Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:19:32.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulated mechanical control of flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) under mesocosm conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2019

Gray Turnage Open the ORCID record for Gray Turnage [Opens in a new window] ,
John D. Madsen ,
Ryan M. Wersal  and
John D. Byrd
Gray Turnage*
Affiliation:
Research Associate II, Geosystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA
John D. Madsen
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, USDA ARS ISPHRU, Plant Sciences Department, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Ryan M. Wersal
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Minnesota State University–Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA
John D. Byrd
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Gray Turnage, Geosystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39759. (Email: Gturnage@gri.msstate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) is an invasive aquatic and wetland plant capable of developing monotypic stands in emergent and submersed sites. This plant can rapidly outcompete native vegetation and impede human practices by reducing recreation (boating, fishing, and skiing) and disrupting agricultural use of water resources (irrigation canals). Mechanical removal practices occurring biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, and once per growing season were compared with chemical control with diquat applied sequentially at 0.19 ppmv ai for two consecutive months over 2 yr (2016 and 2017). Biweekly removal gave the most consistent control of B. umbellatus biomass and propagules. Diquat application along with monthly and bimonthly clippings gave varying degrees of B. umbellatus control. Clipping once per growing season did not control B. umbellatus when compared with reference plants, while clipping B. umbellatus every 2 wk (biweekly) controlled rush propagules most effectively. However, it is unlikely this method will be sufficient as a stand-alone control option due to the slow speed of harvester boats, the potential these boats have to spread B. umbellatus propagules to more sites, and the expense of mechanical operations. However, clipping could be used as part of an integrated strategy for B. umbellatus control.

Keywords

Invasive speciesclippingharvestingnonchemical control
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 120 - 123
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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: Rob J. Richardson, North Carolina State University

References

Anderson, LC, Zeis, CD, Alam, SF (1974) Phytogeography and possible origins of Butomus in North America. Bull Torrey Bot Club 101:292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellaud, MD (2009) Flowering rush. Pages 141–144 in Gettys, LA, Haller, WT, Bellaud, M, eds. Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: A Best Management Practices Handbook. Gainesville, FL: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation Google Scholar
Booms, TL (1999) Vertebrates removed by mechanical weed harvesting in Lake Keesus, Wisconsin. J Aquat Plant Manage 37:34–36 Google Scholar
Bryant, CB (1970) Aquatic weed harvesting: effects and costs. Hyacinth Contr J 8:37–39 Google Scholar
Bryant, CB (1974) Aquatic weed harvesting costs and equipment—1972. Hyacinth Contr J 12:53–55 Google Scholar
Carter, C, Madsen, JD, Ervin, GN (2018) Effects of initial propagule size and water depth on Butomus umbellatus L. growth and vegetative propagation. Aquat Bot 150:27–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charudattan, R (2001) Are we on top of aquatic weeds? Weed problems, control options and challenges. Pages 43–68 in Riches, CR, ed. The World’s Worst Weeds (2001 BCPC Symposium Proceedings No. 77). Farnham, Surrey, UK: British Crop Protection Council Google Scholar
Culpepper, MM, Decell, JL (1978) Field Evaluation of the Aqua-Trio System. Mechanical Harvesting of Aquatic Plants. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Report A-78-3. 406 pGoogle Scholar
Derr, J (2008) Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:12–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C, Massonnet, B, Thomas, JJ (2000) Variation in sexual and clonal reproduction among introduced populations of flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Can J Bot 78:437–446 Google Scholar
Gunderson, MD, Kapuscinski, KL, Crane, DP, Farrell, JM (2016) Habitats colonized by non-native flowering rush Butomus umbellatus (Linnaeus, 1753) in the Niagara River, USA. Aquat Invas 11:369–380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, WT (2009) Mechanical control of aquatic weeds. Pages 41–46 in Gettys, LA, Haller, WT, Bellaud, M, eds. Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: A Best Management Practices Handbook. Gainesville, FL: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation Google Scholar
Hroudova, Z, Krahulcova, A, Zakravsky, P, Jarolimova, V (1996) The biology of Butomus umbellatus in shallow waters with fluctuating water level. Hydrobiologia 340:27–30 Google Scholar
Kliber, A, Eckert, C (2005) Interaction between founder effect and selection during biological invasion in an aquatic plant. Evolution 59:1900–1913 Google Scholar
Les, DH, Mehrhoff, LJ (1999) Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in southern New England: a historical perspective. Biol Invasions 1:283–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, JD, Sartain, BT, Turnage, G, Marko, M (2016a) Management of flowering rush in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. J Aquat Plant Manage 54:61–67 Google Scholar
Madsen, JD, Turnage, G, Getsinger, KD (2016b) Efficacy of combinations of diquat or triclopyr with fluridone for control of flowering rush. J Aquat Plant Manage 54:68–71 Google Scholar
Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM, Marko, M (2016c) Distribution and biomass allocation in relation to depth of flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 9:161–170 Google Scholar
Madsen, JD, Woolf, TE, Wersal, RM (2017) Flowering rush control on drawndown sediment: mesocosm and field evaluations. J Aquat Plant Manage 55:42–45 Google Scholar
Marko, MD, Madsen, JD, Smith, RA, Sartain, B, Olson, CL (2015) Ecology and phenology of flowering rush in the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes, Minnesota. J Aquat Plant Manage 53:54–63 Google Scholar
Mikol, GF (1985) Effects of harvesting on aquatic vegetation and juvenile fish populations at Saratoga Lake, New York. J Aquat Plant Manage 23:59–63 Google Scholar
Muenscher, WC (1930) Butomus umbellatus in the Lake Champlain basin. Rhodora 32:19–20 Google Scholar
Newroth, PR (1979) British Columbia aquatic plant management program. J Aquat Plant Manage 17:12–19 Google Scholar
Poovey, AG, Mudge, CR, Getsinger, KD, Sedivy, H (2013) Control of submersed flowering rush with contact and systemic aquatic herbicides under experimental conditions. J Aquat Plant Manage 51:53–61 Google Scholar
Poovey, AG, Mudge, CR, Thum, RA, James, C, Getsinger, KD (2012) Evaluations of contact aquatic herbicides for controlling two populations of submersed flowering rush. J Aquat Plant Manage 50:48–54 Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed: September 26, 2018Google Scholar
Rice, P, Reddish, M, Dupuis, V, Mitchell, A (2010) Flowering Rush Mapping and Spatial Prediction Model. Missoula: University of Montana. 16 p. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268272123_Flowering_Rush_Mapping_and_Spatial_Prediction_Model Google Scholar
Sarbu, A, Smarandache, D, Paraschiv, A, Mihai, D (2009) Butomus umbellatus morpho-structural considerations on adaptive plasticity. Scientific Annals of “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, new series, section IIa, Vegetal Biology 55:58–67 Google Scholar
Turnage, G, Alcott, B, Guetter, T (2018) Adaptive management of flowering rush using the contact herbicide diquat in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 2016—Final report. Mississippi State, MS: GeoSystems Research Institute Report no. 5076. 57 pGoogle Scholar
Tutin, TG, Heywood, VH, Burgess, NA, Moore, DM, Valentine, DH, Walter, SM, Webb, DA (1980) Flora Europaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Unmuth, JML, Sloey, DJ, Lillie, RA (1998) An evaluation of close-cut mechanical harvesting of Eurasian Watermilfoil. J Aquat Plant Manage 36:93–100 Google Scholar
Wersal, RM, Poovey, AG, Madsen, JD, Getsinger, KD, Mudge, CR (2014) Comparison of late-season herbicide treatments for control of emergent flowering rush in mesocosms. J Aquat Plant Manage 52:85–89 Google Scholar
Wile, I (1978) Environmental effects of mechanical harvesting. J Aquat Plant Manage 16:14–20 Google Scholar