Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:14:37.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concentration–Exposure Time Relationships for Controlling Sago Pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) with Endothall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeremy G. Slade ,
Angela G. Poovey  and
Kurt D. Getsinger
Jeremy G. Slade*
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180
Angela G. Poovey
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180
Kurt D. Getsinger
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Jeremy.g.slade@erdc.usace.army.mil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The submersed macrophyte, sago pondweed, frequently grows to nuisance levels in water conveyance systems throughout the western United States and can cause problems in lakes, reservoirs, and other water bodies. The liquid dipotassium and dimethylalkylamine salt formulations of endothall were evaluated for controlling sago pondweed using short exposure times (3 to 24 h) under controlled environmental conditions (14:10 h light:dark; 21.5 C). Endothall treatments ranged from 1 to 10 mg ai/L (dipotassium salt) and 0.5 to 5 mg ae/L (dimethylalkylamine salt). Sixteen concentration and exposure time (CET) combinations were evaluated in each study. At 4 wk after treatment, all CET combinations significantly reduced shoot biomass (43 to 99%) of sago pondweed compared with the untreated reference. Reduction in shoot biomass was greater in plants that received higher herbicide doses and longer exposure times. In addition, more than half of the endothall CET combinations controlled sago pondweed by at least 90%, with some providing > 98% control. At the endothall CETs evaluated, regrowth of sago pondweed could occur after 4 wk, and some level of retreatment might be required to maintain plant control throughout the growing season. Results indicate that endothall shows promise as an alternative vegetation management tool in flowing-water environments.

Keywords

Endothallsago pondweed, Stuckenia pectinata (L.) Boerner PTMPEAquatic weed controlchemical controlirrigation canalssubmersed aquatic vegetation
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 146 - 150
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

Anderson, L. W. F. 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in the western United States and Canada. Pages 371–391. in Pieterse, , and Murphy, , editors. Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. G. and Low, J. B. 1976. Use of sago pondweed by waterfowl on Delta Marsh, Manitoba. J. Wildl. Manag. 40:233–242.Google Scholar
Bentivegna, D. J. and Fernández, O. A. 2005. Factors affecting the efficacy of acrolein in irrigation channels in southern Argentina. Weed Res. 45:296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentivegna, D. J., Fernández, O. A., and Burgos, M. A. 2004. Acrolein reduces biomass and seed production of Potamogeton pectinatus in irrigation channels. Weed Technol. 18:605–610.Google Scholar
Bowmer, K. H. 1982. Adsorption characteristics of seston in irrigation water: implications for the use of aquatic herbicides. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 33:443–458.Google Scholar
Corbus, F. G. 1982. Aquatic weed control with endothall in a Salt River Project canal. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 20:1–3.Google Scholar
Eisler, R. 1994. Acrolein Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. National Biological Survey Report 23. Washington, DC U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Eisler, R. 1998. Copper Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Laurel, MD Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR—1998–0002.Google Scholar
Filizadeh, Y. and Murphy, K. J. 2002. Response of sago pondweed to combinations of low doses of diquat, cutting, and shade. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 40:72–76.Google Scholar
Fritz-Sheridan, R. P. 1982. Impact of the herbicide magnacide-H (2-popenal) on algae. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:245–249.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. E. and Haller, W. T. 1990. History and development of aquatic weed control in the United States. Rev. Weed Sci. 5:115–192.Google Scholar
Getsinger, K. D., Fox, A. M., and Haller, W. T. 1996. Herbicide Application Technique Development for Flowing Water: Summary of Research Accomplishments. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper A-96-3. Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Getsinger, K. D. and Netherland, M. D. 1997. Herbicide Concentration/Exposure Time Requirements for Controlling Submersed Aquatic Plants: Summary of Research Accomplishments. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper A-97-2. Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Getsinger, K. D., Green, W. R., and Westerdahl, H. E. 1990. Characterization of Water Movement in Submersed Plant Stands. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper A-90-5.Google Scholar
Getsinger, K. D., Netherland, M. D., Grue, C., and Koschnick, T. J. 2008. Improvements in the field of aquatic herbicides and establishment of future research directions. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. In press.Google Scholar
Green, W. R. and Westerdahl, H. W. 1990. Response of Eurasian watermilfoil to 2,4-D concentrations and exposure times. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 28:27–32.Google Scholar
Hamel, K. 2001. The impact of the Talent Irrigation District court decision on aquatic pesticide regulation in Washington State. Aquaphyte 21:1.Google Scholar
Hansen, G. W., Oliver, F. E., and Otto, N. E. 1983. Herbicide Manual. Denver, CO U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 97–195.Google Scholar
Kantrud, H. A. 1990. Sago Pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.): A Literature Review. Jamestown, ND Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication 176. 89.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1993. Effects of endothall and other aquatic herbicides on chlorophyll fluorescence, respiration, and cellular integrity. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 31:50–55.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. D. 1997. Seasonal biomass and carbohydrate allocation in a southern population of Eurasian watermilfoil. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 35:15–21.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. D. and Owens, C. S. 1998. Seasonal biomass and carbohydrate allocation in dioecious hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 36:138–145.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D. and Getsinger, K. D. 1992. Efficacy of triclopyr on Eurasian watermilfoil: concentration and exposure time effects. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 30:1–5.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 Manag. 31:189–194.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D., Green, W. R., and Getsinger, K. D. 1991. Endothall concentration and exposure time relationships for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 29:61–67.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D., Sisneros, D., Fox, A. M., and Haller, W. T. 1998. Field Evaluation of Low-Dose Metering and Polymer Endothall Applications and Comparison of Fluridone Degradation from Liquid and Slow-Release Pellet Applications. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report A-98-2. Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D., Skogerboe, J. G., Owens, C. S., and Madsen, J. D. 2000. Influence of water temperature on the efficacy of diquat and endothall versus curlyleaf pondweed. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 38:25–32.Google Scholar
Pilon, J. and Santamaria, L. 2002. Clonal variation in the thermal response of the submerged aquatic macrophyte Potamogeton pectinatus . J. Ecol. 90:141–152.Google Scholar
Poovey, A. G., Skogerboe, J. G., and Owens, C. S. 2002. Spring treatments of diquat and endothall for curlyleaf pondweed control. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 40:63–67.Google Scholar
Price, A. 1969. The use of an amine salt of endothall in irrigation canals. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 8:32–33.Google Scholar
Sheldon, R. B. and Boylen, C. W. 1977. Maximum depth inhabited by aquatic vascular plants. Am. Midl. Nat. 97:248–254.Google Scholar
Sisneros, D., Lichtwardt, M., and Greene, T. 1998. Low-dose metering of endothall for aquatic plant control in flowing water. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 36:69–72.Google Scholar
Sisneros, D. and Turner, E. G. 1995. Reduced rate endothall application for controlling sago pondweed in high-flow environments. Pages 67–72. in. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting Aquatic Plant Control Research Program. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper A-95-3. Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Skogerboe, J. G. and Getsinger, K. D. 2002. Endothall species selectivity evaluation: northern latitude aquatic plant community. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 40:1–5.Google Scholar
Skogerboe, J. G., Pennington, T., Hyde, J., and Aguillard, C. 2004. Combining Endothall with Other Herbicides for Improved Control of Hydrilla—A Field Demonstration. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Aquatic Plant Control Research Program Technical Notes Collection TN APCRP-CC-04. Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Smart, R. M. and Barko, J. W. 1985. Laboratory culture of submersed freshwater macrophytes on natural sediments. Aquat. Bot. 21:251–263.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Ksander, G. G., and Whiteland, L. C. 1989. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) tuber size influences its response to fluridone treatment. Weed Sci. 37:250–253.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. L., Getsinger, K. D., and Sharp, J. 2002. Review of USACE-Generated Efficacy and Dissipation Data for the Aquatic Herbicide Formulations Aquathol® and Hydrothol®. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Report ERDC/EL TR-02-11.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. L., Getsinger, K. D., and Stewart, A. B. 1998. Selective effects of aquatic herbicides on sago pondweed. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 36:64–68.Google Scholar
Toth, J. C. 1999. Method Validation of Immunochemical Method for Residues of Endothall in Water. ELF Atochem North America Internal Report KP-023-00. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
van Dijk, G. M. and van Vierssen, W. 1991. Survival of a Potamogeton pectinatus L. population under various light conditions in a shallow eutrophic lake (Lake Veluwe) in the Netherlands. Aquat. Bot. 39:121–129.Google Scholar
van Wijk, R. J. 1988. Ecological studies of Potamogeton pectinatus L. I. General characteristics, biomass production and life cycles under field conditions. Aquat. Bot. 31:211–258.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., editor. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Yeo, R. R. 1965. Life history of sago pondweed. Weeds 13:314–321.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 195–200.Google Scholar