utah division of wildlife resources presented by randy...
TRANSCRIPT
Phragmites Project
A Part of the Invasive Weed Control
Habitat Project for Waterfowl
Management Areas in Northern Utah
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Presented by Randy Berger
August 4, 2010
Invasive & Noxious Weed Control Project
Annual Treatment
• Common Reed, Phragmites australis, 4000 acres/year
• Dyers Woad, Isatis tinctoria, 15 acres/year
• Thistle, Canada & Bull Circius spp & Musk Carduss nutans & Scotch Onpordum acanthium, 80 acres/year
• Perennial Pepperweed, Lepidium latifolium, 330 acres/year
• Hoary Cress, Cardaria spp., 320 acres/year
• Salt Cedar, Tamarix ramosissima, 20 acres/year
• Hemlock, Poison, Cicuta douglasiiand & Water Cicuta maculata 20 acres/year
For more detailed information
http://wildlife.utah.gov/waterfowl/pdf/Invasive_
weed_control.pdf
Information Document for Invasive and Noxious
Weed Control Project on Utah’s Waterfowl
Management Areas 2006-2018
10-14 feet tall and 20-30 stems up to ½ inch in
diameter per square foot
44 FOOT
STOLON
NODES
EVERY 8
INCHES
Phragmites good or bad????
• Good?
– Animal forage, early growth
– Nesting cover, edges
– Thermal cover, edges
– Hiding cover, edges
– Soil stabilization
– Building material, thatch
– Fodder
– Cellulose, paper, textiles
– Food, seeds and rootstocks
– Arts/crafts
• Bad?
– Monoculture
– Loss of biodiversity of native, non-invasive plants
– Fire hazard
– Poor wildlife food resource
– Loss of wildlife diversity and use
– Exclusion of human and wildlife movement, impenetrable
– High water consumption
USU survey 2005-2006
21,200 ac. GSL
2600 ac. Utah Lake
Ducks Unlimited 2007,
15,920/44713 ac. GSL
Phragmites dominated…..36%
DWR 2006 managed wetlands
10,000 ac.
Annually grows 8 to 14 feet high
DWR Project GoalsPhragmites/all invasive and noxious weeds
• Primary Goal
Reduce Phragmites on State WMA’s; increase plant
diversity for wildlife benefit; and increase hunter
opportunity
• Secondary Goal
Encourage individuals, other agencies, organizations and
government entities to evaluate Phragmites and control it
where beneficial to wildlife and the public
• Third Goal
Reduce fire risk to adjacent private lands
DWR Phragmites Project Objectives
• Restore high value and function of wetlands to benefit wildlife with integrated control and containment management activities on select weeds
• Improve opportunity and quality of experience for users by restoring diverse wetland plant species to meet various wildlife species needs
• Encourage participation on weed control through demonstration and by education
• Alter high biomass habitats to reduce fire hazards to adjacent private lands by reducing Phragmites and other high biomass species (cattail) on or near boundaries
Project Scope for WMA Phragmites
Control Project
Treat 10,560 acres on State WMA’s
Total length of project 12-15 years
Phragmites continues to expand
Phragmites Control & Containment Methods
• Chemical used for control and containment : Glyphosate (Rodeo, Aqua Neat, Aqua Master), Imazapyr (Habitat, Polaris, Arsenal),Triclopyr (Garlon 3A)
• Mechanical used as containment: Mowing (August and September most effective and repeated treatments required),Disking (only when maintaining dry conditions for 2-3 years and repeating treatment during that time in the summer and fall)
• Biological used as containment : Grazing (cows and goats), Bugs (perhaps in the future)
• Physical used as containment : Water management (draw-downs and/or flooding), Burning (following chemical treatment or as general marsh management technique 3 years prior to treatment)
Containment will require an integrated approach of using multiple methods
Draw Down Water Control
Drought stressed Phragmites does not
respond to chemical treatment
with glyphosate
Save your money and time
Imazapyr can be used in July before
plants are stressed with some success
Phragmites Burn 2007
Disced Summer 2006Summer 2007 Disced Area
Not Grazed 2007 Grazed 2007
4 feet tall
4 inches tall
Grazed vs. Not Grazed
Long-term results
Insects feeding on Phragmites australis
151 herbivore species known outside of North America
Europe at least 140 species feeding on Phragmites
45 species of moths from the Order Lepidoptera
55 species of flies from the Order Diptera
More than 70% attack leaves and stems
50% Phragmites specialist
40% are monophagous
5 feed in rhizomes
21 species have been accidentally introduced to North America
No intentional releases have been made
Introduction assumed through East Coast by boats
5 native species known to attack Phragmites in North America
BUG TEST
Host Specificity Test
Bernd Blossey, Patrick Hafliger, Richard A.
Casagrande & Lisa Tewksbury
University of Rhode Island
Four shoot mining noctuid moth species
48 plant species host specificity screening
DWR WMA Phragmites Herbicide
Treatment Plan
A Three-year Four-step Treatment Plan
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3aerial new 1300 acre #1 aerial new 1300 acres #2 aerial new 1300 acres #3
burn (fall/spring) & retreat 1300 acres #1 retreat 1300 acres #2
retreat 1300 acres #1
total treated per year after year 3 3,900 acres/year
First Year Aerial Application 2006
Farmington Bay aerial treatment 2008
Application Rates of Glyphosate used
by DWR on Project• Aerial
– 6 gal mixture/acre (water, herbicide & surfactant)• Glyphosate 3 qts/acre
• Non-ionic surfactant 2 qts/100 gallons mixture
• Ground treatment– 20 gal mixture/acre
• Same per acre glyphosate and surfactant
• Apply when Phragmites is in flower development stage…mid August to end of September…not before…. not after frost
Always read labels and following directions on products
Burn Off Residual Phragmites
70 foot flame length
HCWMA 2007
Pre-burn spring 2007 Post burn summer 2007
Ogden Bay WMA retreatment 2008
of 2006 and 2007 initial treatments
20 inch high track
Untreated Phragmites in July
Post fall spray, 2006, & spring burn, 2007, 90%+
Phragmites kill
Results Vary
Alkali Bulrush, Saltgrass, Cattail, Forbs & Phragmites
Phragmites Treatment Acreage as of Fall
2009
• Farmington Bay 1350 acres
• Howard Slough 280 acres
• Ogden Bay 3130 acres
• Harold Crane 680 acres
• Salt Creek 20 acres
• Public Shooting Grounds 30 acres
Total WMA acres treated 5490 acres
Budget Allocation for DWR
Noxious and Invasive Weed Control
and Containment Project
• Annual request and renewal for $200,000
– 30% herbicide
– 10% aerial application
– 53 % equipment acquisition (↓ in 2012)
– 4% maintenance and operation of equipment
– 1% fire safety equipment
– 2% monitoring and other
Hours Invested Annually in Phragmites
Control Effort
• Administration 300 hours
– Literature review, research products, contacts and bids
– Scheduling, organization and responding to requests
• Fire break and pre burn 500 hours
– Includes wildland fire training
• Herbicide application 1000 hours ground retreatment, 2400 acres in 5 weeks
• Equipment preparation 140 mandays
– Customized equipment and maintenance
Total of 1940 hours per year
Some Observations• Second year looks good with 90-95% apparent
reduction of Phragmites, scattered single plants and small clumps
• Third year there appears to be a resurgence and we are treating 15%-20% of the area chemically
• The fourth year??? Next years assessment…
• A realistic expectation may be 10% Phragmites vegetative component rather than 2% as the plan identifies??
• Berger may be too optimistic??
Additional Observation
• Treatment near dikes and roads is less
effective
– May be dust collection on plant and reduced
absorption of herbicide; spray after rain storm
• Second year of control effort Phragmites has
reduced above ground “appearance”
– Witch broom form and delayed growth
characteristics……..it hides
132 stems > 3 inches long
16 inches high, 8 inch diameter
Witch Broom Phragmites after treatment, a
Photosynthesis
factory
Burning Issues
• Prescribed Burning can be difficult to initiate
– Smoke management and atmospheric conditions must
be met
• Without burning or removal of residual Phragmites,
effective retreatment is extremely difficult
• Two years after initial treatment is the max
allowable time to accomplish the burn or removal
of residual, and commence retreatment
Smoke Management is a Real
Issue
What you need to remember
• Native Phragmites is not the target
• Early intervention is best, monitoring is essential
• Follow-up treatment is a must and will require a longer commitment of time and resources than any initial treatment effort
• Ground treatment requires specialized equipment
• More invasive plants are here and coming
Mosquito Fern, Azolla spp.
Eurasian Water Milfoil,
Myriophyllum spicatumMusk Grass, Chara spp.
9/22/2005
Invasive species
Invasive speciesNuisance species
The next step• Better monitoring and sampling protocol
– Simple, quick & statistically valid
• Use of other chemicals & timing of application
– Imazapyr and glyphosate in June (Mozdzer et. al.)
• Evaluate techniques to reduce seed
production/viability
– Earlier application, fall burning, spring/summer mowing
• Evaluate techniques to reduce germination of
Phragmites
– Water management
– Understanding germination conditions
• Experimentation with Karin Kettenring, USU
Issue with Hybrid Cattail
Utah marshes are typically dominated by cattail
Typha latifolia (broad-leaved cattail)
T.domingensis (southern cattail)
T, angustifolia
(narrow-leaved cattail, introduced)
T. x glauca is a hybrid between T latifolia or T.
domingensis and T. angustifolia
This hybrid forms tall dense clones in deeper water
Most often associated with the edge of ponds and water
channels
Hybrid cattail taller than Phragmites
Phragmites Coordination
• Work with State & Federal agencies, municipalities, private groups and individuals
• Help develop a practical and useful plan for control and containment of Phragmites
• Work with research institutes to answer key questions and develop strategies
• Encourage private enterprises in control and containment efforts or marketing of Phragmites products
• Share knowledge, resources, identify funding needs and look for opportunities to further control and contain Phragmites
THIS IS A TEAM EFFORT
Ground Rules
Be safe, work efficiently, effectively and have fun doing it
Where we hope to be again,
a nice diverse & productive marsh
Any Questions????