Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:06:32.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Response to Mowing and Herbicide Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey F. Derr
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jderr@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common reed is an invasive species that has overtaken wetland habitats in the eastern United States and can spread into roadsides, turf, and ornamental sites. The postemergence grass herbicides used in nursery crops and turf, clethodim, fenoxaprop, fluazifop, and sethoxydim, did not control common reed. Dithiopyr, MSMA, and quinclorac also did not control this weed. Glyphosate applied at 2.24 kg ai/ha (2.0 lb ai/ac) was more effective in preventing regrowth of common reed than glufosinate at 1.12 kg/ha (1.0 lb ai/ac). Mowing every 2, 4, or 8 wk controlled common reed 93, 81, and 69%, respectively, by the end of the growing season, but only reduced regrowth by approximately 55% the following May. Applying glyphosate at 2% v/v either 1 mo after a mowing or 2 wk prior to mowing reduced common reed regrowth the following May by approximately 90%. Applying glyphosate without mowing provided similar common reed control the following spring compared to glyphosate combined with a single mowing. Common reed regrew in all treated plots 1 yr after study initiation, indicating that control treatments must be repeated if common reed is to be eradicated from a site.

Keywords

ClethodimdithiopyrfluazifopfenoxapropglufosinateglyphosateMSMAquincloracsethoxydimCommon reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.Postemergence grass herbicidesturf herbicidesperennial grassintegrated weed management
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 12 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ailstock, M. S., Norman, C. M., and Bushmann, P. J. 2001. Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restor. Ecol. 9:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2000. Phragmites australis in the Chesapeake Bay Region—key issues. Annapolis, MD Chesapeake Bay Commission. 5.Google Scholar
Asaeda, T., Rajapakse, L., Manatunge, J., and Sahara, N. 2006. The effect of summer harvesting of Phragmites australis on growth characteristics and rhizome resource storage. Hydrobiologia 553:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, L. K. and Askins, R. A. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut marshes. Wetlands 19:194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, E. J. and Meyerson, L. A. 1999. Species composition and inter-annual dynamics of a freshwater tidal plant community following removal of the invasive grass, Phragmites australis . Biol. Invasions 1:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gusewell, S. 2003. Management of Phragmites australis in Swiss fen meadows by mowing in early summer. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 11:433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havens, K. J., Priest, W. I. III, and Berquist, H. 1997. Investigation and long-term monitoring of Phragmites australis within Virginia's constructed wetland sites. Environ. Manag. 21:599–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
League, M., Seliskar, D., and Gallagher, J. 2007. Predicting the effectiveness of Phragmites control measures using a rhizome growth potential bioassay. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 15:27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mal, T. K. and Narine, L. 2004. The biology of Canadian weeds. 129. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, A., Moreira, I., and Sousa, E. 1999a. Chemical control of common reed (Phragmites australis) by foliar herbicides under different spray conditions. Hydrobiologia 415:299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, A., Moreira, I., and Sousa, E. 1999b. Effect of prior common reed (Phragmites australis) cutting on herbicide efficacy. Hydrobiologia 415:305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orson, R. A. 1999. A paleoecological assessment of Phragmites australis in New England tidal marshes: changes in plant community structure during the last few millennia. Biol. Invasions 1:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, D. N. 1973. Effects of rate, spray volume and surfactant on the control of Phragmites with glyphosate. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:101–104.Google Scholar
Riemer, D. N. 1976. Long-term effects of glyphosate applications to phragmites. J. Aquatic Plant Manag. 14:39–43.Google Scholar
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of Phragmites australis into North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99:2445–2449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltonstall, K. 2005. Common reed fact sheet. Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pdf/phau1.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2007.Google Scholar
Teal, J. M. and Peterson, S. 2005. The interaction between science and policy in the control of Phragmites in oligohaline marshes of Delaware Bay. Restor. Ecol. 13:223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewksbury, L., Casagrande, R., Blossey, B., Hafliger, P., and Schwarzlander, M. 2002. Potential for biological control of Phragmites australis in North America. Biol. Control 23:191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xian, Z. C. and Price, C. E. 1987. A laboratory study of herbicidal control of Phragmites australis . Proc. 11th Asian Pacific Weed Sci. Soc. Conf. 2:541–547.Google Scholar
Yamada, S., Takeuchi, K., and Kitagawa, Y. 2000. Influences on vegetation due to mowing, ploughing, and surface soil puddling in abandoned paddy fields. J. Rural Planning Assoc. 19:235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar