Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:56:48.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing to Evaluate Efficacy of Aquatic Plant Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Maria J. Santos ,
Shruti Khanna ,
Erin L. Hestir ,
Margaret E. Andrew ,
Sepalika S. Rajapakse ,
Jonathan A. Greenberg ,
Lars W. J. Anderson  and
Susan L. Ustin
Maria J. Santos*
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Shruti Khanna
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Erin L. Hestir
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Margaret E. Andrew
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Sepalika S. Rajapakse
Affiliation:
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning 200, N. Spring St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jonathan A. Greenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Lars W. J. Anderson
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research, One Shields Avenue, Mailstop 4, Davis, CA 95616
Susan L. Ustin
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS), University of California, Davis, The Barn, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mjsantos@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasive aquatic weeds negatively affect biodiversity, fluvial dynamics, water quality, and water storage and conveyance for a variety of human resource demands. In California's Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, one submersed species—Brazilian egeria—and one floating species—waterhyacinth—are actively managed to maintain navigable waterways. We monitored the spatial and temporal dynamics of these species and their communities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta using airborne hyperspectral data and assessed the effect of herbicide treatments used to manage these species from 2003 to 2007. Each year, submersed aquatic plant species occupied about 12% of the surface area of the Delta in early summer and floating invasive plant species occupied 2 to 3%. Since 2003, the coverage of submersed aquatic plants expanded about 500 ha, whereas the coverage of waterhyacinth was reduced. Although local treatments have reduced the coverage of submersed aquatic plants, Delta-wide cover has not been significantly reduced. Locally, multiyear treatments could decrease submersed aquatic plants spread, given that no residual plants outside the treated area were present. In contrast, the spread of waterhyacinth either has been constant or has decreased over time. These results show that (1) the objectives of the Egeria densa Control Program (EDCP) have been hindered until 2007 by restrictions imposed on the timing of herbicide applications; (2) submersed aquatic plants appeared to function as ecosystem engineers by enabling spread to adjacent areas typically subject to scouring action; (3) repeated herbicide treatment of waterhyacinth has resulted in control of the spread of this species, which also appears to have facilitated the spread of waterprimrose and floating pennywort. These results suggest that management of the Delta aquatic macrophytes may benefit by an ecosystem-level implementation of an Integrated Delta Vegetation Management and Monitoring Program, rather than targeting only two problematic species.

Keywords

Brazilian egeria, Egeria densa Planch.floating pennywort, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides L. f.waterhyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms.waterprimrose, Ludwigia L. spp.Change detectioncoverexotic specieshyperspectral remote sensingweed management
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 216 - 229
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

Alpine, A. E. and Cloern, J. E. 1992. Trophic interactions and direct physical effects control phytoplankton biomass and production in an estuary. Limnol. Oceanogr 37:946–955.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W. J. 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in the Western United States and Canada. Pages 371–391. In Pieterse, A. H. and Murphy, K. J. Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W. J. 1999. Dissipation and movement of Sonar and Komeen following typical applications for control of Egeria densa in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and Production and viability of E. densa fragments following mechanical harvesting (1997/1998). Davis, CA U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Environmental Impact Report for California Department of Boating and Waterways. 79.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W. J. 2003. A review of aquatic weed biology and management research conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service. Pest Manag. Sci 59:801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, C. M., Donato, T. F., Lamela, G. M., Rhea, W. J., Bettenhausen, M. H., Fusina, R. A., Bois, K. R. D., Porter, J. H., and Truitt, B. R. 2002. Automatic classification of land cover on Smith Island, VA, using HyMAP imagery. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens 40:2313–2330.Google Scholar
Beisner, B., Haydon, D., and Cuddington, K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ 1:376–382.Google Scholar
Bloch, D. A. and Kraemer, H. C. 1989. 2 × 2 Kappa coefficients: measures of agreement or association. Biometrics 45:269–287.Google Scholar
Bradley, B. A. and Mustard, J. F. 2006. Characterizing the landscape dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote sensing. Ecol. Appl 16:1132–1147.Google Scholar
Brown, L. R. and Michniuk, D. 2007. Littoral fish assemblages of the alien-dominated Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California, 1980–1983 and 2001–2003. Estuaries Coasts 30:186–200.Google Scholar
[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council 2003. Aquatic Weeds: Policy, Prevention and Control—Proceedings of California Invasive Plant Council Symposium. Berkeley, CA Cal-IPC. 122.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Aschehoug, E. T. 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523.Google Scholar
[CDBW] California Department of Boating and Waterways 2005a. Egeria densa Control Program. Sacramento, CA CDBW. 70.Google Scholar
[CDBW] California Department of Boating and Waterways 2005b. Waterhyacinth Control Program. Sacramento, CA CDBW. 40.Google Scholar
[CDBW] California Department of Boating and Waterways 2006. Egeria densa Control Program: Second Addendum to the 2001 Environmental Impact with Five-Year Program Review and Future Operations Plan. Sacramento, CA CDBW. 205.Google Scholar
[CDBW] California Department of Boating and Waterways 2008. Egeria densa Control Program: Annual Report 2007 application season. Sacramento, CA CDBW. 54.Google Scholar
Center, T. D. and Spencer, N. R. 1981. The phenology and growth of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in a eutrophic north-central Florida lake. Aquat. Bot 10:1–32.Google Scholar
Champion, P. D. and Tanner, C. C. 2000. Seasonality of macrophytes and interaction with flow in a New Zealand lowland stream. Hydrobiologia 441:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. N. and Carlton, J. T. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas 20:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, J. A. 2005. Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E. and Johnson, W. S. 2002. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ 23:319–342.Google Scholar
Ehler, L. E. 2006. Perspective integrated pest management (IPM): definition, historical development and implementation and the other IPM. Pest Manag. Sci 62:787–789.Google Scholar
French, T. D. and Chambers, P. A. 1996. Habitat partitioning in riverine macrophyte communities. Freshwater Biol 36:509–520.Google Scholar
Getsinger, K. D., Madsen, J. D., Koschnik, T. J., and Netherland, M. D. 2002. Whole lake SONAR treatments for selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil, I: application strategy and herbicide residues. Lake Reservoir Manag 18:181–190.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M. V., Gibbons, H. L., and Sytsma, M. D. 1994. A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans. Water Environmental Services http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/manual/index.html.Google Scholar
Glenn, N. F., Mundt, J. T., Weber, K. T., Prather, T. S., Lass, L. W., and Pettingill, J. 2005. Hyperspectral data processing for repeat detection of small infestations of leafy spurge. Remote Sens. Environ 95:399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golet, G. H., Brown, D. L., Crone, E. E., et al. 2003. Using science to evaluate restoration efforts and ecosystem health on the Sacramento River Project, California. Pages 368–385. In Faber, P. M. California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplain Management, Ecology, and Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Sacramento, CA: Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl 8:975–989.Google Scholar
Haramoto, T. and Ikusima, I. 1988. Life cycle of Egeria densa Planch., an aquatic plant naturalized in Japan. Aquat. Bot 30:389–403.Google Scholar
Hestir, E. L., Khanna, S., Andrew, M. E., Santos, M. J., Viers, J. H., Greenberg, J. A., Rajapakse, S. S., and Ustin, S. L. 2008. Identification of invasive vegetation using hyperspectral remote sensing in the California Delta ecosystem. Remote Sens. Environ 112:4034–4047.Google Scholar
Hirano, A., Madden, M., and Welch, R. 2003. Hyperspectral image data for mapping wetland vegetation. Wetlands 23:436–448.Google Scholar
Jassby, A. D. and Cloern, J. E. 2000. Organic matter sources and rehabilitation of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (California, USA). Aquat. Conserv 10:323–352.Google Scholar
Ji, Z-G. 2008. Hydrodynamics and Water Quality: Modeling Rivers, Lakes and Estuaries. New York Wiley Interscience. 676.Google Scholar
Lee-II, H., Reusser, D. A., Olden, J. D., Smith, S. S., Graham, J., Burkett, V., Dukes, J. S., Piorkowski, R. J., and McPhedran, J. 2008. Integrated monitoring and information systems for managing aquatic invasive species in a changing climate. Conserv. Biol 22:575–584.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., Dale, M. R. T., Fortin, M. J., Gurevitch, J., Horn, M., and Myers, D. 2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25:601–615.Google Scholar
Lehman, A. 1998. GIS modeling of submerged macrophyte distribution using generalized additive models. Plant Ecol 139:113–124.Google Scholar
Light, T., Grosholz, T., and Moyle, P. 2005. Delta Ecological Survey (Phase I): Non-indigenous aquatic species in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, a literature review. Sacramento, CA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. M., Williams, S., MacIsaac, H. J., et al. 2006. Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecol. Appl 16:2035–2054.Google Scholar
Marcondes, D. A. S., Velini, E. D., Martins, D., Tanaka, R. H., Carvalho, F. T., Cavenaghi, A. L., and Bronhara, A. A. 2003. Eficiência de fluridone no controle de plantas aquáticas submersas no reservatório de Jupiá. Planta Daninha 21:69–77.Google Scholar
Methy, M., Alpert, P., and Roy, J. 1990. Effects of light quality and quantity on growth of the clonal plant Eichhornia crassipes . Oecologia 84:265–271.Google Scholar
Moyle, P. B. and Light, T. 1996. Fish invasions in California: do abiotic factors determine success? Ecology 77:1666–1670.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. S., Stewart, A. B., and Getsinger, K. D. 2002. Fluridone effects on fanwort and watermarigold. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 40:58–63.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D. and Getsinger, K. D. 1995. Potential control of hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil under various fluridone half-life scenarios. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 33:36–42.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D., Getsinger, K. D., and Skogerboe, J. D. 1997. Mesocosm evaluation of the species-selective potential fluridone. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 35:41–50.Google Scholar
[OTA] Office of Technology Assessment 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.Google Scholar
Owens, C. S. and Madsen, J. D. 1995. Low temperature limits of water hyacinth. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 33:63–68.Google Scholar
Penfound, W. T. and Earle, T. T. 1948. The biology of the waterhyacinth. Ecol. Monogr 18:447–472.Google Scholar
Pennington, T. G. 2007. Seasonal changes in allocation, growth, and photosynthetic responses of the submerged macrophytes Egeria densa Planch. (Hydrocharitaceae) from Oregon and California. Ph.D Dissertation. Portland, OR Portland State University. 151.Google Scholar
Pennington, T. G. and Systma, M. D. 2009. Seasonal change in carbohydrate and nitrogen concentrations in Oregon and California populations of Brazilian Egeria (Egeria densa). Invasive Plant Sci. and Manage 2:120–129.Google Scholar
Peñuelas, J., Gamon, J. A., Griffin, K. L., and Field, C. B. 1993. Assessing community type, plant biomass, pigment composition, and photosynthetic efficiency of aquatic vegetation from spectral reflectance. Remote Sens. Environ 46:110–118.Google Scholar
Pereira, W. E., Domagalski, J. L., Hostettler, F. D., Brown, L. R., and Rapp, J. B. 1996. Occurrence and accumulation of pesticides and organic contaminants in river sediment, water and clam tissues from the San Joaquin River an tributaries, California. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 15:172–180.Google Scholar
Phinn, S. R., Menges, C., Hill, G. J. E., and Stanford, M. 2000. Optimising remotely sensed solutions for monitoring, modeling and managing coastal environments. Remote Sens. Environ 73:117–132.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Aust. Ecol 25:497–506.Google Scholar
ReMetrix 2007. 2007 Monitoring Aquatic Herbicide Treatment and Efficacy on Egeria densa Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, CA. Annual Summary Report with Maps, Graphs and Statistics, Carmel, IN: ReMetrix. January 2008. 57.Google Scholar
Rockwell, H. W. 2003. Summary of a Survey of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Flint, MI Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. August 2003. 18.Google Scholar
Ruch, S. 2008. Assessing progress in Brazilian waterweed management in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, CA: Efficacy Results from 2007 Broad-Scale Herbicide Treatment in Frank's Tract. 27th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Meeting. Coeur d'Alene, ID: Western Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Santos, M. J., Anderson, L. W., and Ustin, S. L. 2009. Spatial patterns in native and exotic submersed aquatic plant species in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. Pages 96–99. in. Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council Symposium. Berkeley, CA California Invasive Plant Council.Google Scholar
Sculthorpe, C. D. 1965. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Köenigstein, West Germany Koeltz Scientific Books. 610.Google Scholar
Schierenbeck, K. A., Mack, R. N., and Sharitz, R. R. 1994. Effects of herbivory on growth and biomass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera . Ecology 75:1661–1672.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. S. and Skidmore, A. K. 2003. Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in coastal wetlands. Remote Sens. Environ 85:92–108.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Chesson, P. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol 17:170–176.Google Scholar
Silvestri, S., Marani, M., and Marani, A. 2003. Hyperspectral remote sensing of salt marsh vegetation, morphology and soil topography. Phys. Chem. Earth 28:15–25.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. L., Netherland, M. D., and Stewart, A. B. 1998. Phytoene and carotene response of aquatic plants to fluridone under laboratory conditions. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 36:111–120.Google Scholar
Suding, K. N., Gross, K. L., and Houseman, G. R. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol 19:46–53.Google Scholar
Toft, J. D. 2000. Community effects of the non-indigenous aquatic plant waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, California. M.S. thesis. Seattle, WA University of Washington. 86.Google Scholar
Toft, J. D., Simenstad, C. A., Cordell, J. R., and Grimaldo, L. F. 2003. The effects of introduced waterhyacinth on habitat structure, invertebrate assemblages, and fish diets. Estuaries 26:746–758.Google Scholar
Underwood, E., Ustin, S. L., and DiPietro, D. 2003. Mapping non-native species using hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sens. Environ 86:150–161.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. C., Mulitsch, M. J., Greenberg, J. A., Whiting, M. L., Ustin, S. L., and Kefauver, S. C. 2006. Mapping of invasive aquatic vegetation in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta using hyperspectral imagery. Environ. Monitor. Assess 121:47–64.Google Scholar
Ustin, S. L., DiPietro, D., Olmstead, K., Underwood, E., and Scheer, G. J. 2002. Hyperspectral remote sensing for invasive species detection and mapping. Pages 1658–1660. in. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium—IGARSS '02. 2002. Piscataway, NJ IEEE International.Google Scholar
Van-Damme, S., Struyf, E., Maris, T., Ysebaert, T., Dehairs, F., Tackx, M., Heip, C., and Meire, P. 2005. Spatial and temporal patterns of water quality along the estuarine salinity gradient of the Scheldt estuary (Belgium and The Netherlands): results of an integrated monitoring program. Hydrobiologia 540:29–45.Google Scholar
Viaroli, P., Bartoli, M., Bondavalli, C., Christian, R. R., Giordani, G., and Naldi, M. 1996. Macrophyte communities and their impact on the benthic fluxes of oxygen, sulphide and nutrients in shallow eutrophic environments. Hydrobiologia 329:105–119.Google Scholar
Werner, I., Deanovic, L. A., Connor, V., Vlaming, V., Bailey, H. C., and Hinton, D. E. 2000. Insecticide-caused toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 19:215–227.Google Scholar
Williams, A. E., Duthie, H. C., and Hecky, R. E. 2005. Waterhyacinth in Lake Victoria: why did it vanish so quickly and will it return? Aquat. Bot 81:300–314.Google Scholar
Winfield, I. J., Onoufriou, C., O'Connell, M. J., Godlewska, M., Ward, R. M., Brown, A. F., and Yallop, M. L. 2007. Assessment in two shallow lakes of a hydroacoustic system for surveying aquatic macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 584:111–119.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., and Mooney, H. A. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:454–459.Google Scholar