Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-jlrq2 Total loading time: 0.19 Render date: 2022-11-29T18:41:47.740Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Evaluating the Potential for Differential Susceptibility of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Haplotypes I and M to Aquatic Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joshua C. Cheshier*
Affiliation:
Geosystems Research Institute and Department of Plant and Soils Science, Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
John D. Madsen
Affiliation:
Geosystems Research Institute and Department of Plant and Soils Science, Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Ryan M. Wersal*
Affiliation:
Geosystems Research Institute and Department of Plant and Soils Science, Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Patrick D. Gerard
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, 291 Barre Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
Mark E. Welch
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9536, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Current address: 377 SW McFadden Ave, Chehalis, WA 898532
Corresponding author's E-mail: rwersal@gri.msstate.edu

Abstract

Common reed (Phragmites australis) is an invasive perennial grass in aquatic and riparian environments across the United States, forming monotypic stands that displace native vegetation that provides food and cover for wildlife. Genetic variation in global populations of common reed has given rise to two invasive haplotypes, I and M, in the United States. Our objectives were to (1) determine if any differences in herbicide efficacy exist with respect to common reed haplotypes I and M and (2) screen for other labeled aquatic herbicides that may have activity on common reed haplotypes I and M, most notably imazamox and diquat. A replicated outdoor mesocosm study was conducted in 1,136-L (300-gal) tanks using haplotypes I and M of common reed. Restriction fragment length polymorphism methodologies were used to verify the identification of I and M haplotypes used in this study. Diquat at 2.2 (1.9) and 4.5 (4.0) kg ai ha−1 (lb ai ac−1), glyphosate at 2.1 (1.8) and 4.2 (3.7) kg ae ha−1 (lb ae ac−1), imazamox at 0.6 (0.5) and 1.1 (0.9) kg ai ha−1 (lb ai ac−1), imazapyr at 0.8 (0.7) and 1.7 (1.5) kg ai ha−1 (lb ai ac−1), and triclopyr at 3.4 (3.0) and 6.7 (5.9) kg ae ha−1 (lb ae ac−1) were applied to the foliage of common reed. After 12 wk, no difference (P = 0.28) in herbicide tolerance was seen between the two haplotypes with respect to biomass. The 4.2-kg ae ha−1 rate of glyphosate and the 0.8- and 1.7 kg ai ha−1 rates of imazapyr reduced common reed by > 90% at 12 wk after treatment (WAT). Imazamox at 0.6 and 1.1 kg ai ha−1, and triclopyr at 3.4 and 6.7 kg ae ha−1 reduced common reed biomass (62–86%) at 12 WAT, though regrowth occurred. Diquat did not significantly reduce biomass by 12 wk. Glyphosate and imazapyr were the only herbicides that resulted in > 90% biomass reduction and corroborate control from previous studies.

Type
Notes and Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Able, K. W. and Hagan, S. M. 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion of marsh surface macropauna: response of fishes and decapods crustaceans. Estuaries 23:633636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ailstock, M. S., Norman, C. M., and Bushman, P. J. 2001. Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restor. Ecol. 9:4959.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. M., Meyerson, L. A., and Saltonstall, K. 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat. Bot. 64:261273.Google Scholar
Clayton, W. D. 1967. Studies in the Gramineae: XIV. Kew Bull. 21:111117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, D. H. and Fleming, K. L. 1989. Control of Phragmites australis or common reed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 13.4.2:15.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 2008a. Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, J. F. 2008b. Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to postemergence herbicides. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:153157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, K. 1976. Underground organs of Phragmites communis, their growth, biomass, and net production. Folá Geobot. Phytotaxon. 11:225259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güsewell, S. 2003. Management of Phragmites australis in Swiss fen meadows by mowing in early summer. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 11:433445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. M. 1972. Biological flora of the British Isles, no. 128. Phragmites communis Trinidad J. Ecol. 60:585610.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. M. 1973. Some aspects of the life history and autoecology of Phragmites communis Trin. Hydrobiologia 20:79100.Google Scholar
Hauber, D. P., White, D. A., Powers, S. P., and De Francesch, F. R. 1991. Isozyme variation and correspondence with unusual infrared reflectance patterns in Phragmites australis (Poaceae), Plant System. Evol. 178:18.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology Honolulu The University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 373378.Google Scholar
Kay, S. 1995. Efficacy of wipe-on applications of glyphosate and imazapyr on common reed in aquatic sites. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 33:2526.Google Scholar
Kilmeš, L., Klimešová, J., and Čížková, H. 1999. Carbohydrate storage in rhizomes of Phragmites australis: the effects of altitude and rhizome age. Aquat. Bot. 64:105110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppitz, H. 1999. Analysis of genetic diversity among selected populations of Phragmites australis world-wide. Aquat Bot. 64:209221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M., Lapin, B., and Randall, J. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management and monitoring. Nat. Areas J. 14:285294.Google Scholar
Monteiro, A., Moreira, I., and Sousa, E. 1999. Effect of prior common reed (Phragmites australis) cutting on herbicide efficacy. Hydrobiologia 415:305308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mozdzer, T. J., Hutto, C. J., Clarke, P. A., and Field, D. P. 2008. Efficacy of imazapyr and glyphosate in the control of non-native Phragmites australis . Restor. Ecol. 16:221224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murai, N., Skoog, F., Doyle, M. E., and Hanson, R. S. 1980. Relationships between cytokinin production, presence of plasmids, and fasciation caused by strains of Corynebacterium fascians . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 77:619623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellegrin, D. and Hauber, D. P. 1999. Isozome variation among populations of the clonal species Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin ex. Steudel. Aquat. Bot. 63:241259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, D. N. 1976. Long-term effects of glyphosate applications to Phragmites . J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 14:3943.Google Scholar
Roman, C. T., Niering, W. A., and Warren, R. S. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environ. Manag. 8:141150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltonstall, K. 2001. A set of primers for amplification of noncoding regions of chloroplast DNA in the grasses. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1:7678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by non-native genotypes of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99:24452449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltonstall, K. 2003. A rapid method for identifying the origin of North American Phragmites populations using RFLP analysis. Wetlands 23:10431047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltonstall, K., Peterson, P. M., and Soreng, R. J. 2004. Recognition of Phragmites australis subsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: evidence from morphological and genetic analyses. SIDA 21:683692.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 129137 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoidea (Graminae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arboretum 71:145177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windham, L. and Lathrop, R. G. Jr. 1999. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marshes of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22:927935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluating the Potential for Differential Susceptibility of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Haplotypes I and M to Aquatic Herbicides
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Evaluating the Potential for Differential Susceptibility of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Haplotypes I and M to Aquatic Herbicides
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Evaluating the Potential for Differential Susceptibility of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Haplotypes I and M to Aquatic Herbicides
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *