Search for biocontrol of invasive American bramble intensifies

*Rubus section Arguti plant, Cedara. Photo: Costas Zachariades*

Invasive American bramble is a thorn in the side of foresters, farmers and land managers across large swaths of South Africa. It chokes up grasslands, forest fringes and river banks, and is notoriously difficult to eradicate. But there is light at the end of the tunnel as a team of scientists are tracking these elusive invaders to find an effective biological control …

American bramble continues to be a major scourge to agriculture, forestry and biodiversity conservation in many of the temperate areas of KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces. The weed forms impenetrable, thorny thickets which impede the passage and access to water of livestock and other animals, replace grazing, smother young plantation trees and make the maintenance and harvesting of older trees difficult. Bramble infestations replace native vegetation, with negative consequences for natural ecosystems, particularly in temperate grasslands. They can also negatively affect specialist flower-visitors. Native bird species increase the spread and germination rates of invasive alien brambles.

There are a number of indigenous bramble species in South Africa, as well as several invasive alien ones. These all belong to the genus Rubus, which falls under the rose family Rosaceae. There are also many species, hybrids and varieties of cultivated Rubus. The most well know of these are the blackberries and raspberries, but they also include youngberries, boysenberries, cloudberries, dewberries and loganberries. There is a small berry industry in South Africa, but most of that sold in our shops is imported – Mexico, for example, is currently one of the main exporters of blackberries worldwide.

*Examples of fruits on Rubus section Arguti, southern KZN. Photo: Grant Martin.*

The biology of Rubus is somewhat unique, in that most or all species, although perennial, have a biennial flowering and fruiting cycle. “Primocanes” grow from the ground in the first year – long, robust stems which bear no flowers or fruit. In the second year, these become “floricanes”, which bear the flowers and fruit, and subsequently die back. The study of Rubus is also quite specialized, and comes with its own moniker – “batology” – while those who work with Rubus are known as batologists!

The genus Rubus is large and complex, and is characterized by its ability to hybridise. The genus is divided into a number of Subgenera, and within each of these, one or more ‘Sections’. It is widely distributed, with native representatives on six continents, and invasive alien species and hybrids are also widely distributed and cause great harm in certain areas. In South Africa, American bramble is the most damaging of the invasive brambles. Several introductions of various brambles into South Africa were made in the late 19th and early 20th century, chiefly with berry production in mind. By the 1930s, however, American bramble was becoming problematic: an early reference to this bramble as “Rubus cuneifolius” was by E.J. Philips and co-authors in 1939, in “Farming in South Africa”. Rubus cuneifolius is native to Florida and the southern states of the USA, with the common name “sand blackberry”. However, it was soon realized that there was more than one form of this bramble; J.P. Marais, in a 1960 report, divided it into the “Hilton Road variety” (which was shorter, more upright, and grew in more open areas) and the “Richmond variety” (taller, with more arching canes, growing more prominently in more sheltered areas with partial shade).

Jacobus Egberink carried out some of the first comprehensive studies on the weed and its control as part of his MSc in Agriculture through the University of Natal (now UKZN), completed in 1965. Dr Danie Erasmus, based at the Cedara campus of the Plant Protection Research Institute of the national Department of Agriculture (now the Agricultural Research Council’s Plant Health and Protection [ARC-PHP] institute) conducted further work in the 1980s, including on chemical control. Various other studies, on the biology and taxonomy of Rubus in South Africa, were also undertaken in the 1980s by Prof. Charles Stirton, Dr Johan Spies and Henriette du Plessis.

*Rubus section Cuneifolii invasion in the Drakensberg. Photo: Michal Sochor.*

Worldwide, biological control of Rubus species initially achieved low success, mainly because of the complex nature of the genus, in particular its tendency to hybridise, and therefore difficulties in finding natural enemies in the region of origin that were able to develop on the introduced target weeds. With the advent of genetic techniques, success rates have increased. In South Africa, the first attempts towards Rubus biocontrol were undertaken by Dr Mike Morris and colleagues of the Agricultural Research Council’s Plant Protection Research Institute in the 1990s, using plant pathogens (rust fungi). They discovered that one of these (Kuehneola uredines), already widespread in the country, only developed on the upright form of R. cuneifolius, and was not particularly damaging. They then imported another rust fungus (Gymnoconia nitens) from Florida, USA, where it had been collected off R. cuneifolius, into their quarantine laboratory. However, this fungus only infected some specimens of the sprawling form of American bramble, as well as a commercial variety of Rubus and a native species, so it was rejected as a biocontrol agent. Because of the differences in infection patterns between upright and sprawling forms of R. cuneifolius, Dr Morris and his team believed that these might in fact be two separate species; they also realized that the upright form tended to grow at higher altitude than the sprawling form. In the early 2000s, ARC-PHP attempted to initiate genetic work in order to understand origins and identities of the forms of American bramble present in South Africa, in collaboration with Dr Lawrence (Larry) Alice of Western Kentucky University, USA, but this project did not come to fruition.

Recent efforts – from 2018 on

Given the ongoing problems caused by American bramble, interest in undertaking a feasibility study revived in 2018. A small ARC-PHP project (managed by Dr Costas Zachariades) was granted funding by the Department of Environmental Affairs (its Natural Resource Management Programmes directorate, which includes the Working for Water programme). At a similar time, the recently formed Centre for Biological Control, attached to Rhodes University, initiated a project on northern temperate weeds, under the management of Dr Grant Martin. These two units collaborated. An M.Econ. student, Brett Mason, undertook a study looking at some of the costs and benefits of Rubus in South Africa. Coincidentally, in 2017 a young dynamic researcher from the Centre of the Region Haná for Biotechnological and Agricultural Research, Olomouc, in the Czech Republic, Dr Michal Sochor, had started a study on the taxonomy and phylogeny of Rubus in South Africa, in collaboration with Dr John Manning of SANBI. Dr Sochor had previously undertaken research on the taxonomy and phylogeny of European brambles, and was thus highly experienced and knowledgeable; the European approach differs dramatically from the current American approach: European researchers tend to recognise many more species than their North American counterparts – while the latter are “lumpers”, the former are “splitters”, and will describe “microspecies”. This divergent approach has not been consistent; for example, from 1941-1945, Dr L.H. Bailey undertook the most recent comprehensive revision of the genus in North America, and recognized hundreds of species, many of which he described himself. In stark contrast, Dr Larry Alice, in a 2015 article, sank the entire Rubus section Arguti, consisting of about 110 species listed in Bailey’s monograph, under one species, R. pensilvanicus. While the assignment of variable forms to separate species or microspecies may be complex and confusing, the lumping of many variable forms under one species is not helpful for the purposes of identification of invasive forms and determination of their origins.

*Close-up of Rubus section Arguti plant, Cedara. Photo: Costas Zachariades.*

Dr Sochor and colleagues used several techniques in their work, including extensive field and herbarium studies across South Africa, aimed at clarifying Rubus taxonomy in the region with the help of DNA – ploidy estimation and assessment of reproductive mode. They have subsequently published their findings in two scientific papers: the first, in 2018, deals with Rubus in the Cape Floristic Region, while the second, in 2022, examines the entire country, and is thus more relevant for the purposes of American bramble. They found that the upright form of what had been previously referred to as Rubus cuneifolius is a separate species, and in a separate section of the genus, to the sprawling form. Unfortunately they were unable to put species names to these, and refer to them only as Rubus section Cuneifolii (upright) and Rubus section Arguti (sprawling). Rubus section Cuneifolii is found predominantly in KwaZulu-Natal, while Rubus section Arguti is more widespread, occurring predominantly in KZN, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. Furthermore, the Arguti plants could be divided into two commonly occurring forms. Interestingly, both Rubus section Cuneifolii and Rubus section Arguti are “facultatively apomictic” (meaning that they can reproduce asexually) – apparently this indicates that both of these invasive Rubus are in fact hybrids, not true species; in discussion with Dr Sochor, he felt it was likely that such hybridization had occurred in North America, under natural circumstances, prior to the plants being imported into South Africa. Dr Sochor and colleagues also identified two hybrids of which one parent was Arguti and the other was one of two indigenous Rubus species, but did not find any hybrids of Cuneifolii.

*Left: Dr Grant Martin*. Centre: *Rubus section Arguti invading young pine plantation, southern KZN (photo by Grant Martin).* Right: Dr Costas Zachariades.

A year prior to the publication of the 2022 paper discussed above, Dr Bram van de Beek, a Dutch theologian who had devoted many years to the study of Rubus in South Africa, published an article focusing on the Cape, although he examined material from across the country, using only taxonomic features (i.e. no ploidy or reproductive methods). Collaborating with Dr Mark Widrlechner, an expert on Rubus taxonomy at the University of Iowa, they identified one of the two sprawling forms (Rubus section Arguti) as Rubus originalis and described the other as a new species, Rubus revealii. For the upright form, they identified a few (“stronger”) plants from KZN as Rubus pascuus but used Rubus probabilis for most plants. Dr Sochor does not feel confident in these identifications; in general we have aligned our work with Dr Sochor rather than Dr van de Beek, but we are also working with Dr Widrlechner in the USA.

In order to familiarize ourselves with the South African Rubus flora (both alien and indigenous), we joined Dr Sochor on one of his fieldtrips to South Africa, in early 2020. Despite our initial confusion as non-botanists, we soon found it quite easy to distinguish between various species based on characteristics such as leaf shape and flower colour. This trip also gave us an opportunity to look for natural enemies present on both alien and indigenous Rubus species. This proved interesting, as we found many more species of insects and pathogens on the indigenous species than the alien ones – although this is expected, it does give an indication that many natural enemies of Rubus are specialized, and secondly that were we to introduce natural enemies from North America onto these alien Rubus plants in South Africa, they have the potential to reduce the invasiveness of these plants.

*Comparison of flowers and leaves of Rubus section Cuneifolii (top) and Rubus section Arguti (bottom). Photos: Michal Sochor.*

Current work and the way forward

What is the relevance of the recent taxonomic and phylogenetic studies discussed above to our biocontrol project? The lack of much hybridization, together with the weediness of the plants, led us to restrict our focus to invasive North American Rubus i.e. plants previously falling under “Rubus cuneifolius” in South Africa. In order to progress, we need to firstly understand how many species, and how much genetic variability exists in these species in South Africa. We hope that it allows us to find plants growing in the USA which are close matches to at least some of these invasive Rubus, and thereby find potential biocontrol agents (insects, mites and pathogens) which are compatible with the plants. To achieve the first goal, Dr Sochor agreed to undertake genetic analysis of these species – we therefore undertook a fieldtrip across KZN in early 2023 to collect as much genetic material and herbarium specimens as possible (the latter have been lodged in the Bews Herbarium at UKZN, Pietermaritzburg). This fieldtrip confirmed previous observations that the upright form (Rubus section Cuneifolii) occurs more commonly at high altitude (KZN Drakensberg), while the sprawling form (Rubus section Arguti) occurs more commonly at lower altitude (KZN Midlands). Dr Martin also opportunistically collected some specimens in the USA while on a fieldtrip there for other purposes. Dr Sochor has conducted some analysis of our specimens, and has concluded that while the upright form is genetically quite homogeneous and consistent with a single species/hybrid, the sprawling form in KZN consists of three species/microspecies/hybrids (we still need to sample Rubus section Arguti in other provinces). Furthermore, he did not find a close match between the South African and North American specimens sampled, and the North American samples displayed a high level of variability amongst themselves.

*Stem girdles caused by insect larvae on two indigenous Rubus species. Photos: Brett Mason.*

So the identification of North American plants which are genetically close to ours remains a critical step. One way to do this is to obtain genetic material from Rubus herbarium specimens in the USA which are morphologically similar to our invasive ones. Dr Sochor has found that leaf material from herbarium specimens, even those over 100 years old, can yield good DNA. Dr Widrlechner has agreed to assist in obtaining such material, and also in re-examining Rubus specimens of species said to be similar to ours. Bearing in mind that both Rubus section Cuneifolii and Rubus section Arguti in South Africa are hybrids, we may not find a perfect match among herbarium specimens in the US, but we hope this exercise gives us some direction. If so, we can transfer our attention to the field in the US – to areas where these herbarium specimens were originally collected. Again, it would be extremely helpful if a local taxonomist such as Dr Widrlechner could assist us to identify these plants in the field. From there, there are two options, viz. (i) to survey these plants for natural enemies, and to import such natural enemies into quarantine in South Africa; (ii) a better option would be to plant out South African material among genetically similar plants in the USA on which natural enemies are present, and allow these natural enemies to colonise our South African plants on their own. In this way we will be more likely to obtain potential biocontrol agents which are compatible with our plants, and thus more likely to be successful in the field in South Africa, should they prove to have a sufficiently narrow host range (i.e. do not attack native or commercial Rubus) to be safe for release in South Africa. Whether the US biosecurity authorities would permit us to plant out South African Rubus is uncertain, but we plan to apply for permission to do so.

There is a final spoke in the works, and that is a lack of current funding. Funding from DFFE: NRMP became more erratic in 2018, and dried up completely in 2023, with no prospect of revival in the short term. CBC itself has funded some of the work since then, but its means are limited. Adequate funding would allow the US work described above to be undertaken properly, and, should natural enemies be found there that show promise as biocontrol agents, to import these into South African quarantine in order to conduct host-range testing.

Funding notwithstanding, what seemed in the 1980s and 1990s as an intractable, complex situation is now resolving itself into a more manageable research project, with some light at the end of the tunnel due to improved understanding of Rubus taxonomy and phylogeny. It is not inconceivable that within the next 10 years, an effective biocontrol agent could be released for one or more of the invasive North American brambles in South Africa, resulting in reduced vigour and competitiveness of these plants, and correspondingly, more cost-effective management using non-biocontrol methods.

*Plant of Rubus section Cuneifolii. Photo: Michal Sochor.*

Authors:-
C. Zachariades, Agricultural Research Council’s Plant Protection Research Institute
G. Martin, Centre for Biological Control

Notes from the field
Roger Poole, Member Services Co-ordinator for NCT and Agro-Chemical Liaison Officer for the Timber Industry Pesticide Working Group (TIPWG), provided some useful notes on the chemical control of American bramble …

Bramble is a tricky one due to it having two stages of growth, these being the older stems one always sees and then there is secondary (new) growth you'll find inside the thicket. Timing is critical. Best months to spray are between February through to April as the plant is building up reserves for winter so absorption of herbicide is the most efficient.

The best herbicide is metsulfuron methyl, it is slow acting and gives the best results. If there are other invasive species within the area of treatment, then one can look at glyphosate or the picloram/fluroxypyr formulation.

Glyphosate is not the best but does work on bramble that has been cut down. Depending on the size of the thickets one can apply it with a high pressure unit (bakkie sakkie) or tractor boom sprayer. Knapsacks only work on bramble that a person can walk through so you’ll have to cut the thicket with either a brush cutter or tractor-mounted slasher.

Aerial application has been done previously but water volumes need to be checked and applied as per label due to the need for penetration to ensure the mixture gets through the thicket and results in a good coverage.

Forestry at the heart of Malawi community project

*Tafika volunteer, Major, who manages the nursery, has managed grow 9,000 seedlings this year*.

Small African Community Based Organisations struggle with creating a sustainable financial base. Here is how Tafika Youth Organisation of Malawi developed an innovative, synergistic, forestry approach to solving this problem while at the same time meeting their community’s needs.

Tafika were new to forestry and took advice from the Malawi Department of Forests, Chinteche based, Ripple Africa and, via their link with Scotland Malawi Partnership, UK based forestry expert Andrew Heald. They planted a 30-acre community forest with fast growing pine trees (Pinus oocapa). These trees take about 12-15 years to grow to maturity and will be harvested two acres at a time generating around $70 000 to $100,000 a year. The trees coppice so the forest is always re-growing.

*Pinus oocapa seedlings ready for planting out.*

With widespread deforestation and an exploding population (Malawi’s population doubled in the last 20 years) the local community desperately need quality timber for building and roofing houses and they also need firewood as almost all Malawians are still forced to cook with wood. This commercial forest helps fulfil local demand and educates the community on the value of forestry.

*Tafika Agricultural Manager Malumbo Muntali stands next to one of the 14,000 2-year-old trees already in the Tafika forest*.

To pay for the land Tafika asked investors to lend them $28,000 in return for getting fully grown trees in 12-15 years’ time, the more money the investor gave the more trees they will receive in future. In this way Tafika didn’t need to have its own capital to start the project. Tafika volunteers cleared the land, created a tree nursery next to the Tafika Office and grew and planted the seedlings in order to keep costs down.
Trees need a lot of looking after in the first two years of life and a large forest also needs security to make sure the trees are not stolen or set on fire. Tafika didn’t have the cash to pay for labourers or security guards for 12-15 years while they waited for their trees to grow. To solve this they worked with Mzuzu based agribusiness MTF who provided training and $18,000 of funding for three polytunnel greenhouses. US based water NGO, Formidable Joy, contributed by provided funding for a borehole to be built at the site.

*Tafika Director Shupo Kumwenda with one of the greenhouses being erected by MTF*.

The greenhouses are owned by Tafika but each greenhouse is managed by a team of five women. Each woman works 2-4 hours a week in the greenhouse growing Grade A tomatoes, with each greenhouse producing two crops a year. MTF signed a distribution deal with Tafika and come to the greenhouses to buy all the tomatoes the women produce, at a fixed rate. Tafika reserve some of the revenue to pay for the guard and to build a fund for maintenance. Each woman involved will make around $4-500 a year from their share of the tomato sales.

In return for being given this opportunity the women agreed to give up 2-3 hours a week to weed and trim trees in the forest. In this way Tafika has created a sustainable, zero cost mechanism to maintain their forest, while at the same time providing 15 women with sustainable livelihoods. One of Tafika’s other project partners (ZMCP) liked the plan so much they provided $3,000 to fund a fourth greenhouse and Tafika successfully applied for a sensitive development loan from NGO Lend with Care to build a fifth greenhouse.

Tafika plan to use surplus income from these five greenhouses to save to buy another, and have worked out they have room for 10 greenhouses on the site. This will eventually provide 50 women with a sustainable income, while at the same time ensuring the Tafika forest is well maintained.

*The first group of women to benefit from growing tomatoes in a greenhouse*.

Commented Tafika’s Director, Shupo Kumwenda: “We are so happy with our forest project, not only will this be a massive benefit to our community in years to come, but right now our youth volunteers have started to understand the value of trees not only to the local environment but also in terms of what their future value can bring to the community. We want to thank our partners for their efforts, we can see our future right here now.”

Kevin Simpson from MTF, said: "Tafika are showing a great way forward for Community Organisations in Malawi. We are delighted to work with them because they share our vision to see Malawians empowered to earn their own living and secure a sustainable future for themselves. This kind of long-term thinking and careful investment is exactly what Malawi needs."

Tomatoes provide much needed cash flow for the community forestry project.

Formidable Joy, a U.S.-based water NGO drilled a new borehole for the project, complemented by the installation of a solar pump by Malawi Fruits. The NGO has drilled 20 new boreholes and repaired nine pumps in schools, villages, and health centres within Tafika's catchment area.

In 2023, Formidable Joy further contributed by funding a district-wide Cholera educational outreach campaign led by Tafika, which included the distribution of preventative supplies during the deadliest Cholera outbreak in the history of the country.

For more info contact: Mick James zmcpcharity@gmail.com

Lüneberg farmer bags 2023 Kwanalu young farmer title

Lüneberg timber, maize, soy bean and free range cattle farmer, Heiko Gevers is the 2023 KwaZulu-Natal Agricultural Union (Kwanalu) Young Farmer of the Year. Gevers’ remarkable precision, keen eye for maximizing profitability, and unwavering commitment to community development captured the judges' attention.

“Each year, we're inspired by the fresh approach of a new generation of farmers who blend innovation with tried-and-true farming practices to create resilient businesses in the face of industry challenges,” said Kwanalu CEO, Sandy La Marque.

Gevers (28) stood out for his organised, systematic and detail-oriented approach to farming. As the farm manager on his parents' farm, he has implemented precise farming practices, ensuring economic sustainability and optimal yields.

“Proper attention and meticulous record-keeping are paramount in our business. Spreadsheets are my trusted companions, used for everything from grazing schedules to rotation planning and chemical usage,” said Gevers, sharing his approach.

The Toyota/Kwanalu Young Farmer of the Year 2023 competition is open to farmers under the age of 40, male or female who are full members of their provinces agricultural unions. Judges evaluate applicants at the provincial level, assessing various aspects of their business, including their vision for the farm's future and their practical application of management philosophy.

Using his business acumen and innovative mindset, Gevers is continuously exploring ways to adapt operations to enhance profit margins and ensure long-term economic sustainability.

“I'm always on the lookout for innovative ways to refine our product for the market and exploring new crops that could be a lucrative commodity. If we expand the business, we can create more job opportunities for our local community,” said Gevers.

Gevers' deep compassion shines through his commitment to the people reliant on the farm. He consistently initiates community upliftment projects, assists local residents in planting maize, and supports the local school with various needs, including levelling of the soccer field and constructing goalposts.

“Heiko's genuine care for people and the farm is evident in everything he does. He embodies the spirit of innovation, community support, and sustainable farming that the KZN Kwanalu Young Farmer of the Year represents, making him a true champion for the agricultural industry,” says La Marque.

“As farmers, we are constantly surviving new challenges; whether environmental, economic or political. But we are united in that we are aligned to a common goal, providing for the nation. It is of the utmost importance to have good working relationships with neighbours and the community to ensure a long-term farming future. At the end of the day, we have to look after one another,” said Gevers.

The KwaZulu-Natal Agricultural Union, Kwanalu, is a representative organization voice of the rural and agricultural sectors in the province. It’s viewpoints are based on submissions from its members and it is committed to a sustainable and profitable future for Agriculture within KwaZulu-Natal and the greater South Africa.

For more information on Kwanalu, visit www.kwanalu.co.za or call 033 342 9393.

Bell focuses on agriculture & forestry with JCB

Bell’s stand at Nampo 2022, featuring some of the JCB agriculture equipment.

Bell Equipment Group has reached an agreement to distribute and support the JCB Agriculture product range in South Africa. Coinciding with this announcement, and to bring the desired focus on meeting their customers’ needs, Bell Equipment has established a separate business unit – Bell Equipment Forestry & Agriculture – to service these segments.

According to Bell Equipment Director for Products and Marketing, Stephen Jones, the JCB Agriculture product range strengthens Bell’s focus on servicing farming customers in South Africa. He said that JCB wanted to partner with a recognised local brand that would have the ability to provide countrywide support for agriculture customers for the long term.

“Both Bell and JCB started their respective businesses servicing users of material handling equipment in the agriculture industry, and we understand that the business requirements, market demands, and customer expectations of these customers are distinctly different to those of the mining and construction industries,” said Stephen.

“Our objective is to earn the support of the farming community through focus and the addition of tailored solutions for broader on-farm material handling provided by JCB Agriculture. Coupled with Bell’s existing product line, focused predominantly on sugar cane farmers and timber growers, we believe this presents an extremely appealing option for the agricultural industry,” he said.

Bell distributes and supports a fleet of forestry equipment including haulers, loaders, skidders, feller bunchers and grapples.

“The current Bell agriculture products are primarily focused on the sugar and forestry industries with haulers, loaders, skidders, feller bunchers and grapples from both the traditional Bell line as well as the Matriarch brand. We intend to increase focus on these lines by placing all product that will service this customer segment under the Bell Forestry and Agriculture brand.”

Bell Forestry and Agriculture will operate separately from Bell Equipment Sales South Africa, which is focused on the mining and construction industries, but will continue to use certain BESSA branches as selling and servicing agents where it makes sense, and they are well positioned to service local farmers.

In other areas across the country Bell Forestry and Agriculture is actively looking for locally based partners to ensure in-community support of farmers for both the Bell and JCB ranges of agriculture products.

Both the Bell Equipment Forestry and Agriculture range and the JCB Agriculture range were on show at NAMPO in Bothaville in May.

Find our more: www.bellequipment.com/forestryag

Agroforestry the sustainable way at Chevy Chase

The Chevy Chase leadership group, with James Ballantyne of Umsonti in the front row extreme right.

An agroforestry approach is providing a rural Eastern Cape community with a chance to develop and farm their land more productively, creating jobs, skills and opportunities along the way …

Chevy Chase is the unlikely name for a rural Eastern Cape community located between Mount Fletcher and Maclear (now Nqanqa Rhu). Like many rural communities in South Africa the people of Chevy Chase have access to ancestral land but very few job opportunities as they are far from markets and have little or no infrastructure. As a result the local economy is based on subsistence agriculture. However over-grazing has reduced the potential of the land to support livestock, while rampant alien plant invasion is further eroding agricultural potential and using up precious water resources.

In 2010 the Chevy Chase community got involved in a European Union funded rural development project known as ‘Thina Sinako’, which is when they started working with a dedicated group of rural development practitioners who went on to establish Umsonti Community Forestry NPC.

Through the help of Umsonti, the Chevy Chase community, under the Leadership of Chief Montoeli Lehana of the Batlokoa Traditional Council, approached the Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR) for funding from their LandCare Program for a forestry project.

The area identified for the forestry project was fenced to control livestock, and work commenced to clear the wattle jungle and plant grasses for grazing pending the completion of an EIA and the granting of a Water Use License for the establishment of the correct commercial tree species for the site.

The nitrogen left in the soil from the wattle and the successful exclusion of livestock meant the grass sown by the Landcare staff under the supervision of the DRDAR grew well and thanks to the summer rains, by winter the community was able to provide good grazing for their livestock.

In 2019, on the back of this initiative, the DRDAR approached Umsonti with an ambitious plan to start a conservation agriculture project with the community on adjacent agricultural lands which had been standing idle for over 10 years. A community Trust was formed with the six villages that make up Chevy Chase in 2020.

With agricultural equipment purchased by Government (initially a no till planter and a spray rig) and borrowed from local farmers, 100 ha of land was fenced off and 27 ha was successfully established to yellow maize by early December 2020. This yielded around 20 tons of maize (which was sold to the community, given to members in lieu of work, and 9.6 tons sold to BKB) and stubble for community cattle to graze at the end of winter / early spring when insufficient grass is available before the first rains. A cattle auction was also organized with the help of Umsonti and Meat Naturally in May 2020 which resulted in the sale of 282 head of cattle, bringing in R 2.27 million to the community. This also assisted with reducing the pressure on the veld from overstocking, meaning survival rates of the remaining animals increased.

Clearing wattle jungle
In the initial phase of removing the wattle jungle the cleared wattle is separated into usable poles, firewood and pulp logs for sale. The money generated from these activities is ploughed back into the project allowing clearing work to continue.

In 2012, with funds from Thina Sinako, a soil survey was conducted on the land earmarked by the community for the forestry project. Due to the amount of seed in the soil, the wattle has kept on coming back on the ‘cleared’ areas. Considering the high cost of spraying the small trees or cutting them out, the work teams adopted a different approach and it was decided to line out the wattle jungle already growing there using the ‘boere metode’ to give the trees space to grow and produce more poles, firewood and pulp in the years to come. This serves to generate some cash and get the wattle jungle under control, pending the granting of a Planting Permit for the establishment of a proper plantation. Wattle coming back in riparian and other sensitive areas are permanently removed and grass seed sown in these areas to allow for establishment of additional grazing areas of good grass for livestock, and the roots to bind the soil to reduce erosion.

*The clearing of jungle wattle at Chevy Chase is self-funding through the sale of pulp, poles and fire wood.*

*Lined out wattle with inter-row sprayed with Triclon .. putting a wattle jungle to use at Chevy Chase, while awaiting a*
*planting permit to establish a proper plantation.*

“The sale of firewood and pulpwood is absolutely necessary, as the income from these activities has helped with diesel (Government doesn’t supply diesel) and equipment maintenance,” said James Ballantyne, one of the directors of Umsonti, who has been working closely with the community for a number of years. “If it wasn’t for the wattle clearing and the income from this, there would have been no maize production, as a lot of money is spent on diesel for ripping, lime spreading, ploughing, spraying and planting.”

The community is budgeted to be clearing roughly one hectare of wattle per week, translating into around 48 ha per year. There are three teams doing the initial wattle clearing. Each team comprises a chainsaw operator and three people stripping bark and stacking branches and bark in brushlines while utilizable timber (poles, pulp and firewood) is left in the middle of the ‘indimas’.

The pulp timber is kept separate from the large logs of firewood timber which get sold to the local community. Depending on distance from the project, the 1.5 ton loads of firewood are sold for between R500 and R1 200. The income (around R 10 000 per month) is used to purchase diesel for the tractors to transport staff from the community to the forestry project.

“The philosophy of paying for a product is being entrenched in the community,” said James. “The ‘everything for free’ (EFF) model does not work.”

Wattle pulpwood logs are sold to either NCT Durban Woodchips (when tickets are available) or PG Bison. The Chevy Chase LandCare project has the potential to generate between one to two truckloads (30 tons) of pulpwood per month.

*Pulp wood extracted from a cleared wattle jungle is loaded by hand and sold to NCT Durban Woodchips.*

The funds generated from pulpwood sales have been used to assist with purchasing diesel for the ripping, liming, ploughing, planting, fertilizing and spraying of maize, as Government pays for all the inputs (equipment, fencing, seed, lime, fertilizer and chemicals), but not for diesel or equipment maintenance. The people working on the maize are paid as part of the LandcCare project.

Environmental considerations
Roads have been planned using natural or existing routes such as cattle tracks and wattle extraction routes that have been used for decades by the community. Bridges across streams have been made from rocks or wooden poles so tractors and bakkies can cross safely and without causing any disturbance to the rivers.

“Ultimately, concrete pipes and culverts will be constructed, but with the shortage of funds, we have had to make a plan to minimise the impact on the environment,” said James.

The key to sustainable rural development at Chevy Chase is the agroforestry approach i.e. integrating agricultural activities with forestry, maintains James. This has allowed cash generated from pulpwood and firewood sales to be ploughed into clearing of alien invasive plants and crop production which has provided winter food for livestock – all of which has provided an opportunity to improve management of the land. In addition these activities have created a vehicle – in the form of a community trust - to mobilise community resources and efforts which has the potential to create further opportunities going forward.

“The formalisation of structures and the investment by Government provides an opportunity for sustainable development, which creates jobs and benefits for the community both formally and informally,” says James.

*Trustees outside FNB Mount Fletcher where they opened a bank account for their farming business.*

UMSONTI
Developing rural communities through forestry and associated businesses
Tel: 074 154 4430 / 074 173 5583 James Ballantyne: 079 516 1261 Email: info@umsonti.org.za www.umsonti.org.za

Paraquat or not?

Tracer belts prepared by Paraquat before burning. The Paraquat spray causes the above ground vegetation to dry out, so they can be burnt to create mini-firebreaks. After the first frost the grass in between the tracer belts will dry off and will be burnt. The presence of the tracer belts makes this second burn a much safer operation. Image © Roger Poole

Paraquat - widely used in South African forestry to prepare tracer belts before burning firebreaks - is facing world-wide bans, forcing foresters to reach for the old-fashioned hoe. GAYNOR LAWSON reports.

It sounds so benign: “A non-selective herbicide - an aqueous solution contact herbicide for the control of annual grasses and annual broadleaf weeds in crops as listed and as a sugarcane desiccant. Inactivated on contact with the soil.” But this listed herbicide that contains Paraquat, “could have killed 2000 people” when maliciously used by a disgruntled employee to poison a tank of milk in the Cape in 2017, according to a News24 article. It is highly toxic.

Locally, Paraquat is extensively used to create tracer-belts as part of a fire management programme to prevent fires running out of control during the burning of firebreaks. The herbicide creates a boundary area devoid of vegetation before burning takes place. It is considered cost-effective, efficient and useful as it only desiccates the above-ground part of the vegetation (it leaves the root stock below ground unharmed), allowing for regeneration with the rainy season and thus preventing erosion or invasion by alien plants.

First produced for commercial purposes in 1961, Paraquat remains one of the world’s most commonly used herbicides, despite its potentially lethal impact on humans, either through deliberate poisoning or simply by working irresponsibly with it. It may be airborne when applied as a fine spray and can be spread through contact with clothing so it requires special training to ensure safe handling by users.

China reportedly experiences 5,000 deaths from Paraquat poisoning annually, although whether this is through accidental or deliberate poisoning is unconfirmed - Paraquat is known to be used in suicide attempts. It reputedly doubles the risk of Parkinson’s disease in those who come into contact with it, and the Michael J Fox Foundation issued an anti-Paraquat appeal on its website in October last year (the popular actor’s much-publicised battle with Parkinson’s has brought about heightened awareness of the disease): “Take action today to ban Paraquat. Your support can help protect people from environmental exposure to a known pesticide that increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease. We need your help to educate your Senators and Representatives…”

Spraying Paraquat to create tracer belts … protective equipment and training is essential to ensure the safety of the operator. Image © Roger Poole

The appeal was posted in response to the reapproval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of several pesticides (including Paraquat) for use in the United States. The EPA reviews all herbicides and pesticides every 15 years to confirm they are safe for use, based on “assessments of human and environmental impact”. Despite its “well-documented harms”, the use of Paraquat in the United States “is at an all-time high, and it is one of only two pesticides still used in the United States that is either banned or being phased out in the European Union, China and Brazil”, according to the website.

Measures have indeed been put in place to control its availability. It cannot be bought or used in the UK (although, ironically, it is legally manufactured there), Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and the European Union (where it has been banned since 2007). It has been banned in Switzerland since 1989 because it is deemed too dangerous for use even when wearing protective clothing and equipment. In the USA, only commercially licensed users have access to it.

A complete international ban is apparently blocked by the US and developing nations whenever this is proposed. According to an article, “Poison on a plate”, which appeared in The Daily Maverick on 26 January this year, “It’s a shocking display of global north hypocrisy, allowing dangerous agrochemical companies to flood low- and middle-income countries for the financial gain and profit of European nations.”

The situation in South Africa
In South Africa, plantations certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) may not use Paraquat in any formulation that is available on the market. Gerrit Marais of the FSC Southern Africa Office, says: “Paraquat has been on the FSC Highly Hazardous list since the first pesticide policy was published way back in 2006. The figure below provides information on the reasons why this is done i.e., acute toxicity. Use of the product is thus not limited but prohibited unless it is approved, via a formal FSC process, for temporary emergency use. The South African forestry industry used to have a special derogation (exemption) for the use of this active ingredient and product, but this expired in 2020…Traditionally, the only alternative (to Paraquat) was to hoe the tracers by hand. This is, however, not ideal from an environmental perspective as hoeing often leads to erosion and thus this option – especially on steep slopes - is most undesirable. Some certificate holders have used other systemic herbicides (such as Glyphosate), but here too, the entire plant is killed and the risk of erosion is increased. The South African forestry industry is looking at other options…”

The stance of the Sustainable African Forest Assurance Scheme (SAFAS) – which has been endorsed by the other global certification body, PEFC - is that Paraquat can be used for tracer belt preparation, providing strict control/mitigation measures are in place. Steven Germishuizen, SAFAS general manager, says: “SAFAS supports the use of Paraquat from an environmental perspective because it is the best solution for fire management in grasslands. However, we acknowledge that it is highly toxic, so in accordance with our risk-based approach, we insist on strict precautions as far as training, use of PPE and application methods go.”

Craig Norris, NCT Forest Technology Manager, adds: “In addition to what Steve has said, we encourage an integrated approach to chemical use. In other words, the use of agrochemicals is the last choice of action and must be defendable. Agrochemicals can be detrimental to human and environmental health and will only be used after due consideration is given to other options/mitigation measures:
• Chemical control must be used in combination with above methods to minimise quantities used.
• Strategy for reduction of chemical use must be implemented.
• Chemical label specifications must be followed.
• Recommended safety, training, application procedures must be adhered to.

Steven comments: “We also encourage the use of technology, such as drones, to keep people away from the chemical. We strongly encourage exploration into environmentally suitable alternatives that are less toxic.” There is some experimentation with drone spraying currently underway in an attempt to cut humans out of the Paraquat-handling process almost completely.

The desiccated tracers have been burnt and are ready for the main break to be burnt once frosted. Image © Roger Poole

What is the history behind Paraquat use in SA?
According to Dr John Scotcher of ForestLore Consulting in a report written for the FSC in 2014: “Burning green grass is not possible and, in any event, adversely affects biodiversity. In order to improve the safety aspects of burning firebreaks, a system of fire tracer lines was introduced which entailed the hoeing or ploughing of two parallel strips of vegetation approximately one metre wide (the fire tracer line) and 30 metres apart during the late summer to early autumn. These tracer lines are now devoid of vegetation and are used as lines from which to burn the intervening 30 metres (the firebreak) during winter when the grass is dry.”

The report continues: “Approximately 30 years ago, the use of chemicals was introduced as an approach that could be used where mechanical methods such as hoeing, ploughing or use of a brush-cutter was impractical and dangerous to use … normally on steep and mountainous terrain. Paraquat was first used in South Africa in 1982 by the nature conservation agencies responsible for the management of high-altitude grasslands in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park, which is a registered World Heritage Site. The use of Paraquat in this mountainous region enabled the elimination of the historic use of hoed or ploughed tracer lines that resulted in soil loss and scars across the landscape, which even after 100 years are still visible to this day. Paraquat was soon adopted by the agriculture and forestry industry. Paraquat was ideal for use in conservation areas and later in no-till systems such as forestry and grazing lands since it only affects the foliage part of the sprayed plants, thus promoting intact root systems and preventing soil erosion. It also does not leach into groundwater since it is absorbed into clay particles and neutralised when it comes into contact with the soil … In the forestry industry, the use of Paraquat was seen as a best management practice because there was no need to continue with the damaging practice of hoeing or ploughing.”

The Forestry South Africa Environmental Guidelines for Commercial Plantations in South Africa (Version 4 2020, chapter 4) proposes the following approach to the preparation of firebreaks:

Mowing
Slashing
Burning
Desiccant chemicals (Paraquat) – on slopes greater than 20 per cent
Manual hoeing – now discontinued
Mechanical methods (ploughing) – now discontinued

The Wildland Fire Management Handbook for sub-Saharan Africa provides detailed advice on fire protection and advocates the use of ‘chemical surface sprays’ for the preparation of tracer lines i.e. Paraquat.

Paraquat may still be used by the man in the street, although a global shortage because of it being discontinued in many countries has sent prices rocketing. Is there an alternative?

Roger Poole, chairman of the Timber Industry Pesticide Working Group or TIPWG, says: “The forestry industry in collaboration with Professor Keith Little of Nelson Mandela University (NMU) has been researching and testing alternatives for the past nine years since the FSC first indicated that Paraquat would be prohibited. One alternative, pelargonic acid, has shown results similar to Paraquat as a desiccant and was heading for registration under Act 36 of 1947. Unfortunately, the manufacturer was involved with a company buy-out and the new owners changed the formulation of the original product that had been tested. Bridging trials were done to compare the new formulation to the original pelargonic acid; sadly the new formulation did not show favourable results and could not be registered. Glufosinate-ammonium is an active ingredient that is used in agriculture, classed as a partly systemic contact herbicide that is an alternative for tracer preparation - but supervision is imperative as over-application could result in it being more systemic than contact and grass root systems could be severely damaged. TIPWG has stated that Glyphosate formulations should not be used for tracer preparation as this active ingredient could result in a complete kill and thus erosion will occur, especially on steep terrain.”

Dr Scotcher adds in another factor - the human element of the spraying process: “When terrain is steep, the person spraying naturally slows down to navigate safely up or down the hillside, resulting in a higher application rate per unit area.”

Dr Gerhard Verdoorn, Operations and Stewardship Manager for CropLife SA, comments: “There is currently no herbicide with the properties of Paraquat apart from diquat which is also a bipyridinium compound with high toxicity. It is not registered for the purposes of industrial vegetation management like Paraquat is. A possibility is pelargonic acid but the dosage rates required to desiccate plants is much higher than what was originally anticipated and that makes it a very costly option. Furthermore, it is not registered in South Africa. Attempts with many other herbicides have all failed to emulate the effects of Paraquat. Glyphosate is registered for such purposes as making firebreaks but due to its systemicity, it kills plants completely which leads to terrible erosion.”

When asked about the slower progress of workers on steep slopes leading to over-application, he disagrees, saying: “Glyphosate is super-systemic and even with a low dosage (lower than label directions) it will kill plants completely, especially broad-leaved plants. Some of the tough monocotyledons like Cynodon will survive but most of the softer grass species are wiped out completely. Another issue is the problem of resistance development when sub-optimal dosages of Glyphosate are used for chemical mowing; although it is on labels of some Glyphosate-containing herbicides, it is the best catalyst for resistance development I have ever heard of and the crop sector is currently battling with Glyphosate resistance (Amaranthus palmeri, Amaranthus hybridus, Conyza bonariensis, etc).”

A desiccated tracer break ready for burning.

Is a total ban an over-reaction?
“People are very quick to point fingers at the use of pesticides but are sadly ignorant of potentially toxic products they use daily at home and, which, if used incorrectly, can be fatal,” says Roger Poole. “Everyone loves coffee, but do they know that the caffeine in coffee's LD50 is 150-200 mg/kg?” {LD50 is the amount of a substance, given all at once, that causes the death of 50% of a group of test subjects; it is a way of determining the short-term poisoning potential or acute toxicity of a substance}.

“So why has no one died from coffee? Simply put, the risk of consuming lethal quantities in your morning cup of java is not possible so the risk of poisoning is reduced. Consider household cleaning detergents, has anyone ever read the label or safety data sheet of the detergents they have in their home? Are these locked away so the uninformed cannot access them? Are certain products kept separately so that they cannot react with each other? Bleach is one of the most commonly used products found in households throughout South Africa, but did you know that if bleach and vinegar come into contact with each other their reaction can cause chlorine gas? Whatever product you are using at home or in the workplace, be it a pesticide or a detergent, they can all be toxic if used or applied incorrectly.” His message is loud and clear - use Paraquat correctly to minimise potential risks!

Is a total ban on Paraquat likely in the near future?
The Rotterdam Convention is scheduled to take place this year, although with the global COVID-19 pandemic, whether it goes ahead is uncertain. Poole says: “Paraquat is one of the many listed active ingredients for consideration to be banned worldwide and has been listed numerous times but never seems to be banned due to pressure from the large world economies. We wait in anticipation for the outcome, as we've done in the past.”

A year later on…
It’s a year since an article entitled 'Weaning the forestry industry from its paraquat reliance' by Jacqui Meyer appeared in SA Forestry magazine. According to the article, “the next step is applying for an Emergency Registration under Act 36 of 1947, which Dr Gerhard Verdoorn of CropLife SA is currently assisting TIPWG with. With CropLife’s support and the information obtained from the bridging trials, we hope to have pelargonic acid available for the 2021 summer rainfall area fire season.”

Well, that was in March 2020, and in April 2021, Dr Verdoorn was doubtful about the predictions - for this fire season at least. “I am not sure this is going to materialise… if we are able to get our hands on pelargonic acid. It is quite expensive … and I wonder if it will make the grade for the timber industry.”

In the meantime, creating tracer belts using mechanical methods such as brush-cutters and tractor-operated grass-slashers is the norm, with some landowners and companies using Glufosinate-ammonium. “It’s been very difficult, with manual clearing and a return to traditional hoeing on flat terrain,” says Simon Thomas, Operations Manager for KZN FPA. So, what will the situation be by next year’s fire season? Is a total switch to drone-spraying a feasible option? Only time will tell.