Forbs, grasses
High
Moderate-high ($1000–$5000/gross)
Low/no risk
Low-moderate risk
Low-moderate risk
Low (erosion, wildlife, habitat)
Overview
Manual removal of weeds by hand or using hand tools (hereafter referred to as manual removal) is one of the most common techniques used across the state. The goal of this technique is to remove entire plants, including their roots, to the point where they cannot resprout. Manual removal is not recommended for species that can regenerate from vegetative structures left behind underground. Weed species that reproduce only by seed are generally easier to control with manual removal than are weed species that can reproduce vegetatively.
Weeds are removed by pulling or digging up the plant from the soil. Using a tool often provides a better grip on the plant or provides a fulcrum to leverage the plant and roots out of the soil. This technique is used by both volunteers and professionals and is often the best non-chemical method to eliminate nascent weed populations as they are discovered. Manual removal can be very time- and labor-intensive and therefore more costly compared to other techniques, especially in the absence of volunteer labor.
Lightweight, low-tech tools needed for using this approach on small plants can be carried to remote areas without road access or areas that are too steep for livestock grazing, though steeper areas require more experienced workers for safety reasons. Larger, heavier tools, like weed wrenches, are needed for larger plants. Examples of tools commonly employed in manual removal include:
- Your hand
- Dandelion/forked weeder
- Digging bar
- Garden fork/spading fork
- Hori-hori soil knife
- Lineman’s pliers
- Mattock/Pulaski/pickaxe
- Shovel/trenching shovel/sharpshooter shovel
- Weed wrench
- Chain and winch
Which tool you select can make a big difference in how successfully you can control a species. There are many tools to choose from. Beyond just using your hand to pull a plant, a few of the most popular are described below.
A dandelion or forked weeder is a popular weeding tool for smaller, herbaceous (non-woody) species with a tap root in loose soil. It is inserted into the soil and used to pry out the taproot (it is less useful for plants with fibrous or spreading roots). A hori-hori soil knife is also very helpful for removing smaller plants without breaking them at their base. This tool can be used to dig out smaller weeds or to sever the shoot from the root (see Severing Roots). A garden or spading fork can be used to remove plants with fibrous root systems such as bunchgrasses, or even shrubs with limited, shallow root balls (like planted ornamentals) and works best with loose or moist soil. Lineman’s pliers are often used by field workers to provide extra grip for pulling plants with sturdy stalks in drier soils (e.g., removing individual bolting starthistle or knapweed plants).
Shovels, trenching shovels, and sharpshooter shovels are some of the most commonly used hand tools for manual removal of larger plants and shrubs. They are especially useful in providing extra cutting and prying power needed to remove perennials with more developed roots under loose or moist soil conditions. A digging bar can be used to remove plants from cobbly or rocky soils where shovels or lighter-duty tools cannot penetrate the soil surface. These bars can be shortened in a machine shop to reduce weight for controlling populations that required extended hiking to access. The long form is a heavy-duty tool that provides more leverage but can more easily injure the user or other workers if proper attention to the tool and surroundings are not observed. A mattock, pickaxe or Pulaski can be used to pry out larger perennial bunchgrasses like fountaingrass, pampasgrass, or jubatagrass, or large perennial herbaceous species like fennel. These tools are most effective for removing species with shallow root systems in drier soils but can also take out some more deeply-rooted plants.
The weed wrench is useful for uprooting shrubs or small trees like broom species and privet. It works best when a main stem is accessible at ground level. Larger woody weeds can be often be pulled from the ground (especially in moist soil) using a chain that is securely wrapped around the main stem and attached to a hand-winch that is secured to a much larger tree nearby. Caution should be taken by standing clear to a distance greater than the length of the chain in case it breaks as pressure is applied.
How to Use
Manual removal can be effective for annuals, biennials, and perennials and works best under moist soil conditions. This section will not provide exact prescriptions for how to use tools but will provide guidance on how to select tools for specific environments and types of plants. Timing of manual removal is key and should occur before seed set and, most importantly, seed release.
Annual forbs can be pulled by hand or with hand tools, though many herbaceous species with fleshy stems (e.g., sowthistle) are prone to breaking off when being pulled, resulting in incomplete removal. Make sure to grab plants at their base when pulling and to assist with a digging tool if a plant is prone to breaking off. For fibrous-stemmed plants, try using lineman’s pliers to improve your grip. Annual grasses can be removed when young with a garden fork or, more efficiently, by hoeing (see Scraping: Scuffle Hoes).
Perennial bunchgrasses can be removed effectively with a pickaxe, mattock, or Pulaski if care is taken to remove all tillers. This technique is counterproductive for sod-forming species when sod cannot be entirely removed.
Perennial shrubs, trees, and vines are more difficult to remove as whole plants and should be targeted as young plants or seedlings. Weed wrenches can be used for older, woody plants. Clear obstructions away from the base of the plant in order to securely fasten the jaws to the main stem at ground level and provide room for pulling back on the tool. Older perennials have more developed root systems that can resprout if not completely removed. Vines should not be removed by digging or pulling unless all roots and stem pieces can be removed.
Seed bank longevity of target species does not generally affect success of this technique if control efforts are maintained consistently over multiple, consecutive years. In California, weeds that germinate in the winter can be more challenging to remove selectively than those that germinate in the warm season because the majority of native species also germinate in the cooler fall, winter, and spring months, making selective removal more difficult. Neither seed production nor flowering season have much of an effect on how well manual removal works, but a prolonged flowering period will mean that more effort will be required to achieve effective control through multiple rounds of removal.
Manual removal becomes dramatically less practical as the patch size to control becomes larger. This can be somewhat mitigated by having a large labor force and multiple, consecutive years of consistent control.
Manual removal can be very effective for weed populations that are a considerable distance from roads, but this also assumes smaller areas of infestation due to logistical constraints of travel and transportation of tools, water, and safety gear for workers. Weed populations in steeper terrain are not well-suited for this technique due to erosion concerns created by forcibly removing roots. Worker safety is also a concern in this scenario, though in certain cases small or scattered populations can be targeted if safe access is available.
Smooth and cobbly soils generally do not impede manual tool removal, but rocky soils can sometimes prevent complete removal of underground structures. Weeds can be easier to remove in muddy soils, but access may be more difficult and damage to habitat may be an issue. Plants may also readily re-root if left on the surface of muddy soils. This is also true for marsh and wetland habitats where muddy soils are common.
Density of a targeted invasive plant should not impact effectiveness of manual removal, but higher target plant densities will require more intensive control efforts as individuals are less likely to be detected by workers. For native plant cover, there is a trade off with higher cover providing more potential to outcompete weeds following control, while also increasing the chance of non-target damage and reducing detectability of target plants.
Non-Chemical Weed Control: Whole Plant Removal Using Manual Tools Henry DiRocco from Cal-IPC on Vimeo.
Special Tips
Fill in holes created by manual removal both to minimize regrowth of root fragments left behind from incomplete removal and to mitigate soil disturbance.
If plants are pulled at flowering and during seed set, seeds may still be viable. Collect and transport (or mulch in sealed bags on site) any plant material that may mature seed. If material is being transported from a site, use heavy duty garbage bags to avoid spreading seed along access routes. In backcountry areas where removal of materials is impractical, plants can be stacked in pyramids with roots upward to ensure that roots dry out. It may also make it easier to relocate previously treated areas for follow-up work in the future.
When using a weed wrench to remove a large woody plant from moist soil, place a flat piece of metal or strong wood under the fulcrum to keep it from sinking into the soil. A saw may be useful for removing the upper part of the plant in order to access the main stem for removing the roots. Be sure to leave sufficient stem for grabbing with the weed wrench and your hands, generally two feet.
A leaf or garden rake can be used to collect large seeds (e.g., from goatgrass) or grass thatch (e.g., from bromes or medusahead) for disposal. Raking with a fixed-tooth rake can be used to remove pieces of sprawling or vining weeds like English ivy.
Optimal Conditions for Use
Optimal conditions for manual control techniques include a well-trained and consistent labor source, easy site access, moist soils, flat to moderate slopes, small target populations, weed species that are annual or biennial or young perennials with less-developed root systems, species that cannot resprout from vegetative fragments, and species that have gone to seed. Manual removal can be especially useful when fine-scale selectivity is required due to the presence of cultural artifacts or rare species of plants or animals.
Caveats
Do not use manual removal methods for any species that is a prolific resprouter from underground structures (e.g., Japanese knotweed) unless that species can be entirely removed both aboveground and belowground from a site. Attempts at manual removal can make the problem worse. Disturbance from digging can also flush the existing seedbank of a weed, which is a detriment if left untreated but can also be used as a strategy for certain species to remove future generations of plants.
Potential Hazards to Humans, Environment, and Cultural Resources
Human hazards. Low to moderate risk. There is an inherent risk of human injury in using hand tools due to potential injury from heavy or sharp tools and the presence of large numbers of potentially inexperienced workers. Risks can be exacerbated when working in certain locations, such as roadsides where vehicle hazards are present, and rough terrain or extended hikes where the potential for injury during foot travel is increased. Repetitive stress injury and back strain is also possible from extended use of hand tools.
Cultural resources. Low to moderate risk. Work can be sited accurately to avoid known cultural artifacts. However, soil disturbance associated with manual removal, especially when tools are employed, still has potential to damage sensitive cultural resources.
Habitat. Low to moderate risk. In thick cover with limited visibility of the soil surface, there is a higher risk of damage to non-target plant and animal species. Also, the risk that weed workers can track or move weed seeds and soil pathogens on clothing, tools, and boots is higher than for some other techniques due to the close physical interaction with target plants. Larger crew sizes associated with manual removal activities increase risk.
Sensitive species. Low to moderate risk. Take note of and avoid nesting animal species and sensitive plant species.
Erosion. Low to moderate risk. If soil is disturbed by plant removal, then there is a risk of erosion. Erosion risk is higher on steeper slopes. Fill in holes left from root removal and cover exposed soil surfaces with litter or other plant material to minimize erosion. Level of erosion is directly correlated with density of the target population being removed.
Consider Combining with the Following Non-Chemical Methods
Manual removal can be combined with any other weed control technique. The flush of weed seed emergence following soil disturbance associated with this technique may be particularly well suited to control with methods that are effective and efficient at killing seedlings, thereby killing two generations of weeds in a single season. Manual removal can also be useful following large-scale activities or less selective techniques like mowing or broadcast herbicide application to remove late emerging individuals and resprouts.
Large pampasgrass and jubatagrass plants can be successfully removed by using a combination of manual removal and other cutting tools. First cut grass down to a low height with a brush cutter. Then cut a grid pattern vertically into the base of the plant through the root mass in the soil with either a chainsaw, reciprocating saw (see Cutting: Chainsaw), or Pulaski, creating manageably-sized grid cells. Finally use a mattock to pry out individual grid squares of grass. Flip so that roots are facing up to dry roots and eliminate re-establishment.
Don’t Use This Technique When/For
Manual removal should not be employed on large weed populations where control is unsustainable or on species with extensive root systems or underground vegetative reproductive structures. It should not be used on plants that are already dispersing seeds unless seeds can be contained or unless there is already a large soil seed bank.
References
Abella, S.R., A.A. Sauzo, C.M. Norman, and A.C. Newton. 2013. Treatment Alternatives and Timing Affect Seeds of African Mustard (Brassica tournefortii), an Invasive Forb in American Southwest Arid Lands. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6: 559–567.
Barto, E.K. and D. Cipollini. 2009. Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Removal Method Affects Native Establishment. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2: 230–236.
Concilio, A. 2013. Effectiveness and Cost of Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) Control at High Elevation. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6: 502–511.
DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser and M.J. Pitcairn. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-03. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. 78 pp.
Flory, S.L. and J. Lewis. 2009. Nonchemical Methods for Managing Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). Invasive Plant Science and Management 2: 301–308.
Judge, C.A., J.C. Neal and T.H. Shear. 2008. Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) Management for Restoration of Native Plant Communities. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1: 111–119.
Knight, M. and S. Orloff. October 2006. Successful Non-Chemical Management of Spotted Knapweed through Partnership. PowerPoint presentation at Cal-IPC Symposium, October 2006. Separate attachment: Excel Spreadsheet with raw plant number data by site.
Knight, M. Siskiyou Mariposa Lily Conservation Project, Final Report on Dyer’s Woad Treatment Test Plots. Klamath National Forest, June, 2008.
Jones, L.J., S.M. Ostoja, M.L. Brooks and M. Hutten. 2015. Short-term Response of Holcus lanatus L. (Common Velvetgrass) to Chemical and Manual Control at Yosemite National Park, USA. Invasive Plant Science and Management 8: 262–268.
MacDonald, N.W., L.M. Martin and C.K. Kapolka. 2013. Hand Pulling Following Mowing and Herbicide Treatments Increases Control of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe). Invasive Plant Science and Management 6: 470–497.
Leblanc, M. and C. Lavoie. 2017. Controlling Purple Jewelweed (Impatiens glandulifera): Assessment of Feasibility and Costs. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 10: 254–261.
Loeb, R.E., W. Peters and S. Ward. 2019. Management of the Invasive Shrub Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) for the Endangered Perennial Wild Dill (Perideridia americana). Invasive Plant Science and Management 12: 68–73.
Orloff, S. Statistical Analysis of Dyer’s Woad Treatment Test Plots. Klamath National Forest. March 2008.
Ray, C.A., J.J. Sherman and A.L. Godinho. 2018. Impacts and best management practices for erect veldtgrass (Ehrharta erecta). Invasive Plant Science and Management 11:40–48.
Ward, J.S. and T.L. Mervosh. 2012. Nonchemical and Herbicide Treatments for Management of Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). Invasive Plant Science and Management 5: 9–19.
DiTomaso, J.M. and D.W. Johnson (eds.). 2006. The Use of Fire as a Tool for Controlling Invasive Plants. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-01. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. 56 pp.
Authors and Credit
Lead Author: Travis Bean, University of California Extension Weed Specialist, UC Riverside
Co-authors:
Jutta Burger, Science Program Director, California Invasive
Plant Council
Pete Frye, Independent Contractor
Rachel Kesel, Resource Manager, Golden Gate National Parks
Conservancy
Marla Knight, retired, U.S. Forest Service
Dan Lubin, Environmental Scientist, California State Parks
Shani Pynn, Senior Plant Restoration Ecologist, Riverside
Corona Resource Conservation District
Additional Contributors:
John Kenny (volunteer)
Joan Miller (volunteer), Laguna Canyon Foundation
Tom Reyes, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Susan Schwartz, President, Friends of Five Creeks
Suggested Citation:
Bean, T., J. Burger, P. Frye, R. Kesel, M. Knight, D. Lubin and S. Pynn. Whole Plant Removal: Hand/Hand Tools. Weed Control User Tool (WeedCUT) – Methods for Managing Weeds in Wildlands. weedcut.ipm.ucanr.edu. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (UC IPM). Accessed [date].
Efficacies
| Rating | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | Flowering Period | ||
| Winter | No Information | ||
| Spring | No Information | ||
| Summer | No Information | ||
| Fall | No Information | ||
| Multiple Seasons | Fair | ||
| None | No Information | ||
| Plant | Germination | ||
| Winter | Good | ||
| Winter / Spring | Good | ||
| Spring / Summer | Good | ||
| Opportunistic | Good | ||
| Plant | Palatability | ||
| Yes | No Information | ||
| No | No Information | ||
| Partial | No Information | ||
| Plant | Plant Growth Form | ||
| Grass | Good | ||
| Forb | Excellent | ||
| Shrub | Good | ||
| Tree | Fair | ||
| Vine | Fair | ||
| Plant | Plant Type | ||
| Annual | Excellent | ||
| Biennial | Excellent | ||
| Perennial | Good | ||
| Plant | Propagule Production | ||
| Low (<1000/square meter) | Excellent | ||
| Moderate (1000–10,000/square meter) | Good | ||
| High (>10,000/square meter) | Good | ||
| Plant | Rate of Spread | ||
| High (doubling in <10 year) | Good | ||
| Moderate (50–75% increase in 10 years) | Good | ||
| Slow Rate (25% increase in 10 years) | Excellent | ||
| Plant | Resprouting / Regenerative Capacity | ||
| Low | Good | ||
| Moderate | Fair | ||
| High | Poor | ||
| None | Excellent | ||
| Plant | Seed Life | ||
| Short (≤3 years) | Excellent | ||
| Moderate (4–10 years) | Good | ||
| Long (>10 years) | Fair | ||
| Plant | Type of Reproduction | ||
| Seed | Excellent | ||
| Vegetative | Fair | ||
| Seed & Vegetative | Fair | ||
| Plant | Type of Vegetative Reproduction | ||
| Rhizome / Stolon / Stem | Poor | ||
| Bulb / Corm / Tuber | Fair | ||
| Root sprout / Sucker / Crown sprout | Fair | ||
| Site | Existing Desirable Plant Cover | ||
| <10% | Excellent | ||
| 10–25% | Good | ||
| 26–50% | Good | ||
| 51–75% | Good | ||
| >75% | Good | ||
| Site | Ground Condition | ||
| Muddy | Fair | ||
| Smooth | Excellent | ||
| Cobbly | Good | ||
| Rocky | Good | ||
| Site | Habitat | ||
| Marsh / Wetland | Fair | ||
| Riparian | Good | ||
| Grassland | Good | ||
| Shrubland | Good | ||
| Woodland / Forest | Excellent | ||
| Site | Level of Tolerable Disturbance | ||
| Low | Good | ||
| Medium | Excellent | ||
| High | Excellent | ||
| Site | Slope | ||
| Flat | Excellent | ||
| Moderate (10–40%) | Good | ||
| Steep (>40%) | Fair | ||
| Site | Target Area | ||
| <40 square feet | Excellent | ||
| 0.001–0.01 acre | Excellent | ||
| 0.02–0.1 acre | Good | ||
| 0.2–1 acre | Good | ||
| 2–10 acres | Fair | ||
| 11–50 acres | Poor | ||
| 51–100 acres | Ineffective | ||
| >100 acres | Ineffective | ||
| Site | Targeted Invasive Plant Cover | ||
| <1% | Excellent | ||
| 1–10% | Excellent | ||
| 11–25% | Good | ||
| 26–50% | Good | ||
| 51–75% | Good | ||
| >75% | Good | ||
| Site | Vehicle Accessibility | ||
| Roadside | Excellent | ||
| <100 feet from road | Excellent | ||
| 100–1000 feet from road | Good | ||
| >1000 feet from road | Good | ||
