Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:52:49.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of invasive Gypsophila paniculata control methods in the northwest Michigan dunes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2020

Emma K. Rice Open the ORCID record for Emma K. Rice [Opens in a new window] ,
Hailee Leimbach-Maus ,
Charlyn Partridge  and
James N. McNair
Emma K. Rice*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, MI, USA
Hailee Leimbach-Maus
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, MI, USA
Charlyn Partridge
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, MI, USA
James N. McNair
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, MI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Emma K. Rice, Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, 740 Shoreline Drive, Muskegon, MI49441. (Email: riceemm@mail.gvsu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata L.) is an invasive species in Michigan’s northern lower peninsula and is a problem in much of northern North America. It is of particular concern in coastal dune habitats of northwest Michigan, because the areas where it is most dense are also populated by several endemic and threatened species. Current removal methods include manual removal with a spade and directed spray-to-wet foliar application of glyphosate to individual plants using backpack sprayers. We assessed these methods by measuring G. paniculata density and presence–absence frequency before and after treatment using a point-intercept grid, establishing how type and timing of treatment within the growing season influences treatment efficacy and determining the proportion of plants that resprout after treatment. Our results show a consistent reduction in G. paniculata density after treatment with herbicide or manual removal (P < 0.001) but minimal impact on presence–absence frequency. These results indicate a need for quantitative data in the assessment of management efficacy to show a clearer picture of density reduction when extirpation is no longer a viable outcome of management. Through the assessment of treatment timing of manual removal and glyphosate treatments over time, we found no evidence that either treatment type was effective at reducing density when applied before plants flowered, but there was evidence that both treatments were effective when applied later in the growing season when plants were flowering. Resprouting of marked plants occurred in 14% of manually removed plants and 2% of herbicide-treated plants. Our results suggest that managers should treat G. paniculata infestations for consecutive years to remove regrowth and focus treatment during flowering for best control.

Keywords

Glyphosateherbicidemanagementmanual removalrestorationsand duneweed
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 94 - 101
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Stephen F. Enloe, University of Florida

References

Agresti, A (2013) Categorical Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 705 pGoogle Scholar
Albert, DA (2000) Borne of the Wind: An Introduction to the Ecology of Michigan Sand Dunes. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 68 pGoogle Scholar
Barkoudah, YI (1962) A revision of Gypsophila, Bolanthus, Ankyropetalum and Phryna 1. Wentia 9:1–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, HE, Zimmermann, NE, McVicar, TR, Vergopolan, N, Berg, A, Wood, EF (2018) Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci Data 5:180214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjørnstad, ON, Falck, W (2001) Nonparametric spatial covariance functions: estimation and testing. Environ Ecol Stat 8:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, LD, Cai, TT, DasGupta, A (2001) Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci 16:101–133Google Scholar
Conklin, EJ, Smith, JE (2005) Abundance and spread of the invasive red algae, Kappaphycus spp., in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawai’i and an experimental assessment of management options. Biol Invasions 7:1029–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwent, AL (1975) The biology of Canadian weeds 14. Gypsophila paniculata L. Can J Plant Sci 55:1049–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwent, AL, Coupland, R (1966) Life history of Gypsophila paniculata. Weeds 14:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Kyser, GB, Oneto, SR, Wilson, RG, Orloff, SB, Anderson, LW, Wright, SD, Roncoroni, JA, Miller, TL, Prather, TS, Ransom, C (2013) Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States. University of California, Davis: Weed Research and Information Center. 544 pGoogle Scholar
[EDDMapS] Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (2020) Baby’s Breath (Gypsophila paniculata L.). University of Georgia–Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=5682. Accessed: February 8, 2020Google Scholar
Emery, SM, Doran, PJ (2013) Presence and management of the invasive plant Gypsophila paniculata (baby’s breath) on sand dunes alters arthropod abundance and community structure. Biol Conserv 161:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, SM, Doran, PJ, Legge, JT, Kleitch, M, Howard, S (2013) Aboveground and belowground impacts following removal of the invasive species baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata) on Lake Michigan Sand Dunes. Restor Ecol 21:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B, Tibshirani, RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Monographs on statistics and applied probability 57. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. 436 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[ESRI] Environmental Systems Research Institute (2012) ArcGIS Desktop, release 10.2. Redlands, CA: ESRIGoogle Scholar
Fagerland, MW, Lydersen, S, Laake, P (2013) The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:91–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geneve, RL (1998) Seed dormancy in commercial vegetable and flower species. Seed Technol 20:236–250Google Scholar
[GLEPMT] Great Lakes Exotic Plant Management Team (2006) Adaptive Management Plan for Control of Baby’s Breath at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Empire, MI: National Park Service. 41 pGoogle Scholar
[GPPD] Grow’Em Plant Propagation Database. Gypsophila Species Baby’s Breath. http://grow.ars-informatica.ca/plant.php?L=132&nm=Gypsophila%20paniculata. Accessed: June 7, 2018Google Scholar
Hollander, M, Wolfe, DA, Chicken, E (2014) Nonparametric Statistical Methods. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pp 495–500Google Scholar
Jalas, J, Suominen, J (1986) Atlas Florae Europaeae. Volume 7, Caryophyllaceae. Helsinki: The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo. 229 pGoogle Scholar
Lamar, S, Partridge, C (2019) Old meets new: combining herbarium databases with genetic methods to evaluate the invasion status of baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata) in North America. bioRxiv 686691, 10.1101/686691Google Scholar
Loope, WL, Siterlet, CL (2000) Distribution and Experimental Management of Gypsophila paniculata (Baby’s Breath) within Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Phase II: Effects of Treatment on Plant Cover, 1995–1999, Recommendations for Long Term Management. Empire, MI: National Park Service. 58 pGoogle Scholar
Madsen, JD (1999) Point and Line Intercept Methods for Aquatic Plant Management. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (TN APCRP-M1-02), Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 16 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM (2017) A review of aquatic plant monitoring and assessment methods. J Aquat Plant Manage 55:1–12Google Scholar
[Michigan DNR] Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2015) Michigan Invasive Species Grant Program Handbook. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2015-MISGP-hndbk_491809_7.pdf. Accessed: June 6, 2017Google Scholar
[MRCC] Midwest Regional Climate Center (2018) (Date range 1998–2017) Degree Day Accumulation. Monthly Climate Data between Specific Months—Frankfort 2NE, Benzie County, Michigan. mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/CLIMATE/Station/Daily/StnDDBTD2_data.jsp. Accessed: January 20, 2018Google Scholar
[MRCC] Midwest Regional Climate Center (2020) (Date range 2016–2018) Wind Speed and Direction Daily Averaged Summary between Specific Years—DOW MEM AP, Benzie County, Michigan. https://mrcc.illinois.edu/CLIMATE/Hourly/StnDlyAve2.jsp. Accessed: February 8, 2020Google Scholar
Mikulyuk, A, Hauxwell, J, Rasmussen, P, Knight, S, Wagner, KI, Nault, ME, Ridgely, D (2010) Testing a methodology for assessing plant communities in temperate inland lakes. Lake Reservoir Manag 26:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service (2019) Web Soil Survey. websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App. Accessed: March 3, 2019Google Scholar
Parks, SR, McNair, JN, Hausler, P, Tyning, P, Thum, RA (2016) Divergent responses of cryptic invasive watermilfoil to treatment with auxinic herbicides in a large Michigan lake. Lake Reservoir Manag 32:366–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[PFAF] Plants For A Future. Gypsophila paniculata - L. https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Gypsophila+paniculata. Accessed: June 7, 2018Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rice, EK (2018) Assessment of Invasive Gypsophila paniculata Control Methods in the Northwest Michigan Dunes. Master’s thesis. Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI. 116 pGoogle Scholar
Rice, EK, Martínez-Oquendo, P, McNair, JN (2019) Phenology of seed maturation in Gypsophila paniculata in northwest Michigan, USA, and its relation to glyphosate efficacy. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 12:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K, Grime, JP (1979) Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J Ecol 67:893–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[TNC] The Nature Conservancy (2013) Lake Michigan Coastal Dunes Restoration Project 2013 Field Season Report. Lansing, MI: The Nature Conservancy. 17 pGoogle Scholar
Vandermeulen, D (2006) Draft—Adaptive Management Plan for Control of Baby’s Breath at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Empire, MI: The National Park Service. 41 pGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Rice et al. supplementary material

Rice et al. supplementary material

Download Rice et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 103.5 KB