Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:11:37.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Subsurface and Foliar Herbicide Applications for Control of Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan M. Wersal  and
John D. Madsen
Ryan M. Wersal
Affiliation:
Geosystems Research Institute, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
John D. Madsen*
Affiliation:
Geosystems Research Institute, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jmadsen@gri.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parrotfeather is an invasive, aquatic plant in the United States that is native to South America. It has impaired the use of water bodies throughout the United States and is difficult to control, despite using a variety of management techniques. Our objectives were to examine the efficacy of subsurface applications of seven herbicides labeled for aquatic use and to compare those applications to herbicides that can also be applied to emergent foliage. A replicated mesocosm study was conducted in 378-L (100-gal) tanks beginning in August 2007 and repeated during the same period in 2008. The maximum and half-maximum labeled rates of copper chelate, diquat, endothall, fluridone, triclopyr, and carfentrazone-ethyl were applied to the water column in designated mesocosms. The maximum labeled rate for foliar applications of diquat, triclopyr, and 2,4-D were used to compare treatment methods. Six weeks after treatment (WAT), copper, endothall, fluridone, and carfentrazone-ethyl did not achieve 90% control; in fact, control was less than 50% for each herbicide, and therefore, the herbicides were not considered efficacious for controlling parrotfeather. Diquat at all rates and application methods resulted in 70 to 90% biomass reduction. Triclopyr, with both the highest aqueous concentration and foliar application, resulted in an 84 and 86%, respectively, reduction in biomass at 6 WAT. The foliar application of 2,4-D was the only herbicide and application method that resulted in ≥ 90% biomass reduction of parrotfeather. In these studies, regrowth occurred in all tanks regardless of herbicide or treatment method, indicating multiple applications would be necessary to provide longer-term plant control. Future research should identify possible herbicide combinations or timing of applications to maximize treatment efficacy.

Keywords

Copper chelatediquatendothallfluridonetriclopyr2,4-Dcarfentrazone-ethylparrotfeather, Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. MYAQ2Invasiveaquatic plant managementaquatic herbicidebiomassplant control
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 262 - 267
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

Aiken, S. G. 1981. A conspectus of Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in North America. Brittonia 33:57–69.Google Scholar
Crowell, W. J., Proulx, N. A., and Welling, C. H. 2006. Effects of repeated fluridone treatments over nine years to control Eurasian watermilfoil in a mesotrophic lake. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 44:133–136.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. C. and Grue, C. E. 1996. Effects of Rodeo® and Garlon 3A® on nontarget wetland species in central Washington. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 15:441–451.Google Scholar
Glomski, L. M., Poovey, A. G., and Getsinger, K. D. 2006. Effect of carfentrazone-ethyl on three aquatic macrophytes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 44:67–69.Google Scholar
Gray, C. J., Madsen, J. D., Wersal, R. M., and Getsinger, K. D. 2007. Eurasian watermilfoil and parrotfeather control using carfentrazone-ethyl. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 45:43–46.Google Scholar
Hofstra, D. E., Champion, P. D., and Dugdale, T. M. 2006. Herbicide trials for the control of parrotsfeather. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 44:13–18.Google Scholar
Jacot-Guillarmod, A. 1977. Some water weeds of the Eastern Cape Province, II: Myriophyllum . East. Cape Nat 61:14–17.Google Scholar
Moreira, I., Monteira, A., and Ferreira, T. 1999. Biology and control of parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) in Portugal. Ecol. Environ. Conserv 5:171–179.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D., Getsinger, K. D., and Turner, E. G. 1993. Fluridone concentration and exposure time requirements for control of Eurasian watermilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 31:189–194.Google Scholar
Ngim, K. K. and Crosby, D. G. 2001. Fate and kinetics of carfentrazone-ethyl herbicide in California, USA, flooded rice fields. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 20:485–490.Google Scholar
Orr, B. K. and Resh, V. H. 1989. Influence of Myriophyllum aquaticum cover on Anopheles mosquito abundance, oviposition, and larval microhabitat. Oecologia 90:474–482.Google Scholar
Pedlow, C. L., Dibble, E. D., and Getsinger, K. D. 2006. Littoral habitat heterogeneity and shifts in plant composition relative to a fall whole-lake fluridone application in Perch Lake, Michigan. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 44:26–31.Google Scholar
Salvucci, M. E. and Bowes, G. 1982. Photosynthetic and photorespiratory responses of the aerial and submerged leaves of Myriophyllum brasiliense . Aquatic Bot 13:147–164.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. L. 1985. Biology and ecology of Myriophyllum aquaticum . Pages 59–71. in. Proceeding of the 1st International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Related Haloragaceae Species. Vancouver, BC, Canada Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Sytsma, M. D. and Anderson, W. J. 1993. Biomass, nitrogen, and phosphorus allocation in parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum). J. Aquat. Plant Manage 31:244–248.Google Scholar
Wersal, R. M. and Madsen, J. D. 2007. Comparison of imazapyr and imazamox for control of parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.). J. Aquat. Plant Manage 45:132–136.Google Scholar
Wersal, R. M. and Madsen, J. D. 2010. Combinations of penoxsulam and diquat as foliar applications for control of waterhyacinth and common salvinia: Evidence of herbicide antagonism. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 48:21–25.Google Scholar
Wersal, R. M., Madsen, J. D., Massey, J. H., Robles, W., and Cheshier, J. C. 2010. Comparison of daytime and night-time applications of diquat and carfentrazone-ethyl for control of parrotfeather and Eurasian watermilfoil. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 48:56–58.Google Scholar
Westerdahl, H. E. and Getsinger, K. D. 1988. Aquatic Plant Identification and Herbicide Use Guide, Vol II: Aquatic Plants and Susceptibility to Herbicides. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report A-88-9. 104 p.Google Scholar