Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDaniela McDaniel Modified over 9 years ago
1
٥ RESTORATION OF NATIVE PLANTS THROUGH CHEMICAL CONTROL OF ALLIGATORWEED AT EUFAULA NATIONAL WILDIFE REFUGE Shannon L. Allen School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences
2
ALLIGATORWEED ( Alternanthera philoxeroides ) Perennial herb Native to South America Vegetative reproduction Forms thick, interwoven mats
3
ALLIGATORWEED Reduces light penetration Reduces gaseous exchange Displaces native plants Reduces waterway drainage
4
EUFAULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Northern portion of Walter F. George impoundment of the Chattahoochee River 2,300 hectares of open water and managed wetlands Primary objective includes providing food and habitat for waterfowl and other birds.
5
MOIST-SOIL MANAGEMENT Maintenance of moist-soil conditions during growing season to: Promote growth of desirable plant species Control undesirable plant species Provide food and habitat
6
NATIVE WETLAND PLANTS Sedges ( Cyperus spp.) Rushes ( Rhynchospora spp.) Beggar ticks ( Bidens spp.) Smartweeds ( Polygonum spp.)
7
HOW DO WE CONTROL ALLIGATORWEED?
8
OBJECTIVES Objective 1 Determine the rate and timing of triclopyr and imazapyr application that most effectively controls alligatorweed Objective 2 Determine the rate and timing of triclopyr and imazapyr application that most effectively restores native wetland plant species
9
METHODS Randomized block design 4 blocks (15 m x 40 m) Kennedy Unit ( n = 2) Bradley Unit ( n = 2) 24 plots/block Experimental plots (5 m x 5 m)
10
Treatments 2 herbicides 3 application rates /herbicide /herbicide low, medium, high 3 application dates April, July, and September 2004 METHODS
11
HERBICIDE RATES Triclopyr (935L -ha or 2.4L -plot of water) Low = 4.8L -ha or 12ml -plot Medium = 9.6L -ha or 24ml -plot High = 14.4L -ha or 36ml -plot Imazapyr (467L -ha or 1.2L -plot of water) Low = 1.2L -ha or 3ml -plot Medium = 2.4L -ha or 6ml -plot High = 3.5L -ha or 9ml -plot Rates within range recommended by manufacturers.
12
TREATMENT APPLICATION Herbicides applied with a 2L, CO 2 pressurized backpack sprayer 2.5 m wide, 5-nozzle boom 5-nozzle boom 2 swaths per plot
13
PLANT SAMPLING Pretreatment : 1 week before 1 week before application date Post treatment : 1, 2, 3 weeks, and 1, 2, 3 weeks, and 1, 2, 3 months 1, 2, 3 months Two subplots (0.5 m x 0.5 m) per plot (0.5 m x 0.5 m) per plot
14
PLANT SAMPLING Parameters measured: percent cover of each plant species alligatorweed density (#stems/quadrat) alligatorweed height (cm)
15
PLANT BIOMASS October 2004 and 2005 Alligatorweed and native plants collected plants collected in subplots ( n = 2) in subplots ( n = 2) (0.25 m x 0.25 m) (0.25 m x 0.25 m) Plants sorted by species, dried to species, dried to constant mass, constant mass, and weighed and weighed
16
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Differences in plant biomass between fixed variables herbicides, rates, and application dates were tested with ANOVA using PROC MIXED Pretreatment percent cover, stem density, or height were not significant covariates
17
RESULTS Native Plants Alligatorweed
18
ALLIGATORWEED BIOMASS - 2004 Variable F Value DF P Value Herbicide4.281,33<0.05 Rate4.562,33<0.05 Application Date 28.111,33<0.001 Herbicide x Rate 0.032,33N.S. Herbicide x Application Date 4.321,33<0.05 Rate x Application Date 2.522,33<0.1 Herbicide x Rate x Application Date 0.492,33N.S.
19
ALLIGATORWEED BIOMASS - 2004 April July
20
NATIVE PLANT BIOMASS - 2004 Variable F Value DF P Value Herbicide3.481,33<0.1 Rate1.002,33N.S. Application Date 8.881,33<0.05 Herbicide x Rate 0.252,33N.S. Herbicide x Application Date 0.381,33N.S. Rate x Application Date 3.202,330.05 Herbicide x Rate x Application Date 0.182,33N.S.
21
NATIVE PLANT BIOMASS - 2004 Triclopyr Imazapyr April July
22
ALLIGATORWEED VS NATIVE PLANTS April July
23
PERCENT COVER OF ALLIGATORWEED AFTER APRIL TREATMENT Triclopyr Imazapyr
24
PERCENT COVER OF ALLIGATORWEED AFTER JULY TREATMENT Triclopyr Imazapyr Triclopyr Imazapyr
25
SUMMARY - 2004 1) Alligatorweed: In April, imazapyr controls better than triclopyr Herbicides control equally at July application July application controls better than April application In April, high application rate more effective than medium and low rates In July, no difference between rates
26
SUMMARY - 2004 2) Native plants: Triclopyr results in greater biomass than imazapyr In April, high rate results in greater biomass than low rate High rate in April results in greater biomass than high rate in July
27
ALLIGATORWEED BIOMASS - 2005 Variable F Value DF P Value Herbicide0.021,33N.S. Rate3.452,33<0.05 Application Date 22.071,33<0.001 Herbicide x Rate 1.182,33N.S. Herbicide x Application Date 6.211,33<0.05 Rate x Application Date 0.002,33N.S. Herbicide x Rate x Application Date 1.332,33N.S.
28
ALLIGATORWEED BIOMASS - 2005 Low Medium High
29
NATIVE PLANT BIOMASS - 2005 Variable F Value DF P Value Herbicide0.041,33N.S. Rate1.302,33N.S. Application Date 8.941,33<0.01 Herbicide x Rate 1.032,33N.S. Herbicide x Application Date 7.191,33<0.05 Rate x Application Date 0.082,33N.S. Herbicide x Rate x Application Date 0.182,33N.S.
30
ALLIGATORWEED VS NATIVE PLANTS April July
31
SUMMARY - 2005 1) Alligatorweed: High application rate controls better than low rate No difference between herbicides at April or July application July application of imazapyr better than April application No difference in control by triclopyr at April or July application
32
SUMMARY - 2005 2) Native plants: No difference between herbicides at April and July application No difference between April and July with triclopyr application Greater native plant biomass with July application of imazapyr than April application
33
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION To manage for native wetland plants in treatment year: Apply high rate of triclopyr in April to control alligatorweed and allow greatest native plant biomass
34
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION To manage for native wetland plants one year after treatment: Apply high rate of imazapyr in July for greatest control of alligatorweed and highest native plant biomass one year after treatment
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Committee members : Dr. Gary R. Hepp, Dr. Bob S. Boyd, Dr. James H. Miller, and Dr. Ralph E. Mirarchi Field Technicians : Erwin Chambliss, Frank Allen, Frank and Betty Tee Smith Refuge Staff (Frank Dukes and especially Milton Hubbard) Funding : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BASF, and SePro
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.