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????