DOCSLIB.ORG

Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America US Department TECHNOLOGY of Agriculture TRANSFER FIELD GUIDE FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Rachel L. Winston, Carol B. Randall, Bernd Blossey, Philip W. Tipping, Ellen C. Lake, and Judy Hough-Goldstein Forest Health Technology FHTET-2016-04 Enterprise Team April 2017 The Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 by 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: Purple loosestrife (Jennifer Andreas, Washington State University Extension), Galerucella calmariensis (David Cappaert, Michigan State University, bugwood.org), tropical soda apple ((J. Jeffrey Mullahey, University of Florida, bugwood.org), Gratiana boliviana (Rodrigo Diaz, Louisiana State University), waterhyacinth (Chris Evans, University of Illinois, bugwood.org), Megamelus scutellaris (Jason D. Stanley, USDA ARS, bugwood.org), mile-a-minute weed (Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, bugwood.org), Rhinoncomimus latipes (Amy Diercks, bugwood.org) How to cite this publication: Winston, R.L., C.B. Randall, B. Blossey, P.W. Tipping, E.C. Lake, and J. Hough-Goldstein. 2017. Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in Eastern North America. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia. FHTET-2016-04. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA Rachel L. Winston Carol Bell Randall Environmental Consultant Entomologist, Forest Health Protection MIA Consulting, LLC USDA Forest Service Sandpoint, ID Coeur d’Alene, ID [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Blossey Philip W. Tipping Associate Professor for Natural Resources Research Leader Cornell University, Department of USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research Lab Natural Resources Fort Lauderdale, FL Ithaca, NY [email protected] [email protected] Ellen C. Lake Judy Hough-Goldstein Research Entomologist Professor for Entomology USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research Lab University of Delaware, Department of Fort Lauderdale, FL Entomology & Wildlife Ecology [email protected] Newark, DE [email protected] For additional copies of this publication, contact: Richard Reardon Carol Bell Randall FHTET Forest Health Protection USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service 180 Canfield Street 2502 E. Sherman Ave. Morgantown, WV 26505 Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814 304.285.1566 208.769-3051 [email protected] [email protected] Acknowledgments Significant help in reviewing and compiling select content in this field guide was provided by Robert Bourchier (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), William L. Bruckart, III (USDA, ARS, FDWSRU), Greg Wheeler (USDA ARS), and Donald Davis (The Pennsylvania State University). Some of the material in this guide was revised from the sister guide “Biological Control of Weeds in the Northwest”. We acknowledge and express our appreciation for the additional authors of that guide: Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate, Alec McClay, Jennifer Andreas, and Mark Schwarzlaender. The layout of this guide was designed by Rachel Winston. We would like to thank all of the photographers who granted permission for the use of photos. We also extend our gratitude to Richard Reardon (Forest Service-Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team) for producing this guide. Field Guide Components Efficacy Quick Reference Guide .....................4 Introduction .............................................................8 About This Field Guide ................................................................................ 8 Biological Control of Weeds....................................................................... 10 Selected Plant Features ............................................................................... 12 Life Cycle ..........................................................................................................12 Duration ............................................................................................................12 Typical Leaf Arrangement and Margination .......................................................13 Flower Heads .....................................................................................................13 Biological Control Agent Life Cycles .......................................................... 14 Insects ................................................................................................................14 Mites .................................................................................................................16 Nematodes ........................................................................................................16 Fungi .................................................................................................................16 Table of Contents of Table Scientific Name Changes ........................................................................... 17 Collection Methods ................................................................................... 18 Transport Considerations ........................................................................... 20 Releasing Biocontrol Agents ....................................................................... 22 Monitoring Biocontrol Agents ................................................................... 24 Additional Considerations ......................................................................... 27 Weed Biocontrol Systems ................................ 28 Weed species are arranged first by flower color, then grouped by related species and listed alphabetically. All biocontrol agents introduced or established on each weed are included in that weed’s section, listed according to efficacy on the target weed. To look up a particular biocontrol agent or weed, refer to the index at the back of this guide. Pinkish-Purple Flowers .................................. 28 Knapweeds ............................................................................................28 Diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa .................................................. 30 Spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe .................................................. 32 Purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria ....................................................... 62 Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum ........................................ 70 Swallow-worts .....................................................................................74 Black swallow-wort, Vincetoxicum nigrum ......................................... 74 Pale swallow-wort, Vincetoxicum rossicum .......................................... 76 Thistles .................................................................................................80 Bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare ............................................................... 82 Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense ......................................................... 84 Musk thistle, Carduus nutans ............................................................. 86 Waterhyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes ...................................................... 108 Yellow Flowers ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Population Sizes, Biological Potential and Mass
    1. ASSESSING POPULATION SIZES, BIOCONTROL POTENTIAL AND MASS PRODUCTION OF THE ROOT BORING MOTH AGAPETA ZOEGANA FOR AREWIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF SPOTTED KNAPWEED BIOCONTROL 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Mark Schwarzländer, PSES Department, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter DR MS 2339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, (208) 885-9319, FAX (208)885- 7760, [email protected]; Joseph Milan, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, (208) 384-3487, FAX (208) 384-3326, [email protected]; Paul Brusven, Nez Perce Tribe Bio-Control Center, P.O. Box 365, 22776 Beaver Road, Lapwai, ID 83540, (208) 843-9374, FAX (208) 843-9373, [email protected] 3. COOPERATORS: Dr. Hariet Hinz (CABI Switzerland), Dr. Urs Schaffner (CABI Switzerland, Dr. Sanford Eigenbrode (University of Idaho), Dr. Heinz Müller-Schärer (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Brian Marschmann (USDA APHIS PPQ State Director, Idaho), Dr. Rich Hansen (USDA APHIS CPHST, Ft. Collins, Colorado), John (Lewis) Cook (USDI BIA Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana), Dr. John Gaskin (USDA ARS NPARL, Sidney, Montana), Idaho County Weed Superintendents and Idaho-based USFS land managers. BCIP CONTACT: Carol Randall, USFS Northern and Intermountain Regions, 2502 E Sherman Ave, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814, (208) 769-3051, (208) 769-3062, [email protected] 4. REQUESTED FUNDS: USFS $100,000 (Year 1: $34,000; Year 2: $33,000; and Year 3: $33,000), Project Leveraging: University of Idaho $124,329. 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1) The current status of ecological research suggests that albeit having some impact on spotted knapweed, both, A. zoegana and C. achates have stronger negative effects on native grasses, thus indirectly benefiting one of most devastating invasive plants in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies
    Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, USA Printed in the United States of America Cover design by Lynn Ekblad, Different Angles, Ames, Iowa Graphics and layout by Richard Beachler, Instructional Technology Center, Iowa State University, Ames ISBN 1-887383-23-9 ISSN 0194-4088 06 05 04 03 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging–in–Publication Data Integrated Pest Management: Current and Future Strategies. p. cm. -- (Task force report, ISSN 0194-4088 ; no. 140) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-887383-23-9 (alk. paper) 1. Pests--Integrated control. I. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. II. Series: Task force report (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) ; no. 140. SB950.I4573 2003 632'.9--dc21 2003006389 Task Force Report No. 140 June 2003 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Ames, Iowa, USA Task Force Members Kenneth R. Barker (Chair), Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Esther Day, American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois Timothy J. Gibb, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Maud A. Hinchee, ArborGen, Summerville, South Carolina Nancy C. Hinkle, Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens Barry J. Jacobsen, Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman James Knight, Department of Animal and Range Science, Montana State University, Bozeman Kenneth A. Langeland, Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville Evan Nebeker, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State David A. Rosenberger, Plant Pathology Department, Cornell University–Hudson Valley Laboratory, High- land, New York Donald P.
    [Show full text]
  • Cochylini Del 2
    Cochylini del 2 Agapeta, Eupoecilia, Aethes (part.) Agapeta hamana (L.) 4268 15-25 mm. Imago flyver sidst på dagen og kommer fint til lys fra maj til august (september). Ikke alle eksem- plarer er så stærkt tegnet som ovenstående. Agapeta hamana (L.) Larven lever overvintrende i i rødderne af forskellige tidsler (Carduus, Cirsium mv.). Udbredt i Europa op til Mellemsverige og Finland. Almindelig. Agapeta largana (Rebel) 4270 16-23 mm. Imago er på vingerne i solens sidste stråler fra sidst i juni gennem juli. Lokalt ikke sjælden på enge. Præimaginale stadier er ukendte. Kendt fra Grækenland, Rumænien, Ungarn, det vestlige Østrig og jeg har selv fundet den flere steder i det sydøstlige Frankrig. Agapeta zoegana (L.) 4271 15-24 mm. Imago flyver i de sidste lyse timer og kommer fint til lys i juli-august. Agapeta zoegana (L.) Larven lever overvintrende i rødderne af Blåhat (Knautia) og Knopurt (Centaurea). Den forpupper sig i rødderne. Agapeta zoegana (L.) Ind i mellem dukker eksemplarer op som er formørket i den yderste tredjedel. Disse eksemparer er gerne mindre end normalt. Agapeta zoegana (L.) I Danmark er der ikke mange findesteder i Jylland og arten mangler helt vest for israndslinjen. I det øvrige land er den ikke sjælden, men sjældent talrig. Nordgrænsen går gennem det sydligste Norge, mellemste Sverige og sydlige Finland. Arten når til Ural og Lilleasien. Eugnosta lathoniana (Hb.) 4279 21-27 mm. Imago flyver sidst på dagen fra midt i maj til sidst i juni. Præimaginale stadier er ukendte. Udbredt i det meste af Sydeuropa, mod nord til Tyskland, men herfra kendes ingen konkrete fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • General News
    Biocontrol News and Information 27(4), 63N–79N pestscience.com General News David Greathead hoods. Both broom and tagasaste pods can be a seasonally important food source for kererū (an As this issue went to press we received the sad news endemic pigeon, Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), par- of the untimely death of Dr David Greathead at the ticularly in regions where its native food plants have age of 74. declined. A previous petition for the release of G. oli- vacea into New Zealand was rejected by the New Besides being a dedicated and popular Director of Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in CABI’s International Institute of Biological Control 1998 on the grounds that there was insufficient (IIBC), David was the driving force behind the estab- information to assess the relative beneficial and lishment and development of Biocontrol News and harmful effects of the proposed introduction. Information. He was an active member of its Edito- rial Board, providing advice and ideas right up to his As part of the submission to ERMA, Landcare death. Research quantified the expected costs and benefits associated with the introduction of additional biolog- We plan that the next issue will carry a full obituary. ical control agents for broom1. Due to uncertainties Please contact us if you would be willing to con- regarding the costs, a risk-averse approach was tribute information: commentary, personal adopted by assuming a worse-case scenario where memories or anecdotes on the contribution that tagasaste was planted to its maximum potential David made. extent in New Zealand (10,000 ha), levels of non- target damage to tagasaste were similar to those on Contact: Matthew Cock & Rebecca Murphy C.
    [Show full text]
  • St. John's-Wort
    A Guide to Weeds in British Columbia ST. JOHN’S-WORT DISTRIBUTION Hypericum perforatum L. Family: Clusiaceae (St. John’s-wort). Other Scientific Names: None. Other Common Names: Klamath weed, goatweed. Legal Status: Not categorized. Growth form: Perennial forb. Leaves: Leaves are opposite, 1–3 cm long, oval- Flower: Flowers shaped, with prominent veins and covered with are 2 cm in transparent dots. diameter, bright yellow, Stems: Mature plants are numerous in flat-topped 0.1–1.0 m high. The stems are clusters. Flowers have 5 erect, 2-sided, rust coloured, separate petals that are twice with numerous branches. as long as the sepals. Stamens Roots: Short rhizomes. are numerous and paired into Seedling: No information 3 groups. available. Seeds/Fruit: Seed pods are 6 mm long, rust-brown, with 3- Similar Species celled capsules that contain Exotics: None known. numerous seeds (Whitson et al. Natives: None known. 1996). Impacts ____________________________________________ Agricultural: St. John’s-wort invades grazed and irritation and blistering in light-coloured livestock disturbed lands. In dense stands, it displaces native when they are exposed to sunlight (Powell et al. 1994). plant species and reduces livestock and wildlife forage. Ecological: No information available. The plant also contains a toxin that causes skin Human: Commercially available as an antidepressant. Habitat and Ecology __________________________________ General requirements: In BC, St. John’s-wort grows Historical: Introduced from Eurasia. at low- to mid-elevations in coastal, grassland, and Life cycle: St. John’s-wort grows early in spring when open forested regions. It is commonly found on soil moisture is available, and flowers from June to rangeland, pasture, and meadows and along roadsides September, depending on geographic location.
    [Show full text]
  • Programme and Book of Abstracts
    MONDAY SEPTEMBER 17 19 MANAGING INVASIVE PLANTS IN AUSTRALIA: A DECADE OF ACHIEVEMENT McFadyen R Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Indooroopilly, Brisbane Qld The first Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Weeds started in 1995 and the National Weeds Strategy was launched in 1997. The first national eradication campaign against an invasive plant started in 1994, and a ‘Permitted List’ system was adopted in 1998 for entry of new plant species into Australia, using a Weed Risk Assessment System. These were major advances in the management of invasive plants in Australia, and this paper discusses the critical policy issues and turning points along the way. It also considers where policy has failed and the critical challenges for the future. 20 21 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL GEOPHYTE WEEDS OF SOUTH-WESTERN AUSTRALIA Keighery GJ Department of Environment and Conservation, Science Division, Wanneroo, WA [email protected] South Western Australia is an internationally recognised biodiversity hotspot for flowering plants, containing over 6,000 species of which 75% are endemic. Altered land use since European settlement has lead to 1234 naturalised plants becoming established. These now pose a major threat to this biodiversity. Unlike SE Australia shrubs are a minor component of this weed flora, major weeds are grasses, annuals (Peas, Daisies and Brassicaceae) or geophytes. The 107 geophytic weeds present in Western Australia come from 18 families of plants, both Monocots and Dicots, although nearly half are cormous Iridaceae from southern Africa. Unlike many other areas of similar climates, Southern Western Australia is depauperate in geophytes, with about 200 species in our flora of c.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Balance of Field-Excavated Aestivating Australian Desert Frogs
    3309 The Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3309-3321 Published by The Company of Biologists 2006 doi:10.1242/jeb.02393 Water balance of field-excavated aestivating Australian desert frogs, the cocoon- forming Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning Notaden nichollsi (Amphibia: Myobatrachidae) Victoria A. Cartledge1,*, Philip C. Withers1, Kellie A. McMaster1, Graham G. Thompson2 and S. Don Bradshaw1 1Zoology, School of Animal Biology, MO92, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and 2Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 19 June 2006 Summary Burrowed aestivating frogs of the cocoon-forming approaching that of the plasma. By contrast, non-cocooned species Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning N. aquilonius from the dune swale were fully hydrated, species Notaden nichollsi were excavated in the Gibson although soil moisture levels were not as high as calculated Desert of central Australia. Their hydration state (osmotic to be necessary to maintain water balance. Both pressure of the plasma and urine) was compared to the species had similar plasma arginine vasotocin (AVT) moisture content and water potential of the surrounding concentrations ranging from 9.4 to 164·pg·ml–1, except for soil. The non-cocooning N. nichollsi was consistently found one cocooned N. aquilonius with a higher concentration of in sand dunes. While this sand had favourable water 394·pg·ml–1. For both species, AVT showed no relationship potential properties for buried frogs, the considerable with plasma osmolality over the lower range of plasma spatial and temporal variation in sand moisture meant osmolalities but was appreciably increased at the highest that frogs were not always in positive water balance with osmolality recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET 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/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. 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. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy and Host Specificity Compared Between Two Populations of The
    Biological Control 65 (2013) 53–62 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Efficacy and host specificity compared between two populations of the psyllid Aphalara itadori, candidates for biological control of invasive knotweeds in North America ⇑ Fritzi Grevstad a, , Richard Shaw b, Robert Bourchier c, Paolo Sanguankeo d, Ghislaine Cortat e, Richard C. Reardon f a Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA b CABI, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, United Kingdom c Agriculture and AgriFood Canada-Lethbridge Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1 d Olympic Natural Resources Center, University of Washington, Forks, WA 98331, USA e CABI, CH 2800 Delemont, Switzerland f USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA highlights graphical abstract " Two populations of the psyllid Aphalara itadori are effective at reducing knotweed growth and biomass. " The two populations differ in their performance among different knotweed species. " Development of A. itadori occurred infrequently on several non-target plant species. " The psyllid exhibited non-preference and an inability to persist on non- target plants. article info abstract Article history: Invasive knotweeds are large perennial herbs in the Polygonaceae in the genus Fallopia that are native to Received 2 February 2012 Asia and invasive in North America. They include Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed), F. sachalinensis Accepted 4 January 2013 (giant knotweed), and a hybrid species F. x bohemica (Bohemian knotweed). Widespread throughout Available online 12 January 2013 the continent and difficult to control by mechanical or chemical methods, these plants are good targets for classical biological control.
    [Show full text]
  • Alligatorweed Scientific Name: Alternanthera Philoxeroides Order
    Common Name: Alligatorweed Scientific Name: Alternanthera philoxeroides Order: Caryophyllales Family: Amaranthaceae Wetland Plant Status: Obligatory Ecology & Description The stems of alligatorweed are long (up to 4 ft), hollow, and branched to allow the plant to float. The leaves are opposite, elongated, and elliptical with smooth edges. Leaves have a defined midrib with small pinnate veins. The plant produces a small cluster of white flowers during the warm parts of the year. The flowers are fragrant and consist of 6-10 florets and produce one small seed. Habitat The plant roots in shallow water (less than 6 ½ ft) and then begins to grow out from the anchor. This can be problematic as it can choke off entire waterways. The plant grows in segments and can grow roots or stems out of the nodes that separate each segmented piece. Distribution In the United States, alligatorweed is found from the southern marshes of Virginia to southern Florida and westward to Texas and is found in some parts of California. Native/Invasive Status Alligatorweed is a perennial non-native species of plant from South America that was accidentally introduced in the state of Florida. It is considered invasive in the United States, New Zealand, China, Australia, and Thailand. Alligatorweed is also considered to be a noxious plant because it disrupts water flow and aeration when it becomes thick. In times of high rain fall it can lead to flooding due to its clogging of the waterways. Wildlife Uses Mats of alligatorweed can be good habitat for many aquatic invertebrates and small fish that may serve as a food source for wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]