Biology and Ecology of Flowering Rush () Gray Turnage and John Madsen

February 27-28, 2018

Columbia Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area Flowering Rush Summit Description

• Long, flexuous or erect leaves growing from a basal rhizome, up to 10’ tall (usually)

• May grow submersed or emersed in 0 to ~20’ water depth

• May also grow in moist soil or as facultative wetland

• Inflorescence is separate stalk with an umbel of pink flowers; each flower has three petals and three sepals Photo credit: J. Madsen

Taxonomic Scientific Common Butomus umbellatus • L. Level Name Name Kingdom Plantae • Flowering rush Flowering Division Magnoliophyta Plants • Only species in its taxonomic family Class Monocots • Butomaceae Arrowheads & Pondweeds Family Butomaceae 1 • Order Alismatales (messy order) • Same order as the arrowheads, pondweeds, and Genus Butomus 1 spp. seagrasses Butomus Species Flowering rush umbellatus L. www.plants.usda.gov Biotypes

• Introduced from Eurasia

• Diploid & triploid biotypes • Both present in native and invaded ranges

• Diploid – first introduction suspected in St. Lawrence seaway

• Triploid – first introduction suspected near Image credit: Kliber & Eckert 2005 Detroit MI Biotypes

• Diploid • Sexual reproduction produces > 20K seeds/plant • > 100 vegetative bulbils/plant

• Triploid Photo credit: C. Carter • Few seeds • Relies on vegetative growth for spread

• Rhizome fragments & buds appear to be the main propagule for both biotypes

Photo credit: J. Madsen Biotypes

• Diploid • Sexual reproduction produces > 20K seeds/plant • > 100 vegetative bulbils/plant

• Triploid Photo credit: C. Carter • Few seeds • Relies on vegetative growth for spread

• Rhizome fragments & buds appear to be the main propagule for both biotypes • Propagules can colonize new sites

Photo credit: J. Madsen Problem

• Excludes native plant species • Decreases biodiversity

• Inhibits navigation and recreation

• Obstructs flowing waters • Irrigation ditches • Streams & rivers

• Obstructs use of waterfront Photo credit: J. Madsen

• Reduces the value of waterfront property – Reduces local tax revenue Spread

• Seeds or bulbils (diploid)

• Rhizome fragments & buds

• Boating

• Wave action / drift

• Waterfowl? Photo credit: J. Madsen

• Ice scour? Lifecycle SUMMER

Photo credit: J. Madsen SPRING FALL

Photo credit: J. Madsen Photo credit: J. Madsen WINTER

Photo credit: J. Madsen Nutrient Movement

• Rhizome buds sprout

• Photosynthesis produces sugars

• CO2 + 2H2O  C6H12O6 + O2 + H2O

• Excess sugars translocated to rhizome and converted to starch for storage

• Starch reserves needed for: • Over wintering • Regrowth in spring Image credit: J. Madsen • Propagule production Nutrient Movement

• Starch converted to sugar for movement

• Sugars used for leaf growth

• This increases area for photosynthesis to occur • Generates more sugars (chemical energy)

• Movement always source to sink

Image credit: J. Madsen Nutrient Movement

Spring Early summer Late summer Fall/Winter

High in rhizome Low in rhizome High in leaves PS Stops Low in leaves Low in leaves Low in rhizome High in rhizome Movement PS balances Movement No movement upwards downward needs Image credit: J. Madsen Biology – Starch

Image Credit: Marko et al. 2015 Biology – Biomass

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology – Bud Density

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology – Height

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology – Emergence

Image Credit: Marko et al. 2015 Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: Marko et al. 2015 Growth Form

Submersed Emergent Wetland

Photo Credit: J. Madsen Photo Credit: J. Madsen Photo Credit: G. Turnage Growth Form Photo Credit: J.Madsen

Image Credit: J. Madsen J.Credit: Image Depth / Height (ft) -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 Growth Form Photo Credit: J.Madsen

Image Credit: J. Madsen J.Credit: Image Depth / Height (ft) -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 Growth Form

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: J. Madsen Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: G. Turnage Biology

Photo Credit: J. Madsen

Image Credit: J. Madsen Invasion Process

• Can be applied at multiple spatial scales • Localized sites in a waterbody

• Entire waterbodies in a watershed

• Multiple watersheds in river drainage

• Multiple river basins

• Etc. Figure reproduced from Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, & M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA. Invasion Process

• Transport

• Introduction

• Establishment

• Spread

• Impact • Based on human perception

Figure reproduced from Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, & M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA. Invasion Process

• Introduction Stage Logistic Growth • 3 phases 100 90 Carrying Capacity • Lag Phase 80 70 Exponential Growth 60 Phase • Exponential Growth 50

Phase Coverage

- 40 % 30 • Carrying Capacity Phase 20 Lag Phase 10 0 Time Image Credit: G. Turnage Invasion Process

• Lag Phase Logistic Growth 100 • High %-coverage of 90 Carrying Capacity native spp 80 70 Exponential Growth 60 Phase • Low %-coverage of 50

invasive spp Coverage

- 40 % 30 • Invasive not ‘perceived’ 20 Lag Phase as problematic 10 0 Time Image Credit: G. Turnage Invasion Process

• Exponential Growth Logistic Growth Phase 100 90 Carrying Capacity • %-coverage of native spp 80 Exponential rapidly declines 70 Growth 60 Phase 50

• %-coverage of invasive Coverage

- 40 spp rapidly increases % 30 • Becoming dominant spp; 20 propagules leaving Lag Phase 10 0 Time • Invasive ‘perceived’ as Image Credit: G. Turnage problematic Invasion Process

• Carrying Capacity Logistic Growth 100 • Low %-coverage of 90 Carrying Capacity native spp 80 70 Exponential Growth 60 Phase • High %-coverage of 50

invasive spp Coverage

- 40 % 30 • Invasive is dominant spp 20 Lag Phase 10 0 Time • Propagules colonizing Image Credit: G. Turnage other sites Invasion Process

• Eradication may be possible if invasion detected in very early stages in a waterbody • Introduction • Localized Spread

• Management goals should focus on control if widespread • Try to convert sites from carrying capacity to lag phase

Figure reproduced from Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, & M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA. Ecology – Emergence

• Sprouts later than some native spp

• Senesces earlier than some native spp

• Reaches max height very quickly, thus is sending sugars to BG tissues early in growth season Image Credit: Marko et al.Image 2015 Credit: J. Madsen Ecology – Biodiversity

• Mats or false bottoms can shade out native spp

• Decrease DO in water column • Harmful to native fauna

• Decreases plant biodiversity • Possibly faunal biodiversity also

• Reduces ‘preferred’ habitat for native fauna

Image Credit: J. Madsen Ecology – Biodiversity

• Native fish spp • Salmonids • Muskie

• Salmonids prefer open habitat for spawning

• Muskie prefer ‘sparsely’ vegetated habitat for spawning • Bulrush beds

• FR provides habitat for ambush Image Credit: J. Madsen predators (i.e. bass, pike) Ecology – Control Measures

• Selective control preferred

• 4 (sometimes 5) control methods 1. Physical 2. Mechanical 3. Biological 4. Chemical 5. Cultural – preventative measures

Image Credit: Marko et al. 2015 • Site characteristics determine appropriate control strategy • IPM may be appropriate Ecology – Control Measures

• Minimize impacts to native aquatic plant spp

• Maximize control of FR • Reduction of buds • Reduction of distribution

• Example – Detroit Lakes, MN • Diquat used • Spp diversity unchanged • 83% reduction of buds • 60% reduction in distribution Image Credit: Madsen et al. 2016 Ecology – Control Measures

• Physical control unlikely to control FR • Need to de-water entire waterbody for a long time

• Dyes not very effective on emergent spp

• Drawdown likely stimulates growth into new habitat • Can make problem worse

Image Credit: J. Madsen • Physical may harm native spp also Ecology – Control Measures

• Mechanical control • Expensive • Useful for IPM or highly regulated areas

• Can stimulate growth & bud production at low frequencies • May quicken loss of biodiversity

• May dislodge fragments and buds from sediments; can float away and colonize new sites Image Credit: G. Turnage • Can hasten rate of spread Ecology – Control Measures

• Biological control • Species dependent • Can be useful in IPM approach • Can cause collateral damage to native spp

• Work well on some spp • i.e. Alligatorweed Image Credit: G. Turnage

• Not so well on other spp • i.e. Milfoil

• Updates coming! Ecology – Control Measures

• Chemical control Method & timing critical • Effective Control • Formulation • Site characteristics

• Some can harm native biota (i.e. fish spp) Ineffective Control

• Collateral damage to native spp possible

• Some need further study • i.e. triclopyr Ecology – Control Measures

• Understanding growth biology & ecology of target spp can increase efficacy of control measures Low Point

• Knowledge of surrounding ecosystem also necessary to Starch Content determine management goals & to implement Month of the Year Image Credit: J. Madsen management strategies Image Credit: Marko et a. 2015 Management Goals

• Prevent further spread Logistic Growth infestation 100 • Educate public 90 Carrying Capacity • Boat checks 80 • Monitoring of known & 70 Exponential suspected infestations Growth 60 Phase 50 Coverage • Eradicate if possible - 40 % • New infestations 30 20 Lag Phase 10 • Control elsewhere 0 Time • Established populations Image Credit: G. Turnage • Lag phase is end goal Questions?

Gray Turnage, M. S. Mississippi State University Geosystems Research Institute Ph: 662-325-7527 E-mail: [email protected]

www.gri.msstate.edu