www.gri.msstate.edu

John D. Madsen, Mississippi State University And

Michael D. Netherland, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center

jmadsen@gri.msstate.edu

Upper Midwest Invasive Species Conference, October 29-31, 2012, LaCrosse, WI

Small Scale Research and Large Scale Monitoring

www.gri.msstate.edu

What is Science?

Science is … "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.“ Oxford English Dictionary

www.gri.msstate.edu

Steps in Science

We see something in nature (monitoring anyone?) We wonder “why is it like that?” We form an “intelligent” hypothesis or explanation to explain the phenomenon We conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis We accept or reject the hypothesis; or, more commonly, modify the hypothesis and try again

Research Scales

• Laboratory • Growth chamber • Greenhouse • Mesocosm • Pond • Lake • Landscape

www.gri.msstate.edu

Benefits of Scale?

Mesocosm: The Good: •Control of environmental variables •Replication •Reduction in variance •Reduce human intrusion •A true “experiment”

The Bad: •Lack of “realism” •Lack of acceptance •Geographically explicit •Age, history, and phenology of plants

www.gri.msstate.edu

Benefits of Scale? Field Monitoring: The Good: •Integrates phenology, history of plants •“Real” •Accepted •Generalizable?

The Bad: •Lack of control •No replication •Difficult to develop a true, testable experiment •Huge variation •Human intrusion •Still geographically explicit •Expensive

Hypothetical “Experiment” Setup

EWM Lake

Reference

100 lbs/A 2,4-D

200 lbs/A 2,4-D

Hypothetical “Experiment” Result

EWM Lake

Reference

100 lbs/A 2,4-D

200 lbs/A 2,4-D

Whole-lake 2,4-D treatment at 0.05 ppm!

9

Research Hypothesis: Observation Or Insight

Small-scale Research

Field Monitoring

Improved Small-Scale

Study Design

Improved Field Study

Design

Asking Better Research Questions

Unexpected Results Can Occur Anywhere in Process Operational

Guidance

www.gri.msstate.edu 10

Small-scale Research & Large-scale Operations: A Feedback Loop to Improve Research & Management Strategies

11

-Unexpected Data -The Power of Observation -Answering a Question You Didn’t Ask -Missing the Obvious - hindsight is 20/20

Themes of the Presentation

DOES HYDRILLA GROW AN INCH PER DAY ? Field Observation – Rapid Change in Coverage (2 to 3 wks) Single 4 inch stem planted – Growth measured for 35 day. Plants were harvested weekly & measured for total length Initiated in June – Favorable sediment nutrition

1.2 M

Harvest Date

7/23/09 7/30/09 8/6/09 8/13/09 8/20/09 8/27/09

Tota

l Len

gth

of N

ew G

row

th (i

n)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2.9 11.5

58.8

182.3

191.7

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Laterals 2 ± 2 13 ± 6 43 ± 11 109 ± 29 127 ± 38

New Stems 2 ± 0 6 ± 1 34 ± 13 71 ± 16 110 ± 63

Runners 0 ± 0 1 ± 1 3 ± 2 9 ± 6 35 ± 20

- A single 4 inch shoot = over 3200 inches of growth in 5 weeks

Hydrilla change in inches over 35 d

Can This Mimic Expansion In a Lake ?

Illinois Pondweed = 277 inches Vallisneria = 107 inches

191.7

14

30 Point Survey - ~ 750 acres Sparse/No Plants – 19 Moderate Cover - 9 Heavy Vegetation - 3

30 Point Survey - ~ 750 acres Sparse/No Plants – 9 Moderate Cover - 11 Heavy Vegetation - 10

30 Point Survey - ~ 750 acres Sparse/No Plants – 2 Moderate Plants - 13 Heavy Vegetation - 15

May 11 – 36 % Cover (Moderate to Dense) June 11 – 70% Cover (Moderate to Dense) July 11 - 94% Cover (Moderate to Dense) August – 77% Dense Cover (26/30 sites) 10, 33, 50, 87

15

Apr 26 June 26

Stem

Ext

ensi

on, c

m

0

1000

2000

3000

Growth of Hydrilla Over a 35 Day Period

Avg. Temp80.3 (5.4)

Avg. Temp85.1 (3.3)

Date Hydrilla Planted

N=24( 8 sediment types)

Management Implications ?

Photoperiod or

Temperature:

Midwest ?

16

3/26/10 4/5/10 4/12/10 4/19/10 4/26/10 5/3/10

Tota

l Len

gth

of N

ew G

row

th (c

m)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Harvest Date

5/7/10 5/17/10 5/24/10 6/1/10 6/7/10 6/14/10

Tota

l Len

gth

of N

ew G

row

th (c

m)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

A

B

y = exp(0.15*x)r2 = 0.82

y = exp(0.17*x)r2 = 0.54

1.6 4.36.8

16.6

16.6

3.8 11.011.6

31.7

12.2

Eurasian Watermilfoil Growth 484 inches in 35 days Focus Research on Growth From established rootcrowns ?

www.gri.msstate.edu

A Traditional Project Takes a Turn

The Power of Observation

17

18

Weeks After Treatment3 6 9

Bio

mas

s, g

dry

wt.

pot

0

20

40

60

802,4-D 1 QtDiquat - 1 Qt.Imazamox - 12 ounces

Response of Hardstem Bulrush to Emergent Applications Focus of Study – Improving Selectivity for floating plant control

Diquat Imazamox 1 Quart 12 oz..

Field Observations

• Hydrilla Treatments Using Flumioxazin - strong impacts on waterlettuce – Initial thoughts –

• “that’s interesting” • “We already have a product for waterlettuce”

• Highly selective for water lettuce – Water lotus, Nuphar

19

Evaluated a submersed use pattern for flumioxazin on waterlettuce

• Flumioxazin provided rapid control of waterlettuce – submersed rate of 20 ppb

• Diquat = no submersed activity at 370 ppb

20

21

Use Patterns

• A submersed approach would represent a new use pattern – Diquat – 1960 = 52 year old use pattern

• Generally, non-selective – Flumioxazin selectivity goes beyond bulrush

• Rapid acceptance by operational personnel to go to field trials

Lake Okeechobee, September 2011 - 11 acres Endangered Snail Kite Concerns = need for greater selectivity

-Submersed vs. emergent application – Public Perception - 11 acres applied in < 2 hours

Why is this Relevant to Midwest ?

• Duckweed and Watermeal – How is Flumioxazin impacting these plants ? – Is surface coverage necessary ?

• Does this tell researchers something

significant about the molecule – Mechanism for uptake

23

www.gri.msstate.edu

Missing the Obvious

or How things become obvious in Hindsight

24

Herbicide CET’s Developed in Lab and Mesocosm Facilities

Triclopyr CET Studies: EWM Results published in 1992

Range of CET Studies Expanded Rapidly

Scaling up or down

Biotypes, ecotypes hybrids, resistant strains

Impacts on Emergents

1.2 m

Began to Focus on Large-scale Mesocosm Testing in 2007

www.gri.msstate.edu

Small Plot Treatments

• Field assessments indicated that small plots or areas with higher water exchange rates did not get good control – Contact alone allowed regrowth – Systemic alone did not have

adequate exposure time

www.gri.msstate.edu

Management Issue

•Contact herbicides act fast, but allow regrowth •Systemic herbicides may kill the entire plant and reduce regrowth, but require long contact times and are slower acting •Can the advantages of both be achieved if used in combination?

Herbicide Treatment (mg L-1)

Endothall 1.0

Triclopyr 0.5

Triclopyr 0.125

Endothall 1.0 + Triclopyr 0.5

Endothall 1.0 + Triclopyr 0.25

Endothall 1.0 + Triclopyr 0.125

Reference

Mea

n Pl

ant M

ass (

g D

W p

ot-1

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.66 Hour Exposure12 Hour Exposure24 Hour Exposure

A

AB

ABCD

CDE

FF

ABC

CDE

FE

ABCDEABCDE

BCDE

DEF

F F F FF F

BCDEBCDE

Mean (± 1 SE) plant mass of Eurasian watermilfoil 4 weeks after treatment with endothall (mg ae L-1) and triclopyr (mg ae L-1) alone and in combination. Bars sharing the same letter do not differ significantly at p=0.05 level according to the Student-Newman-Keuls method.

www.gri.msstate.edu

Field Operational Use

• Bonner County and Idaho State Department of Agriculture implemented combinations at some locations in Pend Oreille Lake

• Locations have short contact times due to either current flow or wind exposure

• Previous management at some of these locations were ineffective

• Assessment of operational sites, not a controlled field trial

Application

• Deep hose application (“LitLine”) of liquid endothall (Aquathol K) and either triclopyr (Ecotriclopyr 3 SL) or 2,4-D (Weedar 64)

Herbicide Combination Treated Sites (POR, ID)

Time and Treatments

PRE (E/D) POST (E/D) PRE (E/T) POST (E/T)

Eur

asia

n w

ater

milf

oil %

Fre

quen

cy

0

20

40

60

80

100

A

B

a

b (0)

E/D – Combination of Endothall and 2,4-D; E/T – Combination of Endothall and Triclopyr

www.gri.msstate.edu

Contact Information

John D. Madsen Mississippi State University Geosystems Research Institute Box 9627 Mississippi State, MS 39762 jmadsen@gri.msstate.edu 662-625-2428 www.gri.msstate.edu