Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:41:17.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Benthic Barriers as a Control Measure for Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Karen L. Laitala ,
Timothy S. Prather ,
Donn Thill ,
Brian Kennedy  and
Chris Caudill
Karen L. Laitala
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Timothy S. Prather*
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Donn Thill
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Brian Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441136, Moscow, ID 83844-1136
Chris Caudill
Affiliation:
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441141, Moscow, ID 83844-1141
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of benthic barriers alone or in combination with other control methods could initiate the eradication of pioneer populations of Eurasian watermilfoil and facilitate maintenance of acceptable population levels in water bodies where the weed is widely established. We evaluated the effects of duration of geotextile fabric panel placement on small Eurasian watermilfoil population control and nontarget plant abundance. In 2006, benthic barriers were placed over Eurasian watermilfoil infestations and removed at intervals of 4, 8, 10, and 12 wk. The 4-wk duration reduced Eurasian watermilfoil biomass 75%, and all other duration treatments reduced Eurasian watermilfoil biomass 100%. The 4-wk treatment had no effect on native plant biomass, whereas other treatments reduced native plant biomass by 79 to 93%. At the conclusion of the 12-wk study, Eurasian watermilfoil biomass had increased in the 4-wk treatment but did not reestablish within treatment plots of longer duration. Native plant biomass had increased to 21% of the untreated control in the 8-wk barrier treatment. Results suggest the 8-wk duration is sufficient for removal of Eurasian watermilfoil while allowing regrowth of native aquatic plants. A walk-in growth chamber experiment was established to evaluate the effect of sediment accumulation on the benthic barrier. Eurasian watermilfoil fragments grown on sediment depths of 0 to 3 cm (0 to 1.2 in) did not differ for shoot or root biomass. At sediment depths of 4 and 5 cm, Eurasian watermilfoil root and shoot biomass increased when compared with the control, suggesting benthic barrier maintenance should include sediment removal when sediment reaches a depth of 4 cm.

Keywords

Eurasian watermilfoilMyriophyllum spicatum L.Myriophyllum spicatumbenthic barriersbiomass reductionnative aquatic plantssediment accumulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 170 - 177
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.)

Footnotes

Present address: Coordinator, Powell County Weed District, 210 Fair St., Deer Lodge, MT 59722

References

Literature Cited

Arar, E. 1997. In vitro determination of chlorophylls a, b, c1 + c2 and phaeopigments in marine and freshwater algae by visible spectrophotometry. Cincinnati, OH National Exposure Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 26 p.Google Scholar
Bates, A. L., Burns, E. R., and Webb, D. H. 1985. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in the Tennessee Valley: an update on biology and control. Pages 104–115 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and related Haloragaceae species. Vancouver, Canada British Columbia Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Boylen, , Eichler, L. W., and Madsen, J. D. 1999. Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil. Hydrobiologia 415:207–211.Google Scholar
Bremigan, M. T., Hanson, S. M., Soranno, P. A., Cheruvelil, K. S., and Valley, R. D. 2005. Aquatic vegetation, largemouth bass and water quality responses to low-dose fluridone two years post treatment. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 43:65–75.Google Scholar
Brooker, M. P. and Edwards, R. W. 1975. Aquatic herbicides and the control of water weeds. Water Res. 9:1–15.Google Scholar
Couch, R. and Nelson, E. 1985. Myriophyllum spicatum in North America. Pages 8–18 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and related Haloragaceae species. Vancouver, Canada British Columbia. Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Eaton, A. D., Cleasceri, L. S., Rice, E. W., and Greenberg, A. E. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington, DC American Public Health Association. Pp. 10–18.Google Scholar
Eichler, L. W., Bombard, R. T., Sutherland, J. W., and Boylen, C. W. 1993. Suction harvesting of Eurasian watermilfoil and its effect on native plant communities. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 31:144–148.Google Scholar
Engel, S. 1984. Evaluating stationary blankets and removable screens for macrophyte control in lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 22:43–48.Google Scholar
Engel, S. 1995. Eurasian watermilfoil as a fishery management tool. Fisheries 20(3):20–27.Google Scholar
Flint, M. L. and Gouveia, P. 2001. IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Integrated Pest Management. Sacramento, CA University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3418.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. D., Sutherland, J. W., Bloomfield, J. A., Eichler, L. W., and Boylen, C. W. 1991. The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 29:94–99.Google Scholar
Milfoil Task Force. 2006. Physical Survey of Eurasian Watermilfoil Presence in Idaho: Final Report April 2006. Boise, ID Unpublished Report by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture Invasive Species Council. 27 p.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. J., Weller, S. C., and Ashton, F. M. 2002. Weed Science Principles and Practices. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Newroth, P. R. 1985. A review of Eurasian watermilfoil impacts and management in British Columbia. Pages 139–153 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and related Haloragaceae species. Vancouver, Canada British Columbia Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. A., Boston, H. L., and Curren, E. F. 1980. The use of fiberglass screens for control of Eurasian watermilfoil. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 18:13–19.Google Scholar
Smart, R. M. and Barko, J. W. 1984. Culture methodology for experimental investigations involving rooted submersed aquatic plants. Vicksburg, MS Department of the Army. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. 19 p.Google Scholar
Ussery, T. A., Eakin, H. L., Payne, B. S., Miller, A. C., and Barko, J. W. 1997. Effects of benthic barriers on aquatic habitat conditions and macroinvertebrate communities. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 35:69–73.Google Scholar