1. 1 A Comparison of Phragmites australis Control Measures in Wisconsin Coastal Wetlands Devany Plentovich 29 September 2008

2. 2 Introduction Phragmites australis is out-competing common and rare native plants on Lake Michigan’s beaches & coastal wetlands. Current herbicide control methods are expensive and can harm rare and sensitive plant species. Follow-up monitoring is needed. –Are control methods effective? –Which treatments are most effective? –Do ecological benefits outweigh the costs?

3. 3 Objectives Do control methods eradicate Phragmites? Which control method is most effective? What species of plants are present after treatment? –Are they native wetland species?

4. 4 Study Sites 1.Long Tail Point 2.Ridges Sanctuary 3.Peshtigo Harbor 4.Seagull Bar 4 3 2 1

5. 5 Study Design Treatment categories N = 1-5 plots

6. 6 Site TreatmentPlots Sub-plots Long Tail PointControl 5 10 Spray Only 5 10 Spray/Mow 2 10 Spray/Burn 5 10 Ridges SanctuaryControl 5 10 Spray Only 5 10 Spray/Mow 5 10 Peshtigo HarborControl 3 10 Spray Only 4 10 Spray/Mow 1 10 Spray/Burn 5 10 Seagull BarControl 5 10 Spray Only 3 10 Spray/Mow 5 10 Spray/Burn 5 10 Total 63 630

7. 7 Methods Variables –Species richness –% cover (all species) –litter depth –Phragmites height August 2007

8. 8 Results Treatment Effectiveness –89% of the treatment plots contained Phragmites. –None of the treatment techniques were effective at eradicating Phragmites after one treatment.

9. 9 Results Which control treatment was most effective at controlling Phragmites australis? All treatment methods significantly reduced % P. australis (ANOVA, p < 0.001) The three control methods were not significantly different from each other (Tukey HSD, p > 0.05) All sites showed the same pattern of P. australis reduction, with the exception of Ridges. A B B B

10. 10 Results Which control treatment was most effective at controlling Phragmites australis? Herbicide/mow significantly reduced height over other treatments and control (ANOVA, p < 0.001)

11. 11 Results Does species richness differ among treatments? Herbicide/mow had significantly higher species richness than other treatments and control (ANOVA, p < 0.001) A A C B A B AB C

12. 12 Results Effects of treatment on species richness Species richness in herbicide/burn was significantly higher at Long Tail. Treatments at this site were applied in 2005 and 2006; others were treated in 2007. B A B B

13. 13 Results Effects of treatment on Mean % Cover of Native Species Herbicide/burn had significantly higher species richness than other treatments and control (ANOVA, p < 0.001)

14. 14 C H H/B H/M Results Effects of treatment on Mean % Cover of Native Species % Cover of Native Species in herbicide/burn was significantly higher at Longtail. All treatments show the same patterns with the exception of Peshtigo. Herbicide/Burn showed significant higher % cover of native species. The majority of the cover was Calamagrostis canadensis.

15. 15 Review of Results Variable Herbicide Only Herbicide/ Burn Herbicide/ Mow % P. australis Average P. australis height Species Richness % Cover of Native Species Green – performed best Yellow – performed acceptably

16. 16 What types of plant species were present after Phragmites treatment? TypeNumber Total Species139* Native111 Introduced15 Invasive13 * An additional 37 were not identified to the species level

17. 17 Campanula aparinoides (7)Carex stricta (7) Cicuta bulbifera (7)Cirsium muticum (8) Eleocharis flavescens (8)*Epilobium leptophyllum (8) Equisetum variegatum (7)Liparis loeselii (7) Lobelia kalmii (9)Lysimachia thyrsiflora (7) Parnassia glauca (8)Picea glauca (7) Pilea fontana (7)Thuja occidentalis (9) Zizania palustrus (8) Results Wisconsin Floristic Quality Assessment –No significant differences with Floristic Quality Index or Coefficient of Conservation –Indicated presence of highly desirable wetland plants What plant species will return after treatment? * Species of concern

18. 18 Conclusions Eradication is not feasible with one application of these control methods. Adding a secondary treatment improved effectiveness –Herbicide/mow showed significantly higher species richness (exception Long Tail). –Herbicide/burn showed significantly higher % cover of native species.

19. 19 Conclusions Native plant species are present to re-populate treated wetlands. Treatment soon after invasion is critical for restoration success. Long-term maintenance will be required to maintain native wetland vegetation.

20. 20 Recommendations Monitor Herbicide/mow and Herbicide/burn treatments for 2-3 years. Evaluate Habitat 7 sensitivity for wetland plants. Continue to prioritize P. australis treatment for critical habitat. Include follow-up herbicide treatment for successive years in funding requests.

21. 21 Acknowledgements Project funding provided by Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture from: Lakeshore Natural Resource Partnership Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Matching funding provided by: Department of Agriculture, Trade, & Consumer Protection University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

22. 22 Acknowledgements Andy Hinickle - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources John Huff - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Steve Leonard – Ridges Sanctuary Mark Martin - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Ursula Petersen – Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, & Consumer Protection Gary VanVreede - US Fish and Wildlife Photos by Ridges Sanctuary, Gary VanVreede, Kathryn Corio, Devany Martin

23. 23 Acknowledgements Hannah Aplin Laura Bratz Kathryn Corio Gary Fewless Aaron Groves Jennifer Goyette Dr. Robert Howe Ursula Petersen Dr. Tara Reed Juniper Sundance Gary VanVreede Claire Waldvogel Jay Watson Dr. Amy Wolf Field Team and Committee Members