DOCSLIB.ORG

Management of Flowering Rush in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management of Flowering Rush in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 54: 61–67 Management of flowering rush in the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota JOHN D. MADSEN, BRADLEY SARTAIN, GRAY TURNAGE, AND MICHELLE MARKO* ABSTRACT (Minnesota) area; in particular, Detroit Lake (Big Detroit, Little Detroit, and Curfman Lakes), Lake Sallie, Lake Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) is an invasive aquatic Melissa, and Mill Pond (Marko et al. 2015). It is native to plant introduced to North America from Eurasia in 1897. Europe and Asia and first entered the United States in 1928 Flowering rush can grow either submersed or emergent (Bellaud 2009). Flowering rush has continued to be a from wet soil habitats to waters that are up to 5 m deep. problem in the lake for at least three decades. Flowering rush was first observed in the Detroit Lake In the Detroit Lakes area, the flowering rush has been system in the 1960s, causing significant impact to shoreline determined to be triploid (Kliber and Eckert 2005, Lui et al. and recreational use. Flowering rush is currently found in 2005, Poovey et al. 2012). This is one of two cytotypes in the five basins of the Detroit Lake system: Big Detroit, Little species (Hroudova et al. 1996); the other is diploid. The Detroit, Curfman, Sallie, and Melissa Lakes. Submersed diploid is sexually fertile and self-compatible, whereas the treatments with diquat were used during 2012 on an triploid is predominantly sterile and self-incompatible. In operational scale to control the nuisance impacts of the triploid cytotype, the principal means of spread are flowering rush in waters from 0 to 1.3 m deep. We vegetative growth of the rhizome and production of lateral evaluated the response of native plant communities with and terminal buds on the rhizome (Hroudova 1989, the use of a point intercept method on 30 or more Hroudova et al. 1996). predetermined points in each of nine treatment plots, with Although flowering rush has been in North America for four untreated reference plots. Treatment plots were over 40 yr, little information is known about its manage- sampled before treatment (June), and 4 wk after each of ment. Bellaud (2009) reports that it was first observed in the two treatments. We also sampled 20 biomass cores North America in St. Lawrence River (Quebec) in 1897. À2 (0.018 m ) in each of four treatment and four untreated Flowering rush is currently found in all of the southern reference plots. Although some species declined after Canadian provinces, and all of the states bordering Canada treatment, most native species did not change significantly and the Great Lakes (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013). after treatments compared to untreated reference plots. Bellaud (2009) echoes our current state of affairs with Treatments with diquat not only significantly reduce flowering rush: ‘‘...there is not a wealth of information flowering rush distribution (60%) and aboveground bio- regarding the management of flowering rush infestations in mass (99%), but also significantly reduced belowground North America.’’ Parkinson and others (2010) are also biomass (82%) and rhizome bud density (83%). As limited in their management recommendations, citing flowering rush is an herbaceous perennial that propagates either imazapyr or imazamox foliar applications for predominantly by rhizome buds, reductions in rhizome management of flowering rush. bud density indicate that this approach can be used for In aquarium studies, the U.S. Army Engineer Research long-term reduction in flowering rush populations. and Development Center (USAERDC) evaluated the avail- Key words: Butomus umbellatus L., chemical control, diquat, able aquatic herbicides for control of submersed flowering efficacy, emergent plant, invasive plant, native plant rush plants from Minnesota and Idaho (Poovey et al. 2012). diversity, selectivity. As part of their study, they determined that populations in bothIdahoandMinnesotaweretriploid,asconfirmedby INTRODUCTION ploidy and AFLP (Poovey et al. 2012). Their studies of Minnesota-derived plants used diquat, endothall, and Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) is a nonnative flumioxazin at relatively short exposure times. Flumioxazin emergent plant that has invaded the Detroit Lakes did not reduce shoot biomass in either treatment. Diquat at the full label rate (0.37 mg ai LÀ1) and at 6 and 12 h *First author: Research Biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, contact time significantly reduced shoot biomass relative Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit, to the reference. Endothall treatments at 1.5 and 3 ppm at University of California–Davis, Plant Sciences Department, Mail Stop 4, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. Second author: Graduate Research both 12- and 24-h exposure time also reduced shoot Assistant, Plant and Soil Sciences Department, Mississippi State biomass. No treatments reduced belowground biomass. In University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Third author: Research contrast, their studies with Idaho-derived plants found Associate, Geosystems Research Institute, 1 Research Blvd., Mississippi flumioxazinat400lgaiLÀ1 and 24-h exposure time State, MS 39762. Fourth author: Associate Professor, Biology Depart- À1 ment, Concordia College, 901 8th St. South, Moorhead, MN 56562. controlled shoot biomass, and endothall at 3 mg ai L and Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]. Received for 24-h exposure time controlled both aboveground and publication June 19, 2015 and in revised form April 2, 2016. belowground biomass (Poovey et al. 2012). They also note J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 54: 2016 61 that repeated treatments with contact herbicides, or (Figure 1). The remaining two, Sallie and Melissa Lakes, are integration with systemic herbicides, would be needed to downstream of the other three basins connected by a small achieve long-term control. stream. The lakes are mesotrophic to meso-eutrophic, and Under mesocosm conditions, submersed applications of are classified as glacial kettle lakes. Approximately 359 ha 2,4-D, triclopyr, imazamox, a tank mix of 2,4-D and of flowering rush was delineated in the Detroit Lakes basin triclopyr, and a tank mix of 2,4-D and a surfactant did not in 2011 (Figure 1). In this system, the flowering rush was reduce either shoot or belowground biomass of flowering confirmed by laboratory testing to be triploid (Poovey et al. rush (Wersal et al. 2014). In contrast, foliar treatments 2012). (including a surfactant) of 2,4-D, triclopyr, a tank mix of 2,4- D and triclopyr, aminopyralid (not labeled for aquatic use), Study design imazapyr, glyphosate, and a tank mix of imazapyr and glyphosate reduced both shoot and belowground biomass For this 2012 operational-scale study, we established nine (Wersal et al. 2014). Foliar applications (including a submersed diquat treatment plots (all lakes) and four surfactant) of imazamox or a tank mix of imazamox and untreated reference plots (Big Detroit, Little Detroit, Sallie, glyphosate did not control belowground biomass, but did and Melissa) (Figure 1, Table 1). Though we found flowering control shoot biomass (Wersal et al. 2014). All of these rush in depths up to 4.8 m in the Detroit Lakes area (Madsen applications would require repeated treatments for suc- et al. 2012), the plant causes nuisances principally in shallow cessful control. water. For this reason, we established plots in which water Under field conditions in 2011, we treated larger plots to depths ranged from 0 to 1.3 m deep. evaluate submersed applications of endothall. We had two Treatments were not randomly assigned to plots, but 4-ha plots for endothall treatments, two 0.4-ha plots for were assigned based on the relative abundance of flowering diquat, and we conducted a rhodamine dye study in rush to minimize the variability of biomass samples. In some conjunction with the herbicide applications (Madsen et al. instances, reference plots were selected to avoid treating 2012). Biomass data indicated that endothall treatments did stands of hardstem bulrush [Schoenoplectus acutus (Muhl ex not reduce above- or belowground biomass with the first Bigelow) AL` ove¨ & D. Love].¨ treatment, but two sequential diquat treatments significant- ly reduced flowering rush aboveground biomass, but not Herbicide treatments belowground biomass. Assessment of the species composi- tion of the plots found no reduction in native species A target rate of 4.2 kg diquat dibromide haÀ1 was applied diversity after the second treatment of diquat. Dye studies for this study, for a target water concentration of 0.38 mg found that the herbicide moved quickly out of the large LÀ1 of diquat cation.1 This was achieved by stratifying plots, following shoreline currents (Madsen et al. 2012). application rates by depth. From the shoreline to depths of Half-life of dye in endothall plots ranged from 3 to 6 h. 0.6 m, a rate of 4 L haÀ1 was applied of formulated product, Although 3 to 6 h is sufficient for control of some species and from 0.6 m to 1.3 m deep, a rate of 8 L haÀ1 was used, as with diquat, it is not sufficient to control plants using per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency label endothall (Netherland et al. 1991, Glomski et al. 2005, (Syngenta Crop Protection 2011). These repeated treat- Skogerboe et al. 2006). Therefore, we recommend sub- ments of the same areas were done twice during the growing mersed plant treatments with diquat, until such time as season, the first in June, and the second in July (Table 1). alternatives can be identified. Treatments occurred in Big Detroit, Curfman, Sallie, and For diquat treatments, our goal was to measure efficacy Melissa Lakes (Figure 1, Table 1). of control of the nuisance impacts of flowering rush and reduction of reproductive ability through reduction of Biomass assessment belowground biomass and rhizome bud density through biomass sampling. We also wanted to evaluate the impact of We assessed the response of flowering rush to submersed diquat treatments on native plant communities with the use diquat herbicide applications with the use of biomass of a point-intercept survey method.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Strategy for Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus L.) Management
    State of Michigan’s Status and Strategy for Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) Management Scope Invasive flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L., hereafter FR) has invaded the shores of Michigan waterways since the early 1900’s (Core 1941; Stuckey 1968; Anderson et al. 1974). This document was developed by Central Michigan University and reviewed by Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources for the purposes of: • Summarizing the current level of understanding on the biology and ecology of FR. • Summarizing current management options for FR in Michigan. • Identifying possible future directions of FR management in Michigan. This document used the current information available in journals, publications, presentations, and experiences of leading researchers and managers to meet its goals. Any chemical, company, or organization that is mentioned was included for its involvement in published, presented, or publically shared information, not to imply endorsement of the chemical, company, or organization. Biology and Ecology I. Identification Flowering rush is an emergent aquatic perennial plant with linear, sword-like leaves, triangular in cross-section, and a showy umble of pink flowers (Figure 1). Rhizomes (i.e. horizonal root-like stems) are fleshy, and leaves have parallel veination and can be submersed or emergent. Submersed leaves are linear and limp, unlike sword-like emergent leaves. Flowering rush blooms from June to August. Flowers are arranged in terminal umbels. Flower parts are found in multiples of three (e.g. six tepals, nine stamen, six carpels) with pink to purple tepals 0.25 – 0.5 in (6 - 11.5 mm) long (eFloras 2008). Each flower produces up to six beaked fruits.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Flowering Rush Management Plan
    COLUMBIA BASIN COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA COLUMBIA BASIN FLOWERING RUSH MANAGEMENT PLAN A regional strategy to address Butomus umbellatus throughout the Columbia Basin www.columbiabasincwma.org Statement of Collaboration: When possible, the partners of the Columbia Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area will strive to communicate and work collaboratively to develop a unified management effort for flowering rush throughout the Columbia Basin. The completion of this document was supported by funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Suggested citation: Columbia Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area. 2019. Columbia Basin Flowering Rush Management Plan: A regional strategy to address Butomus umbellatus throughout the Columbia Basin. pp 67 www.columbiabasincwma.org Pg. 1 CONTENT Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Phenology of Flowering Rush in the Detroit Lakes Chain of Lakes, Minnesota
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 53: 54–63 Ecology and phenology of flowering rush in the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes, Minnesota MICHELLE D. MARKO, JOHN D. MADSEN, R. A. SMITH, B. SARTAIN, AND C. L. OLSON* ABSTRACT al. 1974, Boutwell 1990, Brown and Eckert 2005). Flowering rush can form monotypic stands that crowd out native Flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus L., has been an plants and interfere with recreational water use and water increasing problem in the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes for flow (Boutwell 1990, Jacobs et al. 2011). In the St. Lawrence more than 40 yr. Flowering rush dominates ecosystems by River region, it was found to be more invasive than purple crowding out native species, including hardstem bulrush, loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.; Lavoie 2003). The spread of Schoenoplectus acutus (Muhl. ex Bigelow) A & D Love,¨ a vital flowering rush in irrigation ditches has affected water flow part of native ecosystems. Furthermore, flowering rush and become a management concern for native fish species, creates boating hazards and hampers recreational activities such as cutthroat and bull trout (Jacobs et al. 2011). One on the lakes. The phenological differences between flower- region in Minnesota, the Pelican River Watershed, has been ing rush and the native hardstem bulrush were examined as struggling with flowering rush for over 40 yr as it has spread part of a project to determine best management practices through the Detroit Lakes chain of lakes since the 1960s (T. for controlling this invasive species. Biomass allocation, Guetter, Pelican River Watershed District, pers. comm.). plant height, carbohydrate allocation, and reproductive Since its introduction as an ornamental species in Lake structures of flowering rush were examined in the Detroit Sallie (Becker County, Minnesota), different methods of Lakes system.
    [Show full text]
  • Flowering Rush
    IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=16 Home | Early Detection | IPANE Species | Data & Maps | Volunteers | About the Project | Related Information Catalog of Species Search Results Butomus umbellatus (Flowering rush ) :: Catalog of Species Search Common Name(s) | Full Scientific Name | Family Name Common | Family Scientific Name | Images | Synonyms | Description | Similar Species | Reproductive/Dispersal Mechanisms | Distribution | History of Introduction in New England | Habitats in New England | Threats | Early Warning Notes | Management Links | Documentation Needs | Additional Information | References | Data Retrieval | Maps of New England Plant Distribution COMMON NAME Flowering rush FULL SCIENTIFIC NAME Butomus umbellatus L. FAMILY NAME COMMON Flowering rush family FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME Butomaceae IMAGES Flowers Habit Flowers Fruit Incursion Roots 1 of 5 9/24/2007 3:36 PM IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=16 Habitat NOMENCLATURE/SYNONYMS Synonyms: Butomus umbellatus f. vallisneriifolius (Sagorski) Gluck DESCRIPTION Botanical Glossary Butomus umbellatus is a perennial, aquatic herb that grows from a fleshy rhizome on freshwater shorelines. It can be found in water several meters deep, and its flowering stem can reach up to 1 m (3.3 ft.) above the surface of the water. The 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 ft.) long ensiform leaves can be erect or floating on the water's surface. The leaves are three angled, fleshy and have twisted ends. The plants flower from the summer to the fall depending on the depth of the water. The flowers are arranged in a bracted umbel. The bracts are purple-tinged, and numerous flowers are on long, slender ascending pedicels.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush
    Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU Honors Projects Honors College Spring 4-29-2013 Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush Alyssa Dietz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects Repository Citation Dietz, Alyssa, "Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush" (2013). Honors Projects. 19. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects/19 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. 1 Management Experiments on Lake Erie Flowering Rush Alyssa Dietz HONORS PROJECT Submitted to the University Honors Program at Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with UNIVERSITY HONORS April 29 th , 2013 Advisors: Dr. Helen J. Michaels, Department of Biological Sciences Dr. Enrique Gomezdelcampo, Department of Environment and Sustainability 2 Summary: The issue of invasive species has been a major concern for many Great Lakes ecosystems over the past several decades. Since the first noted invasive animal, the sea lamprey, these fresh water ecosystems have been invaded by over 180 different plants and animals that create over $100 million worth of damage a year (Rosaen et al . 2012). Because the five Great Lakes, along with their rivers, streams, and wetlands are such an interconnected series, the introduction of any invasive species to one of the Great Lakes, such as Lake Erie, means that invaders are likely to spread to all other freshwater ecosystems in the area (Rosaen et al . 2012). With the various ways that many introduced species can alter the nutrient availability, habitat quality, and species richness, many wildlife managers are continuing to develop management strategies that remove or greatly limit the further spread of invasive species.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT: WRITTEN FINDINGS of the WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD Updated in 2020, Original Draft from 2008
    DRAFT: WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD Updated in 2020, original draft from 2008 Scientific Name: Butomus umbellatus L. Synonyms: Butomus junceus Turcz, Butomus umbellatus L. f. vallisneriifolius (Sagorski) Glnck Common Name: Flowering-rush (sometimes known as grass rush) Family: Butomaceae (Flowering-rush family) Legal Status: Class A noxious weed; Quarantine List (WAC 16-752) Images: left, flowering rush with emergent leaves growing along a shoreline; center, rhizome with leaf bases and developing bud; right, piece of flowering rush rhizome with leaves, all images by Greg Haubrich. Introduction: Flowering rush is an invasive aquatic perennial monocot that is able to exploit a wide range of aquatic habitats. It grows emergent along the shoreline of lakes and rivers out to water depths of 7 m (24 ft.) or more where it is fully submersed. It will grow in still water with muddy substrate to flowing water with rocky substrate and everything in between. It thrives in areas with fluctuating water levels, but also persists and spreads in stable water conditions (Hroudova ́ 1989, Hroudova ́ et al. 1996). It will invade and dominate native plant beds (Madsen et al. 2012, Harms 2020) and can also colonize habitats previously barren of plant growth (Parkinson et al. 2010). When growing submersed, the leaves are stiff relative to other submersed plants, and thus in flowing water they are present higher in the water column. It has been termed an ecosystem engineer for its ability to alter habitat by sediment accretion (Gunderson et al. 2016). These characteristics, along with the rapidly expanding population, have raised concern about potential impacts on habitat and water delivery if flowering rush becomes well established throughout its potential range in western North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus)
    Biology, Ecology and Management of Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus) EB0201 December 2010 Hilary Parkinson, Research Associate, MSU, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Jane Mangold, MSU Extension Invasive Plant Specialist, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Virgil Dupuis, Salish Kootenai College Peter Rice, Research Ecologist, University of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences Table of Contents Flowering rush is a non-native aquatic resembling a large sedge that grows along lake shores and slow Plant Biology . 3 moving water bodies. In Montana it was recorded in Flathead Lake in 1964 and has spread to Thompson Identification . 3 Falls, Noxon Reservoir, Cabinet Gorge, portions of the Flathead River, and the Clark Fork River. Prolific SpeedyWeed ID . 4 growth in irrigation ditches reduces water availability, and dense stands in previously unvegetated Life History . 5 areas inhibit boating, fishing and swimming. Minor disturbances cause the roots to fragment, providing Ecology . 5 long distance dispersal. At this time, control methods are limited. Hand digging has led to mixed results Habitat . 5 as rhizomes fragment easily, increasing dispersal. Studies on chemical control options are ongoing. Spread and Establishment Potential . 5 Damage Potential . 7 Current Status and Distribution . 7 PLANT BIOLOGY Management Alternatives . 8 Identification Mechanical Control . 8 Flowering rush is an aquatic species resembling a large sedge (cover photo) Cultural Control . 9 that may grow as an emergent plant with upright foliage in shallower wa- Biological Control . 9 ters (shoreline to roughly 10 feet [or 3 m]), or a submerged plant with flex- ible leaves suspended in the water column in deeper waters (approximately Chemical Control .
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Colonized by Non-Native Flowering Rush Butomus Umbellatus (Linnaeus, 1753) in the Niagara River, USA
    Aquatic Invasions (2016) Volume 11, Issue 4: 369–380 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2016.11.4.03 Open Access © 2016 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2016 REABIC Research Article Habitats colonized by non-native flowering rush Butomus umbellatus (Linnaeus, 1753) in the Niagara River, USA Matthew D. Gunderson1,*, Kevin L. Kapuscinski2, Derek P. Crane3 and John M. Farrell1 1Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA 2School of Biological Sciences, CRW225, Lake Superior State University, 650 W. Easterday Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783, USA 3Department of Biology, Coastal Carolina University, 109 Chanticleer Drive East, Conway, SC 29526, USA *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Received: 8 January 2016 / Accepted: 24 May 2016 / Published online: 8 July 2016 Handling editor: Charles Martin Abstract During the summer of 2012, we first observed non-native flowering rush Butomus umbellatus (Linnaeus, 1753) in the upper Niagara River, NY, USA, where this species had previously been undocumented. In a 2013 study, Butomus was present at 33 of 161 (20%) submersed nearshore (≤ 3 m) sites surveyed. It was the species of greatest biomass at 27% of the sites where it was collected, and was observed growing at depths > 3 m. Butomus was disproportionately prevalent in the upper observed ranges of water depth and velocity. Butomus was also closely associated with coarse substrates, differing from canopy-forming species but not other linear-leaved species. Emergence of Butomus from the sediment generally occurred from late-May to early-June, with peak coverage and height occurring in mid- to late-July.
    [Show full text]
  • Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus)
    Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus) Best Management Practices in Ontario Foreword These Best Management Practices (BMPs) provide guidance for managing invasive flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) in Ontario. Funding and leadership for the production of this document was provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario (CWS-ON). These BMPs were developed by the Ontario Invasive Plant Council (OIPC) and its partners to facilitate invasive plant control initiatives by individuals and organizations concerned with the protection of biodiversity, agricultural lands, infrastructure, crops and species at risk in Ontario. The intent of this document is to relay specific information relating to aquatic invasive plant control practices that have been recommended by leading professionals across Ontario. This document contains the most up-to-date, effective, and environmentally safe control practices known from research and experience. It complies with current provincial and federal legislation regarding pesticide usage, habitat disturbance and species at risk protection. It is subject to change as legislation is updated or new research findings emerge. The information provided in this BMP is not to be considered legal advice. The timing windows suggested will differ throughout Ontario and by management activity and should be tailored to your region. Interested parties are advised to refer to the applicable legislation to address specific circumstances. Check the website of the OIPC (https://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/) for updates. Simkovic, Vicki. 2020. Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus): Best Management Practices in Ontario. Ontario Invasive Plant Council, Peterborough, ON. Edition 1.0 - March 2020 Peterborough, Ontario This document was prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service - Ontario by the Ontario Invasive Plant Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Provincial Containment Strategy
    Provincial Containment Strategy Butomus umbellatus (Flowering Rush) Prepared by: B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations June 2015 BUTOMUS UMBELLATUS L. PROVINCIAL CONTAINMENT STRATEGY Acknowledgements The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their valuable contributions to this project: Anna and Martin Eastman, Baker Creek Enhancement Society, Bruce Edwards, Cariboo Regional District, Fraser Valley Invasive Plant Council, K.C. Log Booming, and private landowners who provided access to survey sites. The original draft was completed by Crystal Klym, P.Ag. (June 2015). B.C. Invasive Plant Early Detection Rapid Response Program June 2015 B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations Page | i BUTOMUS UMBELLATUS L. PROVINCIAL CONTAINMENT STRATEGY Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 Extent .................................................................................................................................. 1 Hatzic Lake Survey Results .............................................................................................. 1 Bouchie Lake Survey Results ........................................................................................... 2 Stakeholder
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Invasive Plant List January 2004
    CONNECTICUT INVASIVE PLANT LIST JANUARY 2004 This is a list of species that have been determined by floristic analysis to be invasive or potentially invasive in the state of Connecticut, in accordance with PA 03-136. The Invasive Plants Council will generate a second list recommending restrictions on some of these plants. In developing the second list and particular restrictions, the Council will recognize the need to balance the detrimental effects of invasive plants with the agricultural and horticultural value of some of these plants, while still protecting the state's minimally managed habitats. CONNECTICUT INVASIVE PLANT LIST ( Produced by the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council ) Connecticut Public Act No. 03-136 The Connecticut Invasive Plants Council encourages the use of non- invasive alternatives, particularly when planting near parks, natural areas, or other minimally managed habitats. AQUATIC & WETLAND PLANTS Species Common Invasive Potentially name Invasive Butomus umbellatus L. Flowering rush X Cabomba caroliniana A. Fanwort X Gray Callitriche stagnalis Scop. Pond water- X starwort Egeria densa Planchon Brazilian water- X weed †Eichhornia crassipes Common water- X (Mart.) Solms hyacinth Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Hydrilla X Royle Iris pseudacorus L. Yellow Iris X Lythrum salicaria L. Purple X loosestrife Marsilea quadrifolia L. European X waterclover Myosotis scorpioides L. Forget-me-not X Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrotfeather X (Vell.) Verdc. Myriophyllum Variable-leaf X heterophyllum Michx. watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum L. Eurasian X watermilfoil Najas minor All. Brittle water- X nymph Nelumbo lutea (Willd.) American water X Pers. lotus †Nymphoides peltata Yellow floating X (Gmel.) Kuntze heart †Pistia stratiotes L. Water lettuce X Potamogeton crispus L.
    [Show full text]