DOCSLIB.ORG

Mandalay Habitat Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mandalay Habitat Management Plan U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MANDALAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana Southeast Region Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region May 2013 Table Of Contents HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope and Rationale .......................................................................................................................... 4 Vision .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Legal Mandates .................................................................................................................................. 5 Refuge Purposes ............................................................................................................................ 6 Relationship to Other Plans ................................................................................................................ 6 Refuge Plans .................................................................................................................................. 6 Regional and National Bird Conservation Plans .............................................................................. 6 Regional Plans and Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 8 II. Background, Inventory, and Habitat Descriptions ..................................................................... 10 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Management Units ........................................................................................................................... 10 Physical Features ............................................................................................................................. 13 Climate ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Geology and Topography ............................................................................................................. 14 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Soils.............................................................................................................................................. 16 Flyways ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Ecosystem Context .......................................................................................................................... 17 Historic Condition of Refuge Habitats ............................................................................................... 17 Prehistoric Human Occupation ..................................................................................................... 17 Historical Human Occupation........................................................................................................ 17 Recent History .............................................................................................................................. 19 Current Habitat Conditions ............................................................................................................... 19 Vegetation Types .......................................................................................................................... 19 Loss of Bottomland Hardwood Forest Habitat ............................................................................... 23 Conversion of Open Water to Exotic Floating Mat Vegetation ....................................................... 23 Damage to Marsh Vegetation by Exotic Animals .......................................................................... 24 Construction of Canals and Spoil Banks, and Associated Bank Erosion ....................................... 24 Changes in Fire Regime ............................................................................................................... 24 Changes Associated with Global Climate Change ........................................................................ 25 III Resources of Concern .................................................................................................................. 27 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern ................................................................................. 27 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Marsh Birds .................................................................................................................................. 28 Colonial Nesting Wading Birds ...................................................................................................... 29 Raptors ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Habitat Requirements of Resources of Concern ............................................................................... 31 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Table of Contents i Marsh Birds .................................................................................................................................. 33 Colonial Nesting Wading Birds ...................................................................................................... 36 Raptors ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Potential Refuge Contribution to Habitat Requirements of Resources of Concern ............................ 39 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Marsh Birds .................................................................................................................................. 39 Colonial-nesting Waterbirds .......................................................................................................... 39 Raptors ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Species with Complementary Habitat Requirements ........................................................................ 39 Neotropical Songbirds .................................................................................................................. 40 Shorebirds .................................................................................................................................... 40 Reconciling Conflicting Habitat Needs .............................................................................................. 40 IV Habitat Management Goals and Objectives ................................................................................ 41 Freshwater Marsh and Shallow Open Water .................................................................................... 43 Objective 1.1: Freshwater Marsh Habitat Management ................................................................ 43 Habitat Management Objective 1.2: Freshwater Marsh Restoration ............................................. 44 Forested Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 45 Habitat Management Objective 2.1: Forested Wetland Management ........................................... 45 V Management Strategies ................................................................................................................ 47 Freshwater Marsh Management Strategies ...................................................................................... 47 Potential Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 47 Management Strategy Prescriptions ............................................................................................. 51 Forested Wetland Management Strategies ...................................................................................... 52 Potential Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 52 Management Strategy Prescriptions ............................................................................................. 53 APPENDICES Appendix
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Herbicides for Management of Waterhyacinth in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 58: 98–104 Herbicides for management of waterhyacinth in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California JOHN D. MADSEN AND GUY B. KYSER* ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.)Solms)isa Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) is a free- global aquatic weed. Although a number of herbicides floating, rosette-forming aquatic plant originally from such as 2,4-D and glyphosate effectively control this plant, South America (Pfingsten et al. 2017). It has been rated as additional herbicides need to be evaluated to address the world’s worst aquatic weed (Holm et al. 1977) and one of concerns for herbicide stewardship and environmental the world’s worst 100 invasive alien species (Lowe et al. restrictions on the use of herbicides in particular areas. 2000). The Invasive Species Specialist Group reports that, as Waterhyacinth has become a significant nuisance in the of the year 2000, it was reported in 50 countries on 5 Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. The predominant continents (Lowe et al. 2000). Introduced to the United herbicides for management of waterhyacinth in the Delta States at the Cotton Centennial Exposition in New Orleans have been 2,4-D and glyphosate. However, environmental in 1884, it spread rapidly throughout the southeastern restrictions related to irrigation water residues and United States soon thereafter and was documented to cause restrictions for preservation of endangered species are widespread navigation issues within 15 yr (Klorer 1909, prompting consideration of the new reduced-risk herbi- Penfound and Earle 1948, Williams 1980). The U.S. cides imazamox and penoxsulam. Two trials were per- Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation formed in floating quadrats in the Delta during the Service (USDA-NRCS) (2017) currently reports it for 23 summer of 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Water Hyacinth Leaves (Eichhornia Crassipes)
    1 Plant Archives Vol. 19, Supplement 2, 2019 pp. 1833-1835 e-ISSN:2581-6063 (online), ISSN:0972-5210 EFFECT OF WATER HYACINTH LEAVES ( EICHHORNIA CRASSIPES ) SUBSTITUTION WITH MAIZE ON SOME GROWTH PARAMETERS OF COMMON CARP (CYPRINUS CARPIO ) Eesa Jasim Mohammed Al-Gburi 1* and Saeed Abdualsada Al-Shawi 2 1Ministry of Agriculture/ Office of Planning & Follow-up, Iraq 2Department of Animal Production, College of Agriculture Engineering Sciences, University of Baghdad, Iraq *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract This study was conducted to Knowing the effect of using dried Water hyacinth leaves instead of maize in the feeding of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. 60 fish with an average weight of 27 ± 1 g/fish were randomly distributed on six replicates. Five similar proteins were produced with protein content and different levels of use of Water hyacinth leaf powder (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%). treatments (T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6) respectively, as well as T1 control, which is free of Water hyacinth leaf powder, Fish were fed on experimental treatments by 3% of their weight. The experiment lasted for 90 days. Growth parameters were used to evaluated ration effect on fish performance as weight gain, Relative growth rate, Specific growth rate, Food conversion ratio and Food conversion efficiency. The results showed that the best experimental diets was T4 which gave the higher levels for most studied parameters . There were significant differences (p ≥ 0.01) between it and T1 control treatment on most studied parameters. The fish were fed diet of T4 gave higher rate of weight gain (32.72 ± 0.07 ) gm/fish, and the lowest weight gain for fish of T6 ( 18.30 ± 0.10) g / fish , T4 was the highest relative growth rate (104.72 ± 0.07)% and did not differ significantly from what was recorded by the rest treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • P) Acquisition of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes
    Aquatic Botany 75 (2003) 311–321 The significance of lateral roots in phosphorus (P) acquisition of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Yonghong Xie, Dan Yu∗ Institute of Ecology, School of Life Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, PR China Received 26 March 2002; received in revised form 18 October 2002; accepted 9 December 2002 Abstract The morphology of lateral root and plant growth in relation to phosphorus (P) acquisition of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) were examined in lakes with different nutrient levels and in mesocosm tanks with two levels of P supply (4.8 and 0.6 g m−2 per year). Lateral root was 2.43 times longer and 1.97 times denser at low-P than at high-P treatments, while the diameter decreased by 20% when the P application rate was lowered from 4.8 to 0.6 g m−2 per year. Specific root length (SRL) and specific root area (SRA) of water hyacinth were significantly higher and plant allocated more biomass to lateral root when grown in low-P environments. Although only accounting for 85.35% of total root biomass in condition with low-P availability, lateral roots constituted 99.8% of total root surface area. In natural habitats, plant displayed the same tendency as in experimental tanks. Biomass increased during the experimental period and plant P concentration declined with time under either high- or low-P conditions, the total plant P, however, remained constant at low-P treatment (P>0.05). These results indicate that the variation in lateral roots of water hyacinth can be considerable and the plant can satisfy P requirements for growth by redistribution of internal P source and increase of P absorption capability in low-P waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Update from the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida's
    IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas Nandina domestica (heavenly bamboo) Deah Lieurance, Aimee Cooper, & S. Luke Flory CAIS/IFAS & Agronomy Department University of Florida, Gainesville @IFASassessment http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/assessment/ • ~85% of all non-native plants enter through Florida • 1300 non-native species established in Florida /124 currently found in state parks • Significant impacts to recreation/expensive to manage • Cost >$34 million/year to control on public land (2004-05) Lygodium microphyllum Melaleuca quinquenervia Eichhornia crassipes What is The Assessment? • Tools to assess the status of species currently present in the state – Reduce cost & increase efficiency of management efforts • Protocol to predict the potential invasiveness of species proposed for release – Preemptively stop future invasions Outline • History & purpose of the Assessment • 3 tools – Status assessment – Predictive tool – Infraspecific taxon protocol • New species additions • Reassessments • The website History & Purpose • Developed in 1999 • UF/IFAS Invasive Plants Working Group • Descriptions & recommendations for use & management • 2008 Predictive Tool & Infraspecific Taxon Protocol Status Assessment • Evaluates species already in Florida • 3 Zones • Describe the status of the species – Ecological impacts – Potential for expanded distribution in Florida – Management difficulty – Economic value • Incorporates field data from experts Status Assessment Possible Results 1. Not considered a problem species at this time
    [Show full text]
  • Notices Federal Register Vol
    6289 Notices Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 12 Thursday, January 21, 2021 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER www.regulations.gov/ comment. We will consider all contains documents other than rules or #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2020-0035 or comments that we receive on or before proposed rules that are applicable to the in our reading room, which is located in the date listed under the heading DATES public. Notices of hearings and investigations, room 1620 of the USDA South Building, at the beginning of this notice. committee meetings, agency decisions and 14th Street and Independence Avenue The EA may be viewed on the rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading Regulations.gov website or in our statements of organization and functions are room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., reading room (see ADDRESSES above for examples of documents appearing in this Monday through Friday, except a link to Regulations.gov and section. holidays. To be sure someone is there to information on the location and hours of help you, please call (202) 799–7039 the reading room). You may also request before coming. paper copies of the EA by calling or DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. writing to the person listed under FOR Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please Animal and Plant Health Inspection Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol refer to the title of the EA when Service Permits, Permitting and Compliance requesting copies. [Docket No. APHIS–2020–0035] Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River The EA has been prepared in Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; accordance with: (1) The National Notice of Availability of an (301) 851–2327; email: Colin.Stewart@ Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Environmental Assessment for usda.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Introduction and Establishment of Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia minima Baker (Salviniaceae), and Interspecies Interactions Possibly Limiting Successful Control in Louisiana Katherine A. Parys Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Parys, Katherine A., "Introduction and Establishment of Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the Control of Salvinia minima Baker (Salviniaceae), and Interspecies Interactions Possibly Limiting Successful Control in Louisiana" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1565. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1565 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. INTRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CYRTOBAGOUS SALVINIAE CALDER AND SANDS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) FOR THE CONTROL OF SALVINIA MINIMA BAKER (SALVINIACEAE), AND INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS POSSIBLY LIMITING SUCCESSFUL CONTROL IN LOUISIANA. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Entomology By Katherine A. Parys B.A., University of Rhode Island, 2002 M.S., Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 2004 December 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In pursing this Ph.D. I owe many thanks to many people who have supported me throughout this endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Spangles (Salvinia Minima) ERSS
    Water Spangles (Salvinia minima) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, December 2014 Revised, April 2018 Web Version, 8/19/2019 Photo: Kurt Stüber. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Available: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salvinia_minima_1.jpg. (April 2018). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range GISD (2018) lists Salvinia minima as native to Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. From Howard Morgan (2018): “Native Range: Central and South America; common and wide-ranging from southern Mexico to northern Argentina and Brazil (Mickel a[n]d Beitel 1988, [Stoltze] 1983). De la Sota (1976) 1 remarked that, in Argentina, the natural range of Salvinia minima could not be precisely determined due to its frequency in the watergarden and aquarium trade.” Status in the United States GISD (2018) lists Salvinia minima as alien, invasive and established in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, and Texas. Howard Morgan (2018) list Salvinia minima as present in the wild in Alabama (first report in 1982), Arkansas (first report in 1998), California (first report in 2008), Florida (first report in 1930), Georgia (first report in 1936), Idaho (first report in 2004), Louisiana (first report in 1980), Maryland (first report in 1984), Massachusetts (first report in 1992), Mississippi (first report in 1999), New Mexico (first report in 1999), New York (first report in 1990), Ohio (first report in 2017), Oklahoma (first report in 1989), Puerto Rico (first report in 1998), South Carolina (first report in 1997), and Texas (first report in 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • The Adventive Status of Salvinia Minima and S. Molesta in The
    The Adventive Status of Salvinia minima and S. molesta in the Southern United States and the Related Distribution of the Weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae Author(s): Colette C. Jacono, Tracy R. Davern and Ted D. Center Source: Castanea, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 214-226 Published by: Southern Appalachian Botanical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4033946 . Accessed: 29/09/2014 14:51 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Southern Appalachian Botanical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Castanea. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 158.135.136.72 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:51:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions CASTANEA 66(3): 214-226. SEPTEMBER 2001 The Adventive Status of Salvinia minima and S. molesta in the Southern United States and the Related Distribution of the Weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae COLETTE C. JACONO,1 TRACY R. DAVERN,2 and TED D. CENTER2 'USGS, Florida Caribbean Science Center, 7920 NW 71st St., Gainesville, Florida 32653; 2USDA-ARS,Invasive Plant Research Laboratory,3205 College Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 ABSTRACT The recent introduction of Salvinia molesta constitutes a serious threat to aquatic systems in the warm temperate regions of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Salvinia Molesta. Retrieved From
    Aquatic Plant Salvinia I. Current Status and Distribution Salvinia molesta, S. minima, S. herzogii, S. natans a. Range Global/Continental Wisconsin Native Range S. molesta: South America (Southern Brazil)1 S. minima: Central and South America2 S. herzogii: South America3 S. natans: Eurasia4 Not recorded in Wisconsin Figure 1: U.S and Canada Distribution Map5 Also reported from Virginia & Colorado6 (S. molesta, S. minima, S. herzogii, and S. natans) Abundance/Range Widespread: Tropics, subtropics Not applicable Locally Abundant: Warm temperatures, high nutrients7 Not applicable Sparse: Frost-limited Not applicable Range Expansion Date Introduced: Late 19th century8; 1930s2; late 1970s to early Not applicable 1980s9 Rate of Spread: Extremely rapid; doubling time of 2.9 days (S. Not applicable herzogii)10 Density Risk of Monoculture: High; capable of 30,000 plants/m2; can result Unknown in mats 3 feet thick9 Facilitated By: High temperatures, nutrients Unknown b. Habitat Lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, low energy systems Tolerance Chart of tolerances: Increasingly dark color indicates increasingly optimal range11,12 Preferences Low energy freshwater systems; high nutrient input (nitrogen) and high temperatures10,13; intolerant of salinity8 Page 1 of 5 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Aquatic Invasive Species Literature Review c. Regulation Noxious/Regulated5: Federal Noxious Weed List; AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, MA, MS, NV, NC, OR, SC, TX, VT Minnesota Regulations: Prohibited; One may not possess, import, purchase, propagate, or transport Michigan Regulations: Prohibited; One may not knowingly possess or introduce Washington Regulations: Secondary Species of Concern II. Establishment Potential and Life History Traits a. Life History Floating leaf aquatic fern; subtle differences exist between species but in general they are very closely related13; S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Floating Fern (Salvinia)
    2 FLOATING FERN (SALVINIA) M. H. Julien,1 T. D. Center,2 and P. W. Tipping2 1 CSIRO Entomology, Indooroopilly, Australia 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA PEST STATUS OF WEED tats for vectors of human disease with serious socio- economic impacts. Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell is a floating fern na- In developing countries, the impact of salvinia tive to South America that in the last half of the twen- can be devastating because weed mats block the use tieth century spread widely throughout the tropics of waterways for transportation, cutting off access and subtropics, moved in part by the trade in orna- to important services, farm lands, and hunting mental plants for fish tanks and ponds. It forms dense grounds. The harm from salvinia mats to fisheries also mats over lakes and slow moving rivers and causes can be very significant to communities dependent on large economic losses and a wide range of ecological fish for local consumption (sometimes as the main problems to native species and communities. It is of source of protein) or in areas where fish sales are the interest in the United States because of its recent es- main source of cash income (Bennett, 1966; Thomas tablishment in east Texas. and Room, 1986). Salvinia also is a weed of paddy Nature of Damage rice that reduces production by competing for wa- ter, nutrients and space (Anon., 1987). Economic damage. Mats of S. molesta (referred to Ecological damage. The ability to grow very hereafter as salvinia) impede access to and use of wa- quickly (Cary and Weerts, 1983; Mitchell and Tur, terways for commercial and recreational purposes 1975; Mitchell, 1978/9; Room, 1986) and blanket wa- and degrade waterside aesthetics (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Alien Aquatic Plants in the Inland Waters of Sicily (Italy) Citation: Troia A
    Journal of Plant Firenze University Press Taxonomy www.fupress.com/webbia WEBBIA and Geography Monitoring of alien aquatic plants in the inland waters of Sicily (Italy) Citation: Troia A. et al. (2020) Monitor- ing of alien aquatic plants in the inland waters of Sicily (Italy). Webbia. Jour- nal of Plant Taxonomy and Geography Angelo Troia1,*, Vincenzo Ilardi2, Elisabetta Oddo1 75(1): 77-83. doi: 10.36253/jopt-8414 1 Dipartimento STEBICEF (Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche, Chimiche e Farmaceutiche), Received: April 2, 2020 Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy 2 Dipartimento DISTEM (Scienze della Terra e del Mare), Università degli Studi di Paler- Accepted: May 8, 2020 mo, Palermo, Italy Published: June 30, 2020 *Corresponding author, email [email protected] Copyright: © 2020 A. Troia, V. Ilardi, E. Oddo. This is an open access, peer- Abstract. Updated and reliable data on the presence and distribution of alien aquatic reviewed article published by Firenze plant species in Sicily are lacking, and there is a need to fill this gap for a proper and University Press (http://www.fupress. efficient management of freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. This paper reviews com/webbia) and distributed under the the available knowledge about alien aquatic vascular plants in the inland waters of terms of the Creative Commons Attri- Sicily (Italy). The aim is to provide an updated checklist, as a first step in the study of bution License, which permits unre- the impact of those plants on the native species and ecosystems of this Mediterranean stricted use, distribution, and reproduc- island. The paper focuses on the strictly aquatic species (hydrophytes), excluding emer- tion in any medium, provided the origi- gent macrophytes.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes (Mart.) Solms)
    Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) Gray Turnage, M.S., Research Associate III, Mississippi State University Problems: Forms dense mats of floating vegetation (Figure 1) that inhibit growth of native plant species and reduce the water quality of habitat utilized by aquatic fauna. Mats can also inhibit recreational uses of waterbodies, commercial navigation, hydro power generation, clog irrigation pumps, and worsen flood events. Water hyacinth is often called “the world’s worst aquatic weed” due to its presence on every continent (except Antarctica) and its rapid growth rate. Regulations: None in MS. Description: Water hyacinth a free-floating, perennial plant that is often confused with the native American frogbit. The primary characteristic used to distinguish hyacinth from frogbit is the presence of a ‘bulbous’ structure at the base of the hyacinth leaves. Hyacinth can grow to approximately a meter in height (referred to as ‘bull hyacinth’ at this stage) and produces large, showy, purple flowers throughout the growing season (Figure 1). Dispersal: A popular water-gardening plant, water hyacinth is native to South America but has been found throughout many states in the U.S. and is very common in MS (Figure 2; Turnage and Shoemaker 2018; Turnage et al. 2019). Water hyacinth primarily spreads through daughter plants and seeds (Figure 2). Each rosette is capable of producing multiple daughter plants per growing season. In optimal growing conditions, water hyacinth can double in biomass in 5-6 days. Control Strategies: Physical-summer drawdown may control water hyacinth but will likely cause negative impacts to fish populations. Mechanical-hand removal of small patches and individual rosettes may be effective; mechanical mowers can provide short term relief but usually cause further spread through plant fragmentation.
    [Show full text]