DOCSLIB.ORG

Cottonwood Weed Treatment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cottonwood Weed Treatment Cottonwood Integrated Weed Treatment Program ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coeur d’AleneCoeur District, Idaho Dalmation toadflax biological control release site Cottonwood Field Office 9015 DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2011-0017-EA January 2012 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Cottonwood Field Office 1 Butte Drive Cottonwood, ID 83522 208-962-3245 Cover Photo: Dalmation toadflax biological control site; Photo by Lynn Danly Cottonwood Integrated Weed Treatment Program Contents 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Type of Action ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Location of Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 1 1.4 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.5 Purpose of and Need for Action ....................................................................................... 3 1.6 Land Use Plan Conformance............................................................................................ 4 1.7 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans ....................................................... 5 1.8 Incorporation by Reference and Tiering .......................................................................... 7 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 8 2.1 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ................................................................ 8 2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List....................................................................... 18 2.4 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ........................................................................... 19 2.5 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control .......................................... 19 2.6 Alternative 4 – No Action .............................................................................................. 20 2.7 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...................................................... 20 2.8 Alternative Comparison ................................................................................................. 21 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 23 3.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Affected Resources ........................................................................................................ 23 3.2.1 Special Designation Areas ........................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 32 3.2.4 Fisheries and Special Status Fish ................................................................................. 34 3.2.5 Wildlife and Special Status Wildlife............................................................................ 40 3.2.6 Soils.............................................................................................................................. 43 3.2.7 Native American Tribal Uses....................................................................................... 44 3.2.8 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 44 3.2.9 Human Health/Recreation Use .................................................................................... 45 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................................................................................... 46 4.1 Special Designation Areas ............................................................................................. 46 4.1.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 46 4.1.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................... 49 4.1.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 49 4.1.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ........................................ 50 4.1.5 Alternative 4 – No Action ............................................................................................ 50 4.2 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 51 4.2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 51 4.2.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................... 62 4.2.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 63 4.2.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ........................................ 65 4.2.5 Alternative 4 – No Action ............................................................................................ 68 Environmental Assessment (January 2012) Page i Cottonwood Integrated Weed Treatment Program 4.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 70 4.3.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 70 4.3.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List ................................................................... 73 4.3.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 74 4.3.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ........................................ 74 4.3.5 Alternative 4 – No Action ............................................................................................ 75 4.4 Fisheries and Special Status Fish ................................................................................... 75 4.4.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 75 4.4.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................... 82 4.4.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 83 4.4.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ........................................ 84 4.4.5 Alternative 4 – No Action ............................................................................................ 85 4.5 Wildlife and Special Status Wildlife .............................................................................. 85 4.5.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 85 4.5.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................... 94 4.5.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 94 4.5.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ........................................ 95 4.5.5 Alternative 4 – No Action ............................................................................................ 97 4.6 Soils ................................................................................................................................ 97 4.6.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 97 4.6.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................... 99 4.6.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ......................................................................... 99 4.6.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control ...................................... 100 4.6.5 Alternative 4 – No Action .......................................................................................... 100 4.7 Native American Tribal Uses ....................................................................................... 100 4.7.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 100 4.7.2 Alternative 1 – 18 Active Ingredient List .................................................................. 101 4.7.3 Alternative 2 – No Aerial Application ....................................................................... 101 4.7.4 Alternative 3 – No Herbicide or Exotic Biological Control .....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linaria Dalmatica Invades South-Facing Slopes and Less Grazed Areas in Grazing-Tolerant Mixed-Grass Prairie
    Biol Invasions DOI 10.1007/s10530-011-0085-9 ORIGINAL PAPER Linaria dalmatica invades south-facing slopes and less grazed areas in grazing-tolerant mixed-grass prairie Dana M. Blumenthal • Andrew P. Norton • Samuel E. Cox • Erik M. Hardy • Glen E. Liston • Lisa Kennaway • D. Terrance Booth • Justin D. Derner Received: 5 October 2010 / Accepted: 29 July 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011 Abstract Identifying environments where invasive adjusted model selection techniques to quantify rela- plants are most invasive is key to understanding causes tionships between toadflax cover (measured using very of invasion and developing effective management high-resolution aerial imagery), and relative snow strategies. In mixed-grass prairie, invasive plants are deposition (estimated with a blowing snow model), often successful in relatively wet, nitrogen-rich areas, slope, aspect, soil texture, and grazing intensity and areas protected from grazing. Dalmatian toadflax, (estimated by proximity to water tanks). Toadflax a common invader of mixed-grass prairie, can also be was common throughout the 400 ha study site, occur- favored by high water and nitrogen availability, but is ring in 742 of 1,861 images. Toadflax cover was high thought to be relatively unpalatable to cattle, and on steeper slopes, particularly those with southern therefore favored by grazing. We used spatially- aspects. These two topographic variables were more effective in explaining toadflax distribution than modeled snow deposition, suggesting that factors other & D. M. Blumenthal ( ) Á E. M. Hardy than snow deposition cause toadflax invasion on south- Crops Research Laboratory, USDA—ARS Rangeland Resources Research Unit, 1701 Center Ave, Fort Collins, facing slopes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of a State Insectary in Weed Biocontrol
    The Role of a State Insectary in Weed Biocontrol Dan Bean, Director Palisade Insectary Colorado Department of Agriculture Conservation Services Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Plant Industry Brands Inspection and Consumer Services Conservation Services Markets State Fair Animal Industries Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Conservation Districts Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Groundwater Conservation Districts Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Noxious Weeds Groundwater Conservation Districts Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Biological Pest Control Noxious Weeds Groundwater Conservation Districts Commissioner’s Office 7 Divisions Conservation Services 4 Programs Biological Pest Control Palisade Insectary Palisade, Colorado Palisade Insectary . Began in the 1940’s to fight Oriental fruit moth, a project that helped peach farmers and is still going . Moved to new 14,000 sq ft facility in 1992 . Distributes over 30 biocontrol agents for the control of insect pests and weeds . Is a partner in pest management on a local, state, tribal and federal level The Program mission is to provide biological control agents and expertise to the citizens of Colorado in order to assist in achieving their land and resource management objectives Leafy spurge infestation near Pine, CO Eric Lane, Director
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands
    2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands Consultation Conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) December 6, 2011 Return to Table of Contents 1 | P a g e 2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................... 11 Species not likely to be adversely affected ................................................................................................. 17 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................................. 27 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 27 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Direction .................................................................................... 28 Reporting and Monitoring
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 - Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and Amazon 1: Biodiversity
    Lyonia 9(1) 2006 - Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and Amazon 1: Biodiversity Volume 9 (1) February 2006 ISSN: 0888-9619 Introduction In 2001, the 1. Congress of Conservation of Biological and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and the Amazon Basin in Cusco, Peru, attempted to provide a platform to bridge the existing gap between Scientists, Non Governmental Organizations, Indigenous Populations and Governmental Agencies. This was followed by a 2. Congress in 2003, held in Loja, Ecuador together with the IV Ecuadorian Botanical Congress. The most important results of these conferences were published in Lyonia 6 (1/2) and 7 (1/2) 2004. Since then, the "Andes and Amazon" Biodiversity Congress has become a respected institution, and is being held every two years in Loja, Ecuador, where it has found a permanent home at the Universidad Tecnica Particular. In 2005, the 3. Congres on Biological and Cultural Diversity of the Andes and Amazon Basin joined efforts with the 2. Dry Forest Congress and the 5. Ecuadorian Botanical Congress, to provide an even broader venue. The Tropical Dry Forests of Latin America as well as the Andes and the Amazon Basin represent one of the most important Biodiversity-Hotspots on Earth. At the same time, both systems face imminent dangers due to unsustainable use. Attempts of sustainable management and conservation must integrate local communities and their traditional knowledge. Management decisions need to include the high importance of natural resources in providing building materials, food and medicines for rural as well as urbanized communities. The traditional use of forest resources, particularly of non-timber products like medicinal plants, has deep roots not only in indigenous communities, but is practiced in a wide section of society.
    [Show full text]
  • New Contributions to the Molecular Systematics and the Evolution of Host-Plant Associations in the Genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Chrysomelinae)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 547: 165–192 New(2015) contributions to the molecular systematics and the evolution... 165 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.547.6018 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research New contributions to the molecular systematics and the evolution of host-plant associations in the genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Chrysomelinae) José A. Jurado-Rivera1, Eduard Petitpierre1,2 1 Departament de Biologia, Universitat de les Illes Balears, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 2 Institut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avançats, CSIC, Miquel Marquès 21, 07190 Esporles, Balearic Islands, Spain Corresponding author: José A. Jurado-Rivera ([email protected]) Academic editor: M. Schmitt | Received 15 April 2015 | Accepted 31 August 2015 | Published 17 December 2015 http://zoobank.org/AF13498F-BF42-4609-AA96-9760490C3BB5 Citation: Jurado-Rivera JA, Petitpierre E (2015) New contributions to the molecular systematics and the evolution of host-plant associations in the genus Chrysolina (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Chrysomelinae). In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 5. ZooKeys 547: 165–192. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.547.6018 Abstract The taxonomic circumscription of the large and diverse leaf beetle genusChrysolina Motschulsky is not clear, and its discrimination from the closely related genus Oreina Chevrolat has classically been controver- sial. In addition, the subgeneric arrangement of the species is unstable, and proposals segregating Chryso- lina species into new genera have been recently suggested. In this context, the availability of a phylogenetic framework would provide the basis for a stable taxonomic system, but the existing phylogenies are based on few taxa and have low resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Diurnal and Nocturnal Lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Lepidópteros Diurnos Y Nocturnos De La Reserva Buenaventura (Piñas –Ecuador)
    Volume 9 (1) Diurnal and nocturnal lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Lepidópteros diurnos y nocturnos de la Reserva Buenaventura (Piñas –Ecuador) Sebastián Padrón Universidad del Azuay Escuela de Biología del Medio Ambiente [email protected] February 2006 Download at: http://www.lyonia.org/downloadPDF.php?pdfID=2.408.1 Diurnal and nocturnal lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Resumen En un bosque húmedo tropical en el sur de Ecuador, dentro de un gradiente altitudinal de 600-1000m sobre el nivel del mar, se realizo un inventario de mariposas diurnas y nocturnas elaborando así una lista preliminar de especies. La región de investigación (La Reserva Buenaventura) está ubicada en la parte alta de la provincia del Oro cerca de la ciudad de Piñas, esta reserva presenta una gran diversidad de aves, especies vegetales e insectos. Las comunidades de mariposas diurnas y nocturnas fueron muestreadas durante los meses de Agosto y Septiembre del 2004, para lo cual se utilizo trampas aéreas, de cebo, e intercepción con red y de luz Vapor de Mercurio 250 watt. Las trampas aéreas, de cebo y de intercepción fueron efectuadas a lo largo de transectos definidos dentro de la reserva, estos fueron monitoreados cada dos días dentro de los 24 días de la investigación. La trampa de luz fue ubicada en la estación científica y esta se uso, por tres horas desde 18:30 hasta 21:30, durante 15 noches. Se pudo capturar 550 especimenes las cuales fueron conservadas, montadas e identificación. Se pudo clasificar 255 especies de lepidópteros de las cuales 60 pertenecen a mariposas diurnas y 195 a nocturnas.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 30 Svsn.Pdf
    c/o Museo di Storia Naturale Fontego dei Turchi, S. Croce 1730 30135 Venezia (Italy) Tel. 041 2750206 - Fax 041 721000 codice fiscale 80014010278 sito web: www.svsn.it e-mail: [email protected] Lavori Vol. 30 Venezia 31 gennaio 2005 La Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali si è costituita a Venezia nel Dicembre 1975 Consiglio Direttivo Presidente della Società: Giampietro Braga Vice Presidente: Fabrizio Bizzarini Consiglieri (*) Botanica: Linda Bonello Maria Teresa Sammartino Didattica, Ecologia,Tutela ambientale: Giuseppe Gurnari Maria Chiara Lazzari Scienze della Terra e dell’Uomo: Fabrizio Bizzarini Simone Citon Zoologia: Raffaella Trabucco Segretario Tesoriere: Anna Maria Confente Revisori dei Conti: Luigi Bruni Giulio Scarpa Comitato scientifico di redazione: Giovanni Caniglia (Direttore), Fabrizio Bizzarini, Giampietro Braga, Paolo Canestrelli, Corrado Lazzari, Francesco Mezzavilla, Alessandro Minelli, Enrico Negrisolo, Michele Pellizzato Direttore responsabile della rivista: Alberto Vitucci Iniziativa realizzata con il contributo della Regione Veneto Il 15 ottobre 1975 il tribunale di Venezia autorizzava la pubblicazione della rivista scientifica “Lavori” e nel gennaio del 1976 la Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali presentava ai soci il primo numero della rivista che conteneva 13 con- tributi scientifici. In ordine alfabetico ne elenchiamo gli autori: Lorenzo Bonometto, Silvano Canzoneri, Paolo Cesari, Antonio Dal Corso, Federico De Angeli, Giorgio Ferro, Lorenzo Munari, Helio Pierotti, Leone Rampini, Giampaolo Rallo, Enrico Ratti, Marino Sinibaldi e Roberto Vannucci. Nasceva così quell’impegno editoriale che caratterizza da allora la nostra società non solo nel puntuale rispetto dei tempi di stampa, entro il primo trimestre di ogni anno, del volume degli atti scientifici: “Lavori”, ma anche nelle altre pub- blicazione.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.7.10 Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 Jetzt Beschriebenen Palaearctischen Ceuthor- Rhynchinen
    Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 305 Schultze, A. (1902): Kritisches Verzeichniss der bis 3.7.10 Curculioninae Latreille, 1802 jetzt beschriebenen palaearctischen Ceuthor- rhynchinen. – Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift Roberto Caldara , Nico M. Franz, and Rolf 1902: 193 – 226. G. Oberprieler Schwarz, E. A. (1894): A “ parasitic ” scolytid. – Pro- ceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 3: Distribution. The subfamily as here composed (see 15 – 17. Phylogeny and Taxonomy below) includes approx- Scudder, S. H. (1893): Tertiary Rhynchophorous Coleo- ptera of the United States. xii + 206 pp. US Geological imately 350 genera and 4500 species (O ’ Brien & Survey, Washington, DC. Wibmer 1978; Thompson 1992; Alonso-Zarazaga Stierlin, G. (1886): Fauna insectorum Helvetiae. Coleo- & Lyal 1999; Oberprieler et al. 2007), provisionally ptera helvetiae , Volume 2. 662 pp. Rothermel & Cie., divided into 34 tribes. These are geographically Schaffhausen. generally restricted to a lesser or larger degree, only Thompson, R. T. (1973): Preliminary studies on the two – Curculionini and Rhamphini – being virtually taxonomy and distribution of the melon weevil, cosmopolitan in distribution and Anthonomini , Acythopeus curvirostris (Boheman) (including Baris and Tychiini only absent from the Australo-Pacifi c granulipennis (Tournier)) (Coleoptera, Curculion- region. Acalyptini , Cionini , Ellescini , Mecinini , idae). – Bulletin of Entomological Research 63: 31 – 48. and Smicronychini occur mainly in the Old World, – (1992): Observations on the morphology and clas- from Africa to the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, sifi cation of weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) with Ellescini, Acalyptini, and Smicronychini also with a key to major groups. – Journal of Natural His- extending into the Nearctic region and at least tory 26: 835 – 891. the latter two also into the Australian one.
    [Show full text]
  • (Linaria Vulgaris) and Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria
    DISSERTATION VIABILITY AND INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF HYBRIDS BETWEEN YELLOW TOADFLAX (LINARIA VULGARIS) AND DALMATIAN TOADFLAX (LINARIA DALMATICA) Submitted by Marie F.S. Turner Department of Soil and Crop Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Fall 2012 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Sarah Ward Christopher Richards David Steingraeber George Beck Sharlene Sing Copyright by Marie Frances Sundem Turner 2012 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT VIABILITY AND INVASIVE POTENTIAL OF HYBRIDS BETWEEN YELLOW TOADFLAX (LINARIA VULGARIS) AND DALMATIAN TOADFLAX (LINARIA DALMATICA) Although outcomes of hybridization are highly variable, it is now considered to play an important role in evolution, speciation, and invasion. Hybridization has recently been confirmed between populations of yellow (or common) toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) and Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States. The presence of hybrid toadflax populations on public lands is of concern, as both parents are aggressive invaders already listed as noxious weeds in multiple western states. A common garden experiment was designed to measure differences in quantitative (shoot length, biomass, flowering stems, seed capsule production) phenological (time of emergence, first flowering and seed maturity) and ecophysiological (photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency (WUE)) traits for yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, F1 and BC1 hybrids, as well as natural field-collected hybrids from two sites. Genotypes were cloned to produce true replicates and the entire common garden was also replicated at two locations (Colorado and Montana); physiological data were collected only in Colorado. All genotypes grew larger and were more reproductively active in Colorado than in Montana, and hybrids outperformed parent taxa across vegetative and reproductive traits indicating heterosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Curculionidae (Except Scolytinae and Platypodinae) in Latvian Fauna, Taxonomical Structure, Biogeography and Forecasted Species
    Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 12 (4) 2012 ISSN 1407 - 8953 CURCULIONIDAE (EXCEPT SCOLYTINAE AND PLATYPODINAE) IN LATVIAN FAUNA, TAXONOMICAL STRUCTURE, BIOGEOGRAPHY AND FORECASTED SPECIES Maksims Balalaikins Balalaikins M. 2012. Curculionidae (except Scolytinae and Platypodinae) in Latvian fauna, taxonomical structure, biogeography and forecasted species. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp., 12 (4): 67 – 83. This paper presents analysis of taxonomical structure of Latvian Curculionidae (except Scolytinae and Platypodinae) and comparison with the neighboring countries (Lithuania and Estonia) weevil’s fauna. Range of chorotypes and biogeography analysis of Latvian Curculionidae (except Scolytinae and Platypodinae) is presented in current paper. List of forecasted weevils species of Latvian fauna is compilled. Key words: Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Latvia, fauna, taxonomical structure, chorotypes, forecasted species. Maksims Balalaikins Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Vienības 13, Daugavpils, LV-5401, Latvia; e-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION The current paper is a continuation of studies on the Latvian fauna of Curculionidae (Balalaikins Worldwide, the Curculionidae is one of the largest 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, in families of the order Coleoptera, represented by press; Balalaikins & Bukejs 2009, 2010, 2011a, 4600 genera and 51000 species (Alonso-Zarazaga 2011b, 2012), Balalaikins & Telnov 2012. The and Lyal 1999, Oberprieler et al. 2007). This aim of this work is to summarize and analyse family
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Biological Control of Dalmatian and Y Ellow T Oadflax
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF DALMATIAN AND Y ELLOW T OADFLAX LINDA M. WILSON, SHARLENE E. SING, GARY L. PIPER, RICHARD W. H ANSEN, ROSEMARIE DE CLERCK-FLOATE, DANIEL K. MACKINNON, AND CAROL BELL RANDALL Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown FHTET-2005-13 U.S. Department Forest September 2005 of Agriculture Service he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ Cover photos: Toadflax (UGA1416053)—Linda Wilson, Beetles (UGA14160033-top, UGA1416054-bottom)—Bob Richard All photographs in this publication can be accessed and viewed on-line at www.forestryimages.org, sponsored by the University of Georgia. You will find reference codes (UGA000000) in the captions for each figure in this publication. To access them, point your browser at http://www.forestryimages.org, and enter the reference code at the search prompt. How to cite this publication: Wilson, L. M., S. E. Sing, G. L. Piper, R. W. Hansen, R. De Clerck- Floate, D. K. MacKinnon, and C. Randall. 2005. Biology and Biological Control of Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax. USDA Forest Service, FHTET-05-13. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellow and Dalmatian Toadflax
    YELLOW AND DALMATIAN TOADFLAX PNW135 PNW135 | Page 1 YELLOW AND DALMATIAN TOADFLAX By Dale K. Whaley, Assistant Professor, Ag and Natural Resources, Washington State University Extension. Gary L. Piper, Emeritus Professor, Department of Entomology, Washington State University Abstract Yellow toadflax and Dalmatian toadflax are non-native plants that have become two of the most troublesome invasive weeds in North America. Infesting forests, range and grasslands, and other areas, these two weeds are very prevalent in the Pacific Northwest. This publication outlines the plants’ characteristics, variations, growth and reproduction, distribution and economic impact, as well as management strategies. Table of Contents Introduction 3 Identification 4 Variation 4 Growth and Reproduction 5 Distribution and Economic Impact 6 Management Strategies 7 Prevention, Early Detection, and Rapid Response 7 Cultural Control 8 Livestock Grazing for Control 8 Physical and Mechanical Control 9 Chemical Control 9 Biological Control 9 Maintenance 15 References 15 PNW135 | Page 2 PNW PUBLICATION | YELLOW AND DALMATIAN TOADFLAX Yellow and Dalmatian Toadflax Introduction Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. (Figure 1), and yellow toadflax, Linaria vulgaris Mill. (Figure 2), commonly referred to as “butter and eggs,” are two non-native plants that were introduced into North America as ornamentals from the Mediterranean region. Introduced by the 1800s, these two non-native plants have since escaped flower beds and have become two of the most troublesome invasive weeds infesting millions of acres across much of temperate North America. In the Pacific Northwest (defined here as Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) these plants can be found infesting forests, range and grassland, rights of way, lands put into conservation programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and other disturbed areas (Sing et al.
    [Show full text]