auckland and the Takapuna district. scrub weeds. Proceedings of the 18th Stripe rust of wheat: symptoms, epide- Transactions and Proceedings of the New New Zealand Weed and Pest Control miology and host range in New Zea- Zealand Institute 3, 148-61. Conference, pp. 17-23. land. Proceedings of the 35th New Zea- Kirk, T.W. (1909). Biology Division. Re- Moffat, R.W. (1966). Picloram granules for land Weed and Pest Control Confer- port of T.W. Kirk, FLS, Biologist. 17th woody weed control. In Proceedings of ence, pp. 173-6. Annual Report of the New Zealand De- the 19th New Zealand Weed and Pest Healy, A.J. (1952). The introduction and partment of Agriculture, pp. 84-5. Control Conference, pp. 90-5. spread of weeds. Proceedings of the 5th Knight, W.J. (1976). Typhlocybinae Montgomery, K.M. (1941). Keeping black- New Zealand Weed Control Confer- of New Zealand (Homoptera: berry in check. Spraying with chlorate ence, pp. 5-16. Cicadellidae). New Zealand Journal of weedkillers has proved effective and Hilgendorf, F.W. (1948). ‘Weeds of New Zoology 3, 71-87. economical. New Zealand Journal of Ag- Zealand and how to eradicate them’, Laundon, G.F. (1975). Taxonomy and riculture 62, 13-15. 4th edition, (revised, J.W. Calder), pp. nomenclature notes on Uredinales. Moore, M.S. (1976). MET 1486: a new her- 101-2. (Whitcombe and Tombs, Christ- Mycotaxon 3, 133-61. bicide for non-selective vegetation con- church). Laundon, G.F. and Rainbow, A.F. (1969a). trol. Proceedings of the 29th New Zea- Hill, R.L. (1989). Rubus fruticosus L. agg., Gymnoconia nitens. CMI Descriptions of land Weed and Pest Control Confer- blackberry (Rosaceae). In ‘A review of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria 201, 2 pp. ence, pp. 130-4. biological control of invertebrate pests Laundon, G.F. and Rainbow, A.F. (1969b). Moss, G.R. (1961). The weeds of Taranaki. and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to Kuehneola uredinis. CMI Descriptions of Proceedings of the 14th New Zealand 1987’, eds. P.J. Cameron, R.L. Hill, J. Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria 202, 2 pp. Weed Control Conference, pp. 11-16. Bain and W.P. Thomas, pp. 357-60. Laundon, G.F. and Rainbow, A.F. (1969c). Newsome, P.F.J. (1987). ‘The vegetative (CAB International Inst. of Biological Phragmidium violaceum. CMI Descrip- cover of New Zealand’, 153 pp. + 2 map Control, Technical Communication 10). tions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria 209, sheets. (New Zealand Ministry of Hill, R.L. (1997). ‘Turning the tide. Oppor- 2 pp. Works and Development, Water and tunities for biological control of forest Leonard, W.F. (1962). Problems of scrub Soil Directory, Wellington). weeds’, 22 pp. + attachments [35 pp.]. control. Proceedings of the 24th New Northcroft, E.F. (1927a). The blackberry (Landcare Research, Lincoln). Zealand Grasslands Association Con- pest. I. Biology of the plant. New Zea- Hill, R.P. (1939). Eradication of black- ference, pp. 73-83. land Journal of Agriculture 34, 376-88. berry. Valuable work done by goats in Levy, E.B. (1970). ‘Grasslands of New Zea- Northcroft, E.F. (1927b). The blackberry ridding land of this pest. New Zealand land’, 3rd edition, pp. 300-1. (Govern- pest. II. Distribution. III. Control. New Journal of Agriculture 59, 401-3. ment Printer, Wellington). Zealand Journal of Agriculture 35, 246-50. Hooker, J.D. (1867). ‘Handbook of the Lobb, W.R. (1938). Blackberry control by Northcroft, E.F. (1927c). The blackberry New Zealand Flora’, 798 pp. (Reeve, crushing. New Zealand Journal of Agri- pest. III. Control. (1) Chemical investi- London). culture 56, 273. gation. New Zealand Journal of Agricul- Isaacs, D.C. (1961). 2,3,6-TBA, some uses Lysaght, A.M. (1930). Bronze beetle re- ture 35, 369-82. and suggested applications. Proceed- search. New Zealand DSIR Bulletin 25, Northcroft, E.F. (1928). The blackberry ings of the 14th New Zealand Weed 32 pp. pest. III. Control. (2) Biological control: Control Conference, pp. 83-6. MacDiarmid, B.N. (1977). Properties and insects and fungi. New Zealand Journal Jennings, D.L. (1988). ‘Raspberries and activity of triclopyr on some New Zea- of Agriculture 36, 261-75. blackberries: Their breeding, diseases land brushweeds. Proceedings of the Northcroft, E.F. (1929). The control of and growth’, 230 pp. (Academic Press, 30th New Zealand Weed and Pest Con- blackberry. New Zealand Journal of Sci- London). trol Conference, pp. 66-70. ence and Technology 10, 321-37. 174 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.13(4) 1998 Nosworthy, W. (1924). Bonus for a method downy mildew. Orchardist of New Zea- Upritchard, E.A. (1969). Formulations of of exterminating blackberry. New Zea- land 34, 79-81. picloram with 2,4,5-T for brushweed land Journal of Agriculture 29, 436. Somerfield, K.G. (1977). Insects of eco- control. Proceedings of the 22nd New O’Brien, L., Brown, J.S., Young, R.M. and nomic significance recently recorded in Zealand Weed and Pest Control Con- Pascoe, I. (1980). Occurrence and distri- New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of ference, pp. 180-6. bution of wheat stripe rust in Victoria Agricultural Research 20, 421-8. Von Pein, J.R. (1961). Blackberry control- and susceptibility of commercial wheat Spiller, D.M. and Wise, K.A.J. (1982). A led with goats and electric fence. New cultivars. Australasian Plant Pathology 9, catalogue (1860–1960) of New Zealand Zealand Journal of Agriculture 103, 535-7. 14. insects and their host plants (revised Walker, C. (1938). Pasture establishment Parham, B.E.V. and Healy, A.J. (1981). and edited, P.S. Dale and P.A. on blackberry-infested land. New Zea- Common weeds in New Zealand. New Maddison). New Zealand DSIR Bulletin land Journal of Agriculture 57, 151. Zealand DSIR Information Series 112, 2nd 231, 260 pp. Walker, C. (1944). Blackberry eradication. edition, pp. 165-8. Sutherland, O.R.W. and Hill, R.L. (1990). New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 69, Park, O.L. and Lane, P.M.S. (1984). Black- History and protocols for biological 319-20. berry control with glyphosate. Pro- control of weeds in New Zealand. In Wardle, P. (1991). ‘Vegetation of New ceedings of the 37th New Zealand ‘Alternatives to the chemical control of Zealand’, 672 pp. (Cambridge Univer- Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp. weeds’, Proceedings of an International sity Press, Cambridge). 200-2. Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, Webb, C.J., Sykes, W.R. and Garnock- Patterson, T.M. (1964). Departmental tri- July 1989, eds. C. Bassett, L.J. Jones, P.J. (1988). ‘Flora of New Zea- als with ‘Tordon’. Proceedings of the Whitehouse and J.A. Zabkiewicz, pp. land, Volume IV, Naturalized Pteri- 17th New Zealand Weed and Pest Con- 18-24. (New Zealand Ministry of For- dophytes, Gymnosperms, Dicotyle- trol Conference, pp. 68-73. estry, FRI Bulletin 155). dons’, pp. 1118-36. (Botany Division, Patterson, T.M. (1965). Departmental tri- Symons, J.L. (1956). Weed problems in DSIR, Christchurch). als with picloram. Proceedings of the South Canterbury. Proceedings of the Williams, P.A. (1977). ‘Blackberries (Rubus 18th New Zealand Weed and Pest Con- 9th New Zealand Weed Control Con- spp.) of Northland’, Report to the Nox- trol Conference, pp. 24-31. ference, pp. 7-12. ious Plants Advisory Committee, 7 pp. Pengelly, R. and Ferguson, R.H. (1964). Syrett, P. (1988). Priority weeds for future (Botany Division, DSIR, Christchurch). Overseas and New Zealand field re- biological control research. Proceed- Williams, P.A. and Timmins, S.M. (1990). sults with ‘Tordon’. Proceedings of the ings, Institute of Noxious Plant Officers Weeds in New Zealand protected natu- 17th New Zealand Weed and Pest Con- Inc. Conference, New Plymouth, 2–4 ral areas: a review for the Department trol Conference, pp. 222-8. May 1988, 8 pp. of Conservation. New Zealand Depart- Pennycook, S.R. (1989). ‘Plant diseases re- Syrett, P., Hill, R.L. and Jessep, C.T. (1985). ment of Conservation, Science and Re- corded in New Zealand’, 3 volumes. Conflict of interest in biological control search Series 14, 114 pp. (Plant Diseases Division, DSIR, Auck- of weeds in New Zealand. Proceedings Wilson, H.D. (1982). ‘Stewart Island land). of the VI International Symposium on plants’, p. 42. (Field Guide Publica- Rae, S.J. and Patterson, T.M. (1975). Scrub Biological Control of Weeds, ed. E.S. tions, Christchurch). weed control with thiazafluron. Pro- Delfosse, pp. 391-7. (Agriculture Wilson, H.D. (1987). Vascular plants of ceedings of the 28th New Zealand Canada, Ottawa). Stewart Island (New Zealand). In ‘Veg- Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp. Taylor, G.G. (1945). Experiments with etation of Stewart Island, New Zea- 67-9. spray treatments for control of diseases land’, pp. 81-131. (Supplement to New Rankin, A.R. (1960). Weeds of South and pests of raspberries. New Zealand Zealand Journal of Botany, 1987). Otago and Southland. Proceedings of Journal of Science and Technology, A 27, Wilson, M. and Henderson, D.M. (1966). the 13th New Zealand Weed Control 83-90. ‘British rust fungi’, pp. 98-100. (Cam- Conference, pp. 11-15. Taylor, R., Smith, I., Cochrane, P., Steph- bridge University Press, Cambridge). Sampson, P.J. and Walker, J. (1982). ‘An enson, B. and Gibbs, N. (1997). ‘The Wood, G.A. (1991). Three graft-transmis- annotated list of plant diseases in Tas- state of New Zealand’s environment sible diseases and a variegation disor- mania’, pp. 51, 76. (Department of Ag- 1997’, Chapter 4, Environmental Man- der of small fruit in New Zealand. New riculture, Hobart). agement, 30 pp. (New Zealand Minis- Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Schofield, R.C. (1954). Scrub weeds of try for the Environment, Wellington). Science 19, 313-23. Central Otago. Proceedings of the 7th Taylor, R.L. (1981). ‘Weeds of roadsides Wright, R. (1927). Goats and noxious- New Zealand Weed Control Confer- and waste ground in New Zealand’, weeds control. Elimination of black- ence, pp. 86-8. pp. 16-17. (Caxton Press, Christchurch). berry, gorse, and bracken on a Taranaki Scott, J.G. (1924). Goats and blackberry in Taylor, R.L. and Patterson, J. (1969). Con- farm. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture Pelorus Valley. New Zealand Journal of trol of scrub weeds with 2,4,5-T plus 35, 295-7. Agriculture 28, 355. dicamba. Proceedings of the 22nd New Yortt, M.L. and Atkinson, G.C. (1980). Scott, R.R. (1984). Berry fruit pests. In Zealand Weed and Pest Control Con- Blackberry control with glyphosate. ‘New Zealand Pest and Beneficial In- ference, pp. 178-9. Proceedings of the 33rd New Zealand sects’, ed. R.R. Scott, pp. 11-31. (Lincoln Thompson, A. (1977). New herbicides for Weed and Pest Control Conference, pp. University College of Agriculture, Lin- blackberry control. Proceedings of the 177-80. coln). 30th New Zealand Weed and Pest Con- Young, J.M. and Fletcher, M.J. (1997). ‘In- Skinner, H.R.W. (1954). Scrub control. trol Conference, pp. 76-9. ternational collection of micro-organ- Proceedings of the 7th New Zealand Thompson, F.B. (1954). Method of apply- isms from plants. Catalogue. Acces- Weed Control Conference, pp. 90-2. ing hormone weedkillers. New Zealand sions 1–12989’, p. 205. (Landcare Re- Smallfield, P.W. (1970) ‘The grasslands Journal of Agriculture 88, 579-87. search, Auckland). revolution in New Zealand’, pp. 81, Tillyard, R.J. (1927). Insect control of nox- 110. (Hodder and Stoughton, Auck- ious weeds. Joint scheme initiated land). against blackberry and other species. Smith, H.C. and Newhook, F.J. (1961). New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 34, Dryberry of boysenberries caused by 84-90.