Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:28:46.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Glyphosate for Managing Giant Reed (Arundo donax)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David F. Spencer ,
Wailun Tan ,
Pui-Sze Liow ,
Greg G. Ksander ,
Linda C. Whitehand ,
Sharon Weaver ,
Jesse Olson  and
Mark Newhouser
David F. Spencer*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Davis, CA 95616
Wailun Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Pui-Sze Liow
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Davis, CA 95616
Greg G. Ksander
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Davis, CA 95616
Linda C. Whitehand
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Western Regional Research Center, Albany CA 94710
Sharon Weaver
Affiliation:
San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, 1550 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 114, Fresno, CA 93710
Jesse Olson
Affiliation:
Sonoma Ecology Center, P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431
Mark Newhouser
Affiliation:
Sonoma Ecology Center, P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant reed is an invasive plant of riparian habitats throughout California and the United States. Glyphosate is approved for controlling giant reed in California. Sources indicate that 1.5% to 5% glyphosate solutions are effective at controlling giant reed. There is little published data on the relative efficacy of different concentrations of glyphosate which can be used to select an appropriate application regime for California habitats. We conducted two field experiments to test the hypothesis that glyphosate concentrations of 1.5%, 3%, and 5% applied as foliar sprays were equally effective at killing giant reed plants. Leaf chlorophyll content and the proportion of living stems declined significantly following treatment with 1.5% or greater solutions of glyphosate. New stems were observed the spring following treatment for plants treated with 1.5% glyphosate. No new stems were observed for plants treated with either 3% or 5% glyphosate. A treatment that included “bending and breaking” stems prior to treatment with 5% glyphosate provided control similar to 5% glyphosate alone. There was no there evidence that plants sprayed with only a mixture of the surfactant (Agridex), water, and a marking dye were affected beyond the short-term. These results indicate that 3% or 5% foliar applications with glyphosate were the most effective and consistent treatments for killing giant reed with a single late-season application. This result is especially important if the goal of the treatment program is to minimize the number of treatments, thus reducing labor costs and minimizing impacts on sensitive habitats by reducing the number of site visits.

Keywords

Giant reedArundo donax L. ABKDOGlyphosate efficacyclonal growthSPAD
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 248 - 254
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

Bell, G. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. Pages 103–113. in Brock, J. H., Wade, M., Pysek, P., and Green, D., editors. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden. The Netherlands Blackhuys.Google Scholar
Brower, J. E., Zar, J. H., and von Ende, C. N. 1998. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. 4th ed. Boston, MA McGraw Hill. 273.Google Scholar
California Department of Food and Agriculture 2007. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/pdfs/noxiousweed_ratings.pdf. Accessed: November 16 2007.Google Scholar
Cook, C. D. K. 1990. Aquatic Plant Book. The Hague SPB Academic Publishing. 220.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. and Healy, E. A. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. Oakland, CA University of California Press. 441.Google Scholar
Dudley, T. 2000. Arundo donax L. Pages 53–58. in Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C., editors. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Esposti, M. D. D., de Siqueira, D. L., Pereira, P. R. G., Venegas, V. H. A., Salomao, L. C., and Filho, J. A. M. 2003. Assessment of nitrogenized nutrition of citrus rootstocks using chlorophyll concentrations in the leaf. J. Plant Nutr 26:1287–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, M. and Minnesang, D. 1990. Control of giant reed grass in a southern California riparian habitat. Restor. Manag. Notes 8:53–54.Google Scholar
Jackson, N. E. 1994. Control of Arundo donax; techniques and pilot project. Pages 27–33. in Jackson, N. E., Randsen, P., and Douthit, S., editors. Proceedings, November 1993 Arundo donax Workshop. Ontario, CA.Google Scholar
Knepel, K. 2003. Determination of Nitrate in 2M KCl soil extracts by Flow Injection Analysis. QuikChem Method 12-107-04-1-B. Loveland, CO Lachat Instruments.Google Scholar
Litell, R., Milliken, G., Stroup, W., Wolfinger, R. L., and Schabenberger, O. 2006. SAS for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc. 633.Google Scholar
Lowrey, J. and Watson, J. 2004. Tamarisk and Arundo control on Cache Creek. Pages 82–83. in. Proceedings of the California Weed Science Society. San Jose, CA California Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Office of the Secretary of State Figure: 4 TAC §19.300(a). 2007. http://info.sos.state.tx.us/fids/200701978-1.html. Accessed: November 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. R. and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Phosphorus. Pages 403–430. in Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., and Keeney, D. R., editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Perdue, R. E. Jr 1958. Arundo donax—Source of musical reeds and industrial cellulose. Econ. Bot 12:368–404.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. M., Pysek, P., Rejmanek, M., Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D., and West, C. J. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib 6:93–107.Google Scholar
Rieger, J. P. and Kreager, D. A. 1989. Giant reed (Arundo donax): a climax community of the riparian zone. Pages 222–225. in. Protection, Management, and Restoration for the 1990s: Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference, September 22–24, 1988, Davis, California. General Technical Report PSW-110. Berkeley, CA USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, I. R. and Miller, G. L. 2000. Using a chlorophyll meter to determine the chlorophyll concentration, nitrogen concentration, and visual quality of St. Augustine grass. Hortscience 35:751–754.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc. 3884.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc 2004. SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc. Google Scholar
Sharma, K. P., Kushwaha, S. P. S., and Gopal, B. 1998. A comparative study of stand structure and standing crops of two wetland species, Arundo donax and Phragmites karka, and primary production in Arundo donax with observations on the effect of clipping. Trop. Ecol 39:3–14.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F. and Ksander, G. G. 1987. Comparison of three methods for extracting chlorophyll from aquatic macrophytes. J. Freshw. Ecol 4:201–208.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Ksander, G. G., and Whitehand, L. C. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation in RGR and leaf quality of a clonal riparian plant: Arundo donax . Aquat. Bot 81:27–36.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Liow, P-S., Chan, W. K., Ksander, G. G., and Getsinger, K. D. 2006. Estimating Arundo donax shoot biomass. Aquat. Bot 84:272–276.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Sher, A. A., Thornby, D., Liow, P-S., Ksander, G. G., and Tan, W. 2007. Non-destructive assessment of Arundo donax (Poaceae) leaf quality. J. Freshw. Ecol 22:277–285.Google Scholar
Stelljes, K. B. 2001. Research off the beaten path. Agric. Res. Mag 49:14–17.Google Scholar
Team Arundo del Norte 2007. Arundo control and management. http://www.ceres.ca.gov/tadn/. Accessed: November 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. W. 1982. Exchangeable cations. Pages 159–165. in Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., and Keeney, D. R., editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Tracy, J. L. and DeLoach, C. J. 1999. Suitability of classical biological control for giant reed (Arundo donax) in the United States. Pages 73–109. in Bell, C. E., editor. Arundo and Saltcedar: The Deadly Duo. Proceedings of the Arundo and Saltcedar Workshop, June 17, 1998, Ontario, California. Holtville, CA University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Weaver, J. E. 1927. Review: Structure of Texas vegetation. Ecology 8:484–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar