Successful Management & Eradication of Aquatic Weeds › user_images › Managing Aquatic...
Transcript of Successful Management & Eradication of Aquatic Weeds › user_images › Managing Aquatic...
Lars Anderson, PhD WaterweedSolutions
Inverness, CA- USA
Successful Management & Eradication of Aquatic Weeds
Defining the Problem and Setting Goals Growth, Reproduction in Aquatic Plants Strategies and Tools: Control and Eradication Some Examples: Hydrilla, Egeria Technologies for Eradication and Monitoring
Topics:
Successful Responses to Aquatic Invasive Species
Hydrilla verticillata (Eradication in California)* Caulerpa taxifolia (Marine alga) (Eradication in Calif.) Sabellid worms in abalone (Eradication) Eichhornia crassipes (Management, world-wide)* Salvinia molesta (Management, some sites eradicated)* Egeria densa (Management, US, Brasil?) Elodea canadensis (Australia, Europe, US) (Management) Alligatorweed (near-eradication in California)* Weeds in irrigation systems (Management, worldwide)* * Included use of biological control agents
Components of Successful Management or Eradication Projects
Invasive, Nuisance Plant
Identification
Biology & Phenology
Experience and
knowledge:
Implement, containment,
control or eradication
Knowledge of
infested site(s):
Invasion pathways,
Habitats, Uses,
Nontarget effects,
Laws, Stakeholders
Goals Resources:
Funds Personnel Equipment
after Anderson 2005
Science and Technical Advisory
Public Outreach
External Review (Transparency and
Credibility)
WATER: It’s Essential ! Water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California: > 25 million Californians drink it! Egeria densa covered with algae- 2005
Myriophyllum spicatum
Negative Impacts of Un-Managed Elodea Will Spread to more Lakes, Reservoirs, Rivers, Streams
Flood control (combination of riparian and aquatic weeds)
Navigation (recreational, law-enforcement and commercial vessels)
Recreational Uses and Revenues: swimming, fishing, boating
Native habitats (waterfowl, fish, invertebrates, plants)
Water quality (dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, organic loading)
Sediment (nutrients and metals loading)
Health (mosquito habitat)
Reduced Property values and Tourism Revenue
SOURCES OF CONTINUED SPREAD
Prerequisites for Spread of
M. spicatum and P. crispus, Elodea:
Production
of Viable
Propagules
Propagule
Transport
Suitable
Habitat
Seeds
Fragments
Turions
Rhizomes
Wind
Currents
Boats
Float-
planes
Birds
Shoreline protected form high wind, waves;
Sandy/Organic/Silty bottom;
Adequate Nutrients and Light
M.-H. Barrat-Segretain et al. / Aquatic Botany 74 (2002) 299–313
S=Spring A= Autumn
60 N Lat.
50 N Lat.
Elodea canadensis In Latvia (<1900-2008)* *From: Grinberg, L. and Priede A. 2012. Elodea canadensis Mishx in Lativia. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 10: 43-50.
NOTE: First reported in 1872 (Associated with timber transports) >Found in low and high nurtrient conditions
Prior to 1900
1901-1950
1951-2008
The Risks of Invasive Aquatic Plants
..and The risk of delayed action… or no action
Ecosystem Functions
Nuisance Species
Other “Stressors”
Ecosystem-Level Demands
Ecosystem or Aquatic Site
Beliefs: We Can Balance Risk and Benefits
Linkage Resistance: Resiliency
Action? Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Functions
Beliefs: We Can Balance Risk and Benefits
Linkage Resistance: Resiliency
Management Action?
Invasive Species:
Shift in Stable point:
Ecosystem
Functions?
Invasive Species
Other “Stressors”
Ecosystem-Level Demands
Ecosystem or Aquatic Site
Beliefs: Just Control the Obvious Weed “Squeaky Weed” Approach !
Linkage Resistance: Resiliency
Management Action: Single Species
Ecosystem Services
Invasive Species:
Shift in Stable point:
Submersed Aquatic Vegetaton Establishment, Growth and Dispersal Sub Model
Salinity
Temp
Turbidity
Light
SAV Establishment
and Growth
Sustainable
SAV Population
-
+
+
+ -
- -
Local Flow Conditions (velocity, residence time)
pH Nutrients
+ +
DIC
- +
DO
+/-
Shallow depths, Gentle slopes
+ + +
Higher velocity, larger bed grain
size
Substrate stability
Dispersal +
- + +
+
+
-
Understanding:
High – green arrow
Med – blue arrow
Low - red arrow
Importance: High – thick line
Med – medium line
Low – thin line
Predictability:
High – solid line
Med – dashed line
Low – dotted line
-
-
Boxes are Drivers
Arrows show Linkages
Ovals are Outcomes(Driver effects)
See Hydrodynamic Model
(3) Sediment Characteristics (4) Nutrient in sediments (5) Anchoring
(8)Local Flow Conditions
(1)High Light Levels (2) Atmospheric C02
Management Actions Can act on any of these “drivers” to shift population abundance
Aquatic Plant Resource Requirements for Establishment, Growth and Dispersal
(6) Low Light Levels (7) Dissolved Carbon (DIC) Sources
(9) Water Quality (10) Nutrients in Water
Floating Plants Emergent Plants
Arrows show resources acquired through common driver-pathways (overlapping circles) among the three ecological/ growth forms of aquatic plants: Emergent, Floating and Submersed. Overlaps occur where the plant types share access to resources and where drivers Impact both plant types.
Submersed Plants
Temperature Temperature
Some have spectacular flowers! Hydrilla flowers - Porto Primavera, Brazil
Pollination in aquatic plants:
Floating Plants: Insects (e.g. moths)
Emergent Plants: Wind, Insects
Submersed Plants:
•Wind (on emergent spiklets, e.g. Myriophyllum, Potamogeton spp)
•Explosive, projectile dispersal of pollen (hydrilla)
•Insects (probably infrequent) (emerged small flowers or spiklets)
•Underwater pollination= “hydrophily” >Zannichellia (horned pondweed), Najas and Potamogeton, and in Zostera and Phyllospadix (two marine angiosperms) pollen is modified as sticky, filamentous and string-like, or may have a partially emerged pollen tube
Can Carbon and Nutrients Limit Aquatic Vascular Plants?
•Probably NOT nutrients in most “urban settings”: >Tissue levels 1 to 4 % N are typical >P is cycled rapidly and is seasonally replenished; sediments provide a major reserve of nutrients >Reducing P can reduce algae growth dramatically
•Carbon could limit submersed plants- but Photosynthetic plasticity can compensate for changes in species of carbon that dominate
•What then limits establishment and growth? >Substrate stability/type, water velocity and inter-species competition for space and light are primary drivers
Sources of Carbon and Nutrients for Aquatic Vascular Plants Floating Plants: Dissolved N, P, K, micronutrients in water; Atm. CO2 (increasing !) Water hyacinth, S. Amer. Spongeplant and NATIVE PLANTS
Emergent Plants: Sediment NPK, micronutrients, Atm. CO2 (Now increasing) Arundo donax, Phragmites, Lythrum salicaria (Purple loosestrife), Ludwigia species and NATIVE PLANTS
Submersed (rooted) Plants:(Physiological plasticity) 80-95+% Sediment NP(K), micronutrients 10-20% Dissolved N, P, K, micronutrients in water Dissolved CO2, HCO3(increasing) (C-3, C-4, CAM-like PS) E. densa, P. crispus, M. spicatum, Elodea sp. , , and NATIVE PLANTS
• Pathways • Vectors
• Dispersal • Water quality
• Non-target effects • Regulatory compliance • Species interdependence
• Impaired Aquatic Ecosystem Services
Biological, Emotional and Economic Connections to water
Perceptions of Risk from Invasive and Nuisance Plants
& Perceptions of Risk From
Management Actions
Science-Based Balance of Risk and Benefit
CONSENSUS FOR ACTIONS
Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives
Jennifer W. Burt Æ Adrianna A. Muir Æ Jonah Piovia-Scott Æ Kari E. Veblen Æ Andy L. Chang Æ Judah D. Grossman Æ Heidi W. Weiskel 2007 Biol. Invasions
Public Education, Quarantines, Monitoring, Enforcement
Lake Tahoe: A Cautionary Story about Invasive Species
1880 1900 1940 1920 1960 1995 1980 2008 2003 2007 2006 2011 1970
brown, rainbow, brook, lake trout
Establishment of lake trout
crayfish
kokanee
Mysis Tahoe Keys Built
Lake Tahoe Exotic Aquatic Species Introduction (Detection) Timeline
bass spp.
Asian clam
extirpation of cutthroat trout & Daphnia spp.
RESPONSES
USDA-ARS:Whole Lake Plant Surveys
ARS-TRCD Org. AIS Workshop
AIS Working Group
AIS Coordinating Committee; USFWS-Coordinator
AIS Plan Approved 2009, TRPA and USFWS appoint AIS coordinator
Eurasian watermilfoil Curlyleaf
pondweed ?
1st Zebra mussel Interdiction on boat- prevented from launching
After Sudeep Chandra (Univ.Nev-Reno); modified and updated by Lars Anderson (USDA-ARS-Davis, CA)
?
Asian clam Removal begun
Aquatic Plant Harvester- Transferring a load to the shore- Immediate “Solution”, but
Spreads plants
Tahoe Keys: Annual Cost of Weed Harvesting (130 acres)
Cost Wages/benefits $118,700 Supplies 8,900
Weed disposal 22,400
Admin 28,800
Vehicle 5,300
Insurance 26,800
O&M and Replacement 34,000
Misc 14,800
TOTAL $259,700
Costs for Bottom Barriers*
• Synthetic ~$100,000 per acre
• Jute ~$65,000 per acre
• Piers and excessive plant
density decreased efficiency
*Based on 2012/2013 studies
0
5
10
15
20
25
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
M. spicatum
P. crispus Mainly
Tahoe
Keys and
South
Shore
Recent
Increase
Mainly on
West
Shore
Spread of M. spicatum and P. crispus
at Lake Tahoe*
Number
of sites
infested
*Based on USDA-ARS Surveys
• Lake Tahoe region will be
infested by boats arriving from
other regions
• In turn it may infest lakes
within our region
M.E. Wittmann, UC Santa Barbara dissertation unpubl.
PPropagule Pressure
M.E. Wittmann, UC Santa Barbara dissertation unpubl.
Invasion/ Nuisance Process-Driven Management
Transport Introduction Establishment Spread Increased impacts Increased Spread Rate
Fewer options Higher
non-target risk and
Increased costs
Responses to Aquatic Plant Infestations: Three Options for “Risk Management”
Option 1 Do Nothing: • Further spread
locally • Spread to more
lakes, rivers, streams
• Reduced fish and waterfowl habitat
• Impaired water quality
• Long-term very high cost
• Liability ($)? • Degraded
Ecosystem Services
Option 2 Manage to some “threshold”: • Reduction locally • Initially lower cost • Continued source
for further spread • Localized major
impacts and costs • Long-term,
continued and growing cost and liabilities
• What is an “acceptable” infestation?
Option 3 Eradicate: • Stop further spread • Eliminate target
plants and propagules • Initially higher cost • Protection of
suceptible sites • Improved Readiness
for the next invasions • Public credibility • Reduced liability • Clear, consistent
goal and endpoint • Lower long-term
cost
Probable Outcomes
Action >
Western Hydrilla History First Identified 1976 (Marysville & Imperial Irrigation System) Threat to Rice production + ca. $ billion Ag. Production Declared “A”-rated pest/ eradications begun 1977.
Costs range from $1.5 to 2 million/year About 34 sites have been found in 30 years Washington’s site is near eradication (Pipe/Lucerne Lakes) No hydrilla has been documented for Oregon Idaho populations under eradication (funding is questionable!) Eradication has been achieved in most sites and is on-going (few plants left) in nearly all the active eradication sites
Aquatic Sites Where Hydrilla Has Been Eradicated
Small ponds (1 to 10 acres) Lakes (e.g. Spring Lake; Lake Ellis, Lake Murray) (100’s of Ac) Aquascapes Nurseries Irrigation Systems (small, medium, large>>500 miles of canals) (Thanks to triploid Grass Carp!) Reservoirs (Eastman); Sheldon Res.
Recalcitrant Sites Under Eradication:
oClear Lake (44,000 acres)
Hydrilla Distribution in US
US- Waterways (Rivers, Reservoirs)
Hydrilla Eradication in California and Washington states has kept it
out of nearly all western US waterways
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management
Integrating Control Technologies: 1. Phenology/life cycle (seasonal timing) Seed germination; sprouting of
vegetative propagules) Onset of growth Propagule formation Senescence and “over-wintering” Competitive plant Community?
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management
Integrating Control Technologies: 2. Biological Control and Microbial Uses Host Specificity Efficacy (Phenological match;
Rhizosphere/microbial interactions) Adequate Source, Dispersal, Growth Predation, Pathogens and Competitors of
Control Agent? Monitoring populations and rhizosphere
effects
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management Integrating Control Technologies:
3. Physical Removal methods Minimize Propagule Spread Plant Removal (Cutting, Suction) Substrate (sediment) Removal Water Quality Protection (turbidity) Non-target of fish and benthic species Disposal and “quality” of materials
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management
Integrating Control Technologies: 4. Physical Covering (Bottom Barriers) Materials (synthetic, jute, cement) Timing and Duration (Before onset of
spring growth) Suitable substrate for anchoring Efficacy: Seed bank longevity? Disturbances during installation? Non-target effects (benthic organisms) Compatibility with site/water uses
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management Integrating Control Technologies:
5. Herbicides Approved Label Efficacy Spectrum and Mode of Action Formulation(s) Timing, Placement, Proper Rates Water Movement (Dilution, Contact) Water Levels (Drawdown?) Monitoring, QA/QC
Entry Routes for Aquatic Herbicides
Foliage- Air Applications
Foliage- in Water
Roots in Water
Bottom Placement (pellets)
Roots and Propagules in Sediment
Targeting for Optimal Efficacy of Aquatic Herbicides
Mode of Action !
Required Herbicide Contact Time
acrolein xylene diquat Cu-chelate
Cu-inorg. triclopyr
glyphosate endothall
imazamox diclobenil
Other ALS 3-5 wks
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Approximate Hours Needed
Herb
icid
es
fluridone 6-10wks
WEEKS >>
Best Options for Eradication of Elodea: Fast-acting Contact and Effective Systemic Herbicides
Aquatic Herbicides: Modes of Action Mode of Action>>>> Active Ingredient
Group 2/ALS (B)
PPO (Protox inhibitor) (Group 14) (E)
Systemic (Group 12) (F1)
Systemic (Group 9)
Systemic (Group 4) (O)
Contact (Group 22) (D)
Contact (Nucleic acid inhbib?)
Bispyribac-sodium
x
Carfentrazone x
Flumioxazin x Imazamox x Penoxsulam x
Fluridone x
Triclopyr x 2,4-D x
Diquat x
Endothall x Imazapyr x
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management Integrating Control Technologies:
6. Promote Native Plants Sources and establishment Suitable conditions (substrate, light,
nutrients, water movement) Suitable match with plant phenology Compatibility with site/water uses Population monitoring
IPCM: Integrated Plant Community Management Monitoring:
(Pre & Post Management Actions) Efficacy Analysis Aerial Hyperspectral Analysis GPS-referenced Hydroacoustic Analysis GPS-referenced Point-Sampling GPS-referenced Herbicide Residues Water Quality Fish & Benthos Sampling Biocontrol Agent Status Native Plant Status
Smart Application and Monitoring Monitoring Technologies and Strategies:
Rapid herbicide assays (24-48 hr) Remote controlled sensing submersibles GPS-linked Hydroacoustic analysis GPS-linked videography (in clear water) Precision flow and dispersal modeling:
>Automatic Doppler Velocity Instruments >Tracer dye (Rhodamine WT)
In-situ plant condition & response assessments Bioassays using explants and surrogates
Smart Management and Monitoring
Use Integrative and Consensus-Driven Approaches Create interdisciplinary teams Promote culture & ethic of “transparency” Combine and integrate proven methods for
maximum efficacy and minimum non-target effects
Consult with stakeholders at EVERY phase Promote flexibility and adapt to changes Invite outside reviews and assessments Readjust actions based on reviews & results
Summary
Hydroacoustic (Sonar) Assessment:
0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 35 45 70 75 65 70 70 0 55 45 0 0 height (cm) 150 140 130 125 120 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 depth (cm)
DGPS (1) DGPS (2) DGPS (3)
Graphic courtesy of
Acoustical Sensing Technologies
Dazzling Delta Data 492,000 acres (wetland, sloughs, farmlands)
Water for over 25 million Californians
Irrigated crops: $27 billion per year
Supports over 500 species fish/wildlife/plants
Home of >20 Endangered species
1,000 miles of levees
>60,000 acres of water surface
Tidal (diurnal) cycles and seasonal discharges
12 million “Recreational User Days” SF Bay
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Sponsored by the California Department of Boating and Waterways (CDBW).
Dr. Susan L. Ustin, Principal Investigator
Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis.
2005: Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Egeria densa
2006: ca. 6,000 acres
Franks Tract: 3,000 acres
Boat-Mounted Hopper/ Spreader for Granular
Formulations
Weighted Hoses for Injection
Boat-Mounted Hose for Applications of Liquid
Formulation Underwater
Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Egeria densa Management:
Apply Fluridone Weekly for 8-10 weeks Methods for Applying Liquid or Granular Fluidone
2004
2005
2006
2007
Submersed plant distribution maps from hyperspectral imagery collected in June
500m
80 % Reduction in Biovolume 1 year Posttreatment
Release of Stuckenia pectinata after Management of E.densa (Sacramento Delta)
US-EPA Registered Aquatic Herbicides
• Acrolein (Magnecide-H) • 2,4,-D (Weedar) • Endothall (Aquathol-K, Cascade, Teton) • Copper elemental & Chelates • Diquat Dibromide (Reward) • Fluridone • Gylphosate (Rodeo, Aquamaster etc.) • Trichlopyr (Renovate) (2003) • Imazapyr (Habitat) (2003) • Penoxsulam (Galleon) (2007) • Imazamox (Clearcast) (2005) • Cafentrazone ethyl (Stingray) (2007) • Bispyribac sodium (Tradewind) (2007) • Flumioxazin (Clipper) (2007) • Quinclorac (2007)