Volume 3, Issue 2 How Big is Pricklypear in Texas?Big Bend National Park represents one of the...

By Victor Maddox Geosystems Research Institute

It‟s been over 20 years

since the cactus moth

(Cactoblastis cactorum)

was first detected in the

United States. Since that

time, a considerable effort

has been made in the fight

to prevent westward expan-

sion. Most would agree that

efforts in the east may be

quite different than those in

the west. This may be most

understood by those who

live or have ventured the

west and observed the

thousands of native prick-

lypear (Opuntia spp.)

across the rugged land-

scape. With the cactus

moth infestation in Louisi-

ana, we look to the west.

So, just how big is prickly-

pear in Texas?

Diversity of Pricklypear

within the Continental

U.S. USDA-PLANTS

(http://plants.usda.gov/

java/profile?

symbol=OPUNT)

lists 59 species

and recognized

hybrids, although

9 apparently do

not occur within

the Continental

U.S. Another six

are not native to

the U.S., leaving

44 species and

hybrids recognized

within the conti-

nental United

States according to

USDA-PLANTS. Eight of

the 44 listed are hybrids,

although experts believe

many more natural hybrids

exist. Of the 36 species

remaining, 20 (or about

56%) occur in Texas.

Within the continental

U.S., some of these occur

only in Texas. In fact eight

species, or 22%, only occur

in Texas within the conti-

nental United States. No

other state, not even Ari-

zona, has a number this

high. In

addition, at

least three

Opuntia

species in

Texas are

rare

(Figure 1).

Given

these num-

bers, is

pricklypear

biodiversity

in Texas

significant? Many would

have to agree, that it is. Yet

after Louisiana (current

western edge of cactus

moth infestation) lies

Texas.

Area of Pricklypear in

Texas. What about the

habitat area for pricklypear

in Texas. How big is it?

Probably no one really

knows the exact area occu-

pied by pricklypear in

Texas. After all, Texas is

big. The Cactus Moth De-

tection and Monitoring

Network

(www.gri.msstate.edu/cact

us_moth) estimates that

pricklypear populate over

460,000 acres, or 0.003%,

of Texas. However, much

of this is based upon what

is visible from interstates

and other public roads. So,

the total area is actually

much larger, and in fact,

additional population area

How Big is Pricklypear in Texas?

Special points of interest:

Progress in Tracking Cactus Moth

Updates on Cactus Moth Research

Updates on CMDMN and IPAMS

Collaboration

GIS to find Aquatic Invastives 2

Red root floater shows up in Florida 3

Cactus Moth Dissection Video 4

Collaboration 6

Use of Waterscape 7

Arizona Invasive Species 8

Publications 9

Inside this issue:

Inv

as

ive

sp

ec

ies

up

da

te

GE

OS

YS

TE

MS

R

ES

EA

RC

H

IN

ST

IT

UT

E

Volume 3, Issue 2

June 2011

Figure 1. Blind pricklypear (Opuntia rufida) at

Big Bend National Park represents one of

the Opuntia species that only occurs natu-

rally in Texas within the Continental U.S.

Fig. 2. The CITES listed collared peccary (Tayassu

tajacu), left, feeds on pricklypear, right, for the water

content, and is one faunal species which would

potentially be impacted by the loss of pricklypear.

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=OPUNT



http://www.gri.msstate.edu/cactus_moth

http://www.gri.msstate.edu/cactus_moth

was recorded in 2010 during every survey

conducted in south Texas. In 1985 the

Soil Conservation Service estimated that

pricklypear grew on 30.7 million acres of

rangelands inhabited by wildlife and live-

stock in the western two-thirds of Texas

(texnat.tamu.edu/library/symposia/brush-

sculptors-innovations-for-tailoring-

brushy-rangelands-to-enhance-wildlife-

habitat-and-recreational-

value/pricklypear-ecology/). But, even

though no one knows exactly how much

area in Texas is populated by pricklypear,

the number is far higher than any state

east of Texas, and possibly that any other.

The Impact of Pricklypear upon Wild-

life in Texas. This is another number

that‟s nearly impossible to calculate.

Texas occupies nearly 270,000 square

miles. Although it‟s obvious from sur-

veys in Texas that many fauna depend, at

least in part, upon pricklypear for food

and shelter (Chavez-Ramirez et al. 1997).

For example, Jennings and Harris (1953),

Eddy (1961) and Corn and Warren (1985)

studied collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu)

(Figure 2) and observed that pricklypear

was a major food. And given the drought

tolerance of pricklypear, it is probable

that fluctuating weather patterns may

place higher seasonal dependence by

wildlife upon pricklypear in coming

years. But even with consistent weather

patterns, we may never know to what

degree wildlife depend upon pricklypear.

So, does a lack of information about a

host constitute reasonable grounds for

potential eradication of the host? Or, do

we look across a landscape and try to

realize that the existence of so many

plants must surely positively impact

many more species within the food web

than we know. And how can we ever

know the importance of pricklypear, if

we never have the chance to know?

To the Future. Pricklypear is big in

Texas, although we still do not know just

how big, and we may never know. But as

we ponder questions of numbers in regard

to one‟s fate, maybe we should go back

to Texas, stand in a place like the desert

at Big Bend, and try to imagine a land-

scape without pricklypear. And remem-

ber that this is a responsibility far more

reaching than this relatively short mo-

ment in time, because these are the land-

scapes we pass to future generations long

after we are gone. What is our future

legacy in Texas, and to a Nation?

Literature Cited

Chavez-Ramirez, F., X. Wang, K. Jones,

D. Hewitt, and P. Felker. 1997. Ecologi-

cal characteristics of Opuntia clones in

South Texas: Implications for wildlife

herbivory and frugivory. J. Professional

Assoc. for Cactus Development. 2:9-19.

Corn, J. , and R. Warren. 1985. Seasonal

food habits of the collared peccary on

south Texas. J. Mammal. 66:155-159.

Eddy, T.A. 1961. Foods and feeding

patterns of the collared peccary in south-

ern Arizona. J. of Wildlife Man.

25(3):248-257.

Jennings, W., and J. Harris. 1953. The

collared peccary in Texas. FA Report

Series No. 12, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Dep., Austin, TX. 32 pp.

model. The GIS selection process allows

for presence/absence data to be associ-

ated with land use land cover and the

identification codes associated with each

cover type. Once the presence/absence

data has been paired with its correspond-

ing land use code, these data are sub-

jected to a logistic regression model to

estimate the probability of observing a

given species within each habitat type for

Mississippi.

The probabilities will be used to create

weighting criteria for habitat type that is

species specific, which will be entered

into the previously created watershed

nutrient loading model.

In combining data from the land use se-

lection with the watershed nutrient load-

ing model, the resulting output could

increase the predictive capability and

better identify suitable habitat for a given

By Louis Wasson, Randy Westbrooks

and John Madsen Geosystems Research Institute

Land use often influences the invasibility

of a given habitat by providing the neces-

sary growth requirements for a given

plants species, or by modifying habitat

suitability. As their name in implies,

aquatic plants require water for plant

growth and therefore their distribution is

dependent upon where water is within the

landscape. What we currently lack how-

ever, is information on how present and

past land use practices surrounding wa-

terbodies is influencing invasive species

habitat selection and spread.

Pursuant to this, we combined land use

land cover data from Mississippi with

ongoing state wide invasive species sur-

veys to develop both a GIS data selection

process (Figure 1), and a statistical

species. Survey effort can then be

matched to the invasion potential in a

given area as part of an Early Detection

and Rapid Response program.

How Big is Pricklypear in Texas? (Cont.)

Estimating the Probability of Observing Invasive Aquatic Plants Based on Land Cover Data

I NVASI VE S PE CI ES U PD AT E

Figure 1. A map of Mississippi com-

bining land use land cover data with

invasive species surveys.

http://texnat.tamu.edu/library/symposia/brush-sculptors-innovations-for-tailoring-brushy-rangelands-to-enhance-wildlife-habitat-and-recreational-value/pricklypear-ecology/





V OLU ME 3 , IS SU E 2

By Ryan M. Wersal and John D.

Madsen

Geosystems Research Institute

In April 2011, a new species was added

to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species

database (NAS). Red root floater

(Phyllanthus fluitans) is a non-native free

floating aquatic plant from South Amer-

ica (Figure 1). This species is often used

in water gardening and the aquarium industry,

which are likely the pathways for its introduc-

tion into Florida. Red root floater was ob-

served in 2010 in several areas within and

around the Peace River in Desoto County,

Florida and represent the first natural popula-

tions in North America for this plant species.

Locations of red root floater have been en-

tered into the NAS database and a factsheet is

being developed. However, little information

exists regarding the ecology and management

of this species. As a free floating aquatic

plant, it has the potential to overtake large

expanses of water similar to giant salvinia,

water lettuce, and waterhyacinth (Figures 2

and 3). Slow moving freshwater areas along

the Gulf Mexico, including habitats in Ala-

bama, Mississippi, and Texas could be at risk

from this species.

Figure 3. Red root floater growing with duckweed (Lemna

minor), giant duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza), Salvinia sp.,

and water lettuce (Pistia stratiodes). Photo by Michael Sowin-

ski, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

New Aquatic Invasive Plant Found in Florida

Figure 1. The upper leaf surface of red root floater including flowers. Photo by

Kelli Sullivan, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Figure 2. Red root floater in a small canal near the Peace River, Florida. Photo by Michael Sow-

inski, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

By Richard L. Brown, Sangmi Lee,

and Joe MacGown Department of Entomology

A new training video on preparing dissec-

tions of the female genitalia of the cactus

moth has been produced, and this supple-

ments an earlier video on dissecting male

genitalia. This is the first video available

on the web that gives methods for dis-

secting female genitalia of any Lepidop-

tera.

In addition to showing the specialized

methods for dissecting the female, this

four and half minute video discusses how

to determine if the dissected female has

been mated. The anatomical parts of the

“Dissection of Female Cactus Moth Genitalia” — A Training Video


several methods suggested and since

there are multiple exceptions to each of

these methods, the overall summary of

this issue is best described by one per-

son‟s comment, “It‟s still a crap shoot.”

Since someone is going to be sent to

the wrong content layout, the question

then becomes would you rather a desk-

top user be sent to the mobile layout, or

the mobile user be sent to the full size

layout? Then there is the thought,

“Why not give the user the choice?” If

the user is directed to the wrong layout,

give the user the choice to switch.

For CMDMN and IPAMS purposes,

slightly different content layout would

be best for the map functions. Giving

the user the option to switch layouts

would probably be a smart option. I

still remember going to KFC‟s website

from my desktop and being sent to

their mobile layout. It is a little aggra-

vating when you don‟t have a choice.

Identifying the mobile device then be-

comes the important part, especially

since things in the mobile world

changes so fast. No one wants to have

to go back every month and change

their detection routine. So, how are we

going to do it? The best answer I can

come up with is, it depends. More re-

By Cliff Abbott Geosystems Research Institute

With the Cactus Moth Monitoring and

Detection Network and the Invasive Plant

Atlas of the MidSouth heading to mobile

devices, the questions that come up are

“What is a mobile device, how do you

detect them, and should you provide dif-

ferent content to a mobile device verses

the desktop?” After doing some

“Googling,” I was not shocked to see

these issues debated among different user

groups. Some say that the same content

should be used no matter what the

browser or device is. Some say use the

same content, just change how it looks

through styles. Others say provide a more

usable, a more robust, a more “mobile

centric” layout to mobile devices. Some

even ask what is considered a mobile

device. With the “larger” mobile devices

coming out, mainly the iPAD, Galaxy

Tab, Folio, PlayBook, and the like,

should these be treated as mobile de-

vices? I guess the answer is the old ge-

neric answer that answers all questions:

it depends.

Not only is the question what is a mobile

device contended, the other debate is how

do you identify these devices? There are

search and actual testing on the different

methods are under way. The end result

will probably be a combination of the

different methods.

Is It a Mobile Device or Not?

Figure 1. GIS running on one of many different types

of mobile devices.

female genitalia are identi-

fied and labeled.

The genitalia of the cactus

moth and native species of

Melitara are compared,

and anatomical differences

are given for making iden-

tifications. The video can

be accessed at YouTube

with a search for "cactus

moth" or downloaded from

the cactus moth web site

at: http://

mississippientomological-

museum.org.msstate.edu//

Researchtaxapages/CactusMoths/

Videos_CactusMoths.html

Figure 1 The first on-line video for demonstrating

methods for making dissections of female genita-

lia of moths.

moths emerge, reproduction and egg laying will be recorded, followed

by weighing of adult insects. We hope this experiment will provide addi-

tional information about the susceptibility of cacti along the Gulf Coast

in areas where the moth would be most likely to spread, if it moves be-

yond its current US distribution.

In addition to this laboratory work, Brice has begun writing a manuscript

for his previously reported work on the distribution of different C. cacto-

rum larval morphologies. Brice will ultimately serve as the primary au-

thor on this manuscript, to be co-authored by Ervin and Brooks.

By Gary N. Ervin and Chris Brooks Department of Biological Sciences

During June and July 2010, Chris Brooks

collected pads from prickly pear cacti along

the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast for use in

experiments to determine whether any varia-

tion exists in the ability of C. cactorum to

survive and reproduce along the western Gulf

Coast. Those plants were potted and grown

for 10 months in a greenhouse on the MSU R.

R. Foil Plant Science Research Center. In late

April 2011, we moved experimental plants to

the USDA-APHIS approved quarantine Insect

Rearing Facility in the Clay Lyle Entomology

Building. In mid-May, we placed eggs of C.

cactorum (obtained by collaborators working

in western Florida) onto these plants.

Undergraduate student Brice Lambert cur-

rently is monitoring progress of insects on

these plants, and most plants presently have

larvae entering the pupal stage. Once adult

Examining Susceptibility of western Gulf Coast cacti to Infestation by Cactoblastis cactorum

V OLU ME 3 , IS SU E 2

Figure 2. Individual pads were potted in soil obtained from an Opuntia pusilla

population near Columbus, MS and maintained in a greenhouse until the ex-

periment began (photo at left). Potted plants were relocated to the quarantine-

approved growth chamber in the MSU Insect Rearing Center. Plants were

maintained within mesh cages to restrict movement of moth larvae during the

study and maintained at 80ºC and at least 70% relative humidity during the

experiment.

Figure 1. Cactus plants were grown from collections made at sites

identified in the Cactus Moth Detection & Monitoring Network data-

base, such as this one near the Louisiana — Texas border.

Figure 3. Progression of damage in three experimental Opuntia plants infested with C. cactorum

larvae. Each row represents sequence of feeding in a single pad beginning on 08June2011. Eggs

were collected in Florida by Arkansas State University Ph.D. student Anastasia Woodard.


By Cliff Abbott Geosystems Research Institute

The Invasive Plant Atlas of the MidSouth

has gotten a new look. Using the same

look since the very beginning, IPAMS

was in need of a redesign. With more and

more information coming online, the site

needed to be a little more streamlined to

present that information to the user on the

front end.

The new site utilizes the newer logo for

IPAMS. All of the maps from the species

descriptions and the interactive map are

using the new javascript maps. These

maps provide a useful subsetting capabil-

ity to allow the user to see just the data

they want, as well as downloading that

data. EDRR information and a host of

other information is also provided.

Two new tools that are provided are the

“Report a Sighting” tool and the “Ask our

Experts” tool. The experts tool gives an

easy way for someone to ask an expert

botanist a question that is on their mind.

Questions may range from “What is this

plant?”, “Is my plant invasive?”, “Will

my plant take over the other plants in my

garden?”, or “What is a good native alter-

native to this invasive plant?”. The sight-

ing tool allows an non-IPAMS user who just spotted a population of „xyz‟ and wanted to

alert someone. Useful and very helpful.

A number of useful resources are provided for the user and more information is being pre-

pared for the web, such as training workshop resources.

IPAMS Gets a Facelift

Figure 1. IPAMS new web look.

Christopher Brooks and Gary Ervin

are continuing their collaborations with

Varone and Logarzo (USDA-ARS, Bue-

nos Aires, Argentina) and Carpenter and

Hight (USDA-ARS, Tifton and Tallahas-

see). They currently are planning studies

to investigate the roles of climate versus

host species on growth, survival, and

reproduction of C. cactorum in the US

and Argentina.

Gary Ervin is developing a collaborative

research project with two faculty at the

University of Texas-PanAm (Drs. Teresa

Feria and Andrew McDonald). This pro-

ject is aimed at studying invasive grasses

in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south-

ern Texas.

Victor Maddox participated in the Mis-

sissippi Cooperative Weed Management

Board Meeting at the MS Department of

Agriculture and Commerce Main Confer-

ence Room, Jackson, MS on 21 April

2011.

Victor Maddox and Ryan Wersal par-

ticipated in the 2011 Mississippi CAPS

Meeting hosted by the Mississippi De-

partment of Agriculture and Commerce,

Bureau of Plant Industry on 15 June

2011.

John Madsen participated in the North

American Invasive Species Network

board meeting, April 4, 2011.

John Madsen worked with the John Sko-

gerboe of US Army Engineer Research

and Development Center on water ex-

change research for managing flowering

rush in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,

May 9–13.

John Madsen participated in the North

American Invasive Species Network

board meeting, May 20, 2011.

John Madsen gave two presentations

and participated in a US Army Corps of

Engineers. Workshop entitled “Control of

Invasive Aquatic Plants using Herbicides

in Flowing Water Systems in the North-

west” in Spokane, WA, May 24-26.

Invasive Species Collaboration April — June 2011


By Eric Dibble, Phil Amburn, Rachel

Schultz and Derek Irby Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and

Aquaculture and the Geosystems Research

Institute

A team from the Geosystems Research

Institute (GRI) and the Department of

Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture

(WFA) at Mississippi State University

has been working on incorporating a sci-

entific basis for the 3D model of a water-

scape.

These models allow us to predict poten-

tial impacts that invasive plant species

may have on the habitat of native aquatic

organisms.

Work has continued on the modeling and

visualization software which uses a con-

trol file to specify the composition and

activity in the waterscape. For example,

to establish a plant zone that varies over

time we use lines such as:

zone rect 2 1750

680 1755 685

gaussian

time 2011 5 1

POTN2 270 80

time 2011 9 1

POTN2 360 100

time 2012 5 1

POTN2 90 80

time 2012 9 1

POTN2 9 100

The line that begins with zone indicates

that there is a rectangular zone with East-

West extents of 1750 to 1755 and North-

South extents of 680 to 685. The plants

are placed in this zone in a pattern con-

forming to a Gaussian distribution.

The first line that begins with time indi-

cates there will be 270 plants placed in

the zone on May 1, 2011. These plants

will be at 80% of the water depth where

they are located. To put fish in the water-

scape we use lines in the control file such

as:

shoal volume 1750 1850 -

0.5 -0.5 650 780 40.0

0.25 0.025 bluegill

time 2011 5 1 50 medium

time 2011 10 1 75 large

The line that begins with shoal specifies

blue gill in a volume specified with N-S,

E-W, and depth extents. The first line that

begins with time directs the waterscape

modeling software to place 50 fishes of

medium size on May 1, 2011.

Information gathered and synthesized

from over 30 peer-reviewed publications

has been used as the basis of a control file

describing a biological invasion of hy-

drilla (Hydrilla verticillata).

All the descriptions in the control file

combine to characterize a biological inva-

sion characteristic of a southern reservoir

and the effects on fish. Figure 1 shows a

bluegill swimming through its natural

habitat as described in the control file.

We are now preparing to capture video

during a session in the MSU VERTEX, a

CAVE device that surrounds the users in

a 3D, virtual environment. Capturing and

editing the video segments will enable us

to create an educational video describing

an invasion in a notional southern reser-

voir.

This video will present the characteristics

of an invasion, to include introduction,

rates of spread, and plant and fish densi-

ties. The intent is to give a wide range of

people a chance to see what they rou-

tinely cannot see. The schedule calls for

us completing this video during the

month of July 2011.

Waterscape — A Virtual Environment for Invasive and Native Aquatic Plant Structure

Figure 1. A virtual bluegill swims through a virtual habitat of virtual plants, in a MSU virtual reality

model.


By John Madsen Geosystems Research Institute

This past June, GRI has initiated a study of the life history and

growth of nuisance-forming aquatic plants in Lake Havasu, Ari-

zona. Through a subcontract from RNT Consulting, GRI is

working with the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to determine

when peak plant problems will occur in the lake that serves as

water source for central and southern Arizona municipalities and

agriculture.

GRI is partnering with the Bureau of Land Management natural

resource office in Lake Havasu City to access the lake. While

not all of the nuisance is caused by invasive plant species, inva-

sive aquatic plants like spiny naiad (Najas marina) and curlyleaf

pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) have been a component of the prob-

lem. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) has also been

found at the northern end of the lake (Figure 1).

Lake Havasu is a reservoir on the Colorado River, bordering Arizona

and California.

We hope to develop tools for the CAP to identify when some species

will cause problems, and identify the sources of these problem plants.

Mats of senescing plants break off and drift into the pump station, re-

ducing water flow into the CAP.

The research is proposed to continue through the end of 2012.

Aquatic Plants are Flourishing … in the Desert

Figure 1. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) found at the north-

ern end of Lake Havasu.

Figure 2. The lush growth of both submersed and emergent plants is a stark contrast to the barren mountains of the desert surround Lake Havasu, Ari-

zona.

Figure 3. John Madsen collecting water quality data in Lake Havasu.

Figure 4. John Madsen measuring water transparency with a Secchi disk

in Lake Havasu.


Peer-Reviewed Journals

Wersal, R. M., & Madsen, J. D. (2011).

Influences of Water Column Nutrient

Loading on Growth Characteristics of the

Invasive Aquatic Macrophyte Myriophyl-

lum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. Hydrobi-

ologia. 665(1), 93-105.

Marsico, T. D., Wallace, L., Ervin, G.

N., Brooks, C., McClure, J. E., & Welch,

M. E. (2011). Geographic Patterns of

Genetic Diversity from the Native Range

of Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) Support

the Documented History of Invasion and

Multiple Introductions for Invasive Popu-

lations. Biological Invasions. 13, 857-

868.

Fleming, J. P., Madsen, J. D., & Dib-

ble, E. D. (2011). Macrophyte Re-

Establishment for Fish Habitat in Little

Bear Creek Reservoir, Alabama, USA.

Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 26(1),

105-114.

Cheshier, J., Wersal, R. M., & Madsen,

J. D. (2011). The Susceptibility of Duck-

weed (Lemna minor L.) to Fluridone and

Penoxsulam. Journal of Aquatic Plant

Management. 49, 50-52.

Presentations

Brooks, C. P. 2011. Integrating models

and data: The intersection of math, statis-

tics and biology. Mathematics & Statis-

tics Research Experience for Undergradu-

ates, Mississippi State University, June

2011. (Invited)

Lucardi, R., G. N. Ervin, L. Wallace, and

C. Bryson. 2011. Population genetic

analysis of cogongrass (Imperata cylin-

drica) in Mississippi and Alabama.

Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council con-

ference, Lexington, KY, May 3-5, 2011.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Something Green

in your Pond. 5th National Aquaculture

Extension Conference. Memphis, TN.

Fleming, J. P., Madsen, J. D., & Dib-

ble, E. D. (2011). Conceptual Model and

Deductive GIS Methodology to Identify

Suitable Macrophyte Habitat. Association

of American Geographers 2011 Annual

Meeting. Seattle, WA.

Technical Reports

Wersal, R. M., & Madsen, J. D. (2011).

Evaluating Plant Response to Triclopyr

Applied Alone and in Combination with

Endothall in Noxon Rapids Reservoir for

2010: Phase 2. GRI Report #5046. Mis-

sissippi State University: Geosystems

Research Institute.

Madsen, J. D., Amburn, P., Brown, R.

L., Dibble, E. D., Ervin, G. N., Shaw,

D. R., Abbott, C. F., Baker, G., Bloem,

K., Brooks, C., Irby, D., Lee, S.,

Maddox, V. L., Rose, R., Schulz, R.,

Wallace, L., Wasson, L. L., Welch, M.,

Wersal, R. M., McBride, D. W., &

Madsen, N. (2011). Research to Support

Integrated Management Systems of

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species:

Annual Report, 2010. GRI Report #5047.

Mississippi State University: Geosystems

Research Institute.

Cox, M. C., Madsen, J. D., & Wersal,

R. M. (2011). Aquatic Plant Distribution

Assessment within the Littoral Zone of

the Ross Barnett Reservoir, MS in 2010:

A Six Year Evaluation. GRI Report

#5044. Mississippi State University: Geo-

systems Research Institute.

Cox, M. C., & Madsen, J. D. (2011).

Estimation of Alligatorweed

(Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.)

Griseb.) and Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes (Mart.) Solms) Distribution in

the Ross Barnett Reservoir using Remote

Sensing Techniques. GRI Report #5045.


Research Institute.

Maddox, V. L., & Kelly, L. S. (2011).

Selecting Landscape Trees with Special

Comments on Invasive and Native Plants.

Missississippi State University: Exten-

sion Service of Mississippi State Univer-

sity.

Maddox, V. L., & Kelly, L. S. (2011).

Selecting Landscape Shrubs with Special

Comments on Invasive and Native Plants.

Mississippi State University. Publication

2651: Extension Service of Mississippi

State University.

Parkinson, H., Mangold, J., Jacobs, J.,

Madsen, J. D., & Halpop, J. (2011). Bi-

ology, Ecology, and Management of

Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum

spicatum L.). Montana State University:

Montana State University Extension Ser-

vice. EB0193, 9.

Professional Presentations

Madsen, J. D. (2011). The Ecology of

Aquatic Plants and its Implications for

Lake Management. USACE Workshop:

Control of Invasive Aquatic Plants using

Herbicides in Flowing Water Systems in

the Northwest. Spokane, WA: US Army

Corps of Engineers.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Understanding

Eurasian Watermilfoil. USACE Work-

shop: Control of Invasive Aquatic Plants

using Herbicides in Flowing Water Sys-

tems in the Northwest. Spokane, WA: US

Army Corps of Engineers.

Abbott, C. F. (2011). Invasive Species

Databases and Websites. Mississippi -

Texas Invasive Species Work Group.


Research Institute.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Invasive Species

Research and Extension at GRI. Missis-

sippi - Texas Invasive Species Work

Group. Mississippi State University:

Geosystems Research Institute.

Maddox, V. L. (2011). Invasive Plant

Identification and Management. 14th

Annual Jackson Garden & Patio Show,

Mississippi Trade Mart, Jackson, MS.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Strengths and

Weaknesses of Aquatic Plant Manage-

ment Techniques. Aquatic Plant Manage-

ment Forum. Guntersville, AL.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Economic and

Environmental Impacts of Invasive

Aquatic Plants. Aquatic Plant Manage-

ment Forum. Guntersville, AL.

Madsen, J. D. (2011). Non-chemical

Publications for April — June 2011

GEOSYST EMS RESEARCH INST ITUT E

Phone: 662-325-2428

Fax: 662-325-7692

E-mail: [email protected]

Control Practices for Invasive Plants.

Current Topics Seminar. Mississippi

State University: Department of Plant and

Soil Science.

Maddox, V. L. (2011). Invasive Species

Identification and Management. Missis-

sippi Horse Park, Starkville, MS: Every-

thing Garden Expo.

Maddox, V. L. (2011). Identification and

Management of Invasive Plant Species.

10th Annual Gulf Coast Garden and Patio

Show, Mississippi Coast Coliseum, Bi-

loxi, MS.

Madsen, J. D., Cox, M. C., & Wersal,

R. M. (2011). Aquatic Plant Distribution

Assessment within the Littoral Zone of

the Ross Barnett Reservoir, MS in 2010:

A Six Year Evaluation. Board of Direc-

tors Meeting. Jackson, MS: Pearl River

Valley Water Supply District.

Awards and Recognitions

Fleming, J. P. (2011). Research Support

Staff Award. Mississippi State Univer-

sity: College of Forest Resources.

Thesis and Dissertation

Prince, J. M. (2011). Modeling Eurasian

Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

Habitat with Geographic Information

Systems. Doctoral Dissertation, Missis-

sippi State University.

Cox, M. C. (2011). Distribution and

Management of Invasive Plant Species in

the Ross Barnett Reservoir. MS Thesis,

Mississippi State University. 87pp.

Publications for April — June 2011

www.gri.msstate.edu/ipams

Volume 3, Issue 2 How Big is Pricklypear in Texas?Big Bend National Park represents one of the...

Documents

Transcript of Volume 3, Issue 2 How Big is Pricklypear in Texas?Big Bend National Park represents one of the...