Aquatic plant management

Last updated

Aquatic plant management involves the science and methodologies used to control invasive and non-invasive aquatic plant species in waterways. Methods used include spraying herbicide, biological controls, mechanical removal as well as habitat modification. [1] Preventing the introduction of invasive species is ideal.

Contents

Aquaculture has been a source of exotic and ultimately invasive species introductions such Oreochromis niloticus . [2] Aquatic plants released from home fish tanks have also been an issue.

Impact

Aquatic weeds are obviously most economically problematic where humans and water touch each other. Water weeds reduce our capacity for hydroelectric generation, drinking water supply, industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, and recreational use of water bodies including recreational boating. Some weeds do this by increasing - rather than decreasing - the evaporation loss at the surface. Particular weeds and aquatic insects have a special relationship which makes the plants a source of insect pests. [3]

Organizations

In Florida the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has an aquatic plant management section. [4] The State of Washington has an Aquatic Plant Management Program. [5]

The Aquatic Plant Management Society is an organization in the U.S. and published the Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. [6]

The City of Winter Park, Florida has a herbicide program. [7]

Species

Invasive aquatic species include:

Aquatic plant harvesting methods

Harvesting methods

Harvesting refers to anthropogenic removal of aquatic plants from their environment. Aquatic plant harvesting is often done to clear waters for navigation and recreation, as well as for the purpose of ridding the environment of invasive plant species. However, this aquatic plant management style can also have negative effects on the environment such as harming non-target plants and animals, increasing turbidity, and potentially spreading invasive plants via fragmentation. There are multiple plant removal methods available depending on the purpose of removal, the habitat of the plant, the animals surrounding the plants, as well as the density, access point, and species of the plant. [8] Plant removal methods consist of: pulling by hand, mechanical cutting, cut and grinding, suction harvesting, rototilling, and hydro-raking.

Mechanical cutting is the most common method of aquatic plant harvesting. This is an efficient method that can cover a large area. Removing large amounts of plants from the water can have a positive impact on the daily oxygen levels in shallow aquatic environments. [9] Mechanical cutting has short term effect, which makes it a good method to use with the purpose of harvesting nutrients and promoting regrowth of the plants. [10] However, the equipment used for cutting is expensive, and this method is also nonselective, often damaging non-target plants, habitats, and animals. This method of harvesting has a tendency to remove large portions of macroinvertebrate, semi-aquatic vertebrate, and fish populations. [11] Cutting also allows the possibility of further spreading plants that reproduce via fragmentation. [8] Mechanical cutting is commonly used in heavily infested areas because of its speed and efficiency, however this leaves behind large amounts of dead plants free floating in the environment. Leaving large mats of cut plants in the water can have negative effects on the aquatic environment by providing obstacles for animals, reducing of sunlight for remaining plants, creating build up on shore lines, and poor water quality. Cutting is often performed using harvesters with a sickle-bar cutting blade on the back. Mechanical cutting is often paired with harvesting boats to collect the dead plants, or have a conveyor belt to load cut plants onto the boat. [12]

The cut and grind method is a highly efficient method of harvesting with the disposal of dead plants included. This method also mechanically cuts large amounts of plants at a time then proceeds to grind the plants to dispose back into the lake. [12] This method is best for bodies of water with chronic invasive plant problems in which plant disposal must be considered. Grinding plants minimizes the need for any extra boats or disposal methods to manage the cut plants. However, this method contains the same downfalls of mechanical cutting. It is a nonselective, short term solution that can resuspend sediment. Although different from standard cutting, the grinding of the plants still leaves large masses of plant material in the water creating negative effects in the remaining environment.

The Rotovating method uses rotating blades to uproot plants from the sediment. Rotovating is more likely to remove the entire plant, including the roots, with an intermediate-term effect on regrowth. [12] This method is effective but requires expensive equipment and has negative effects on the environment. Rotovating is nonselective, and it may spread plants via fragmentation and suspend excess amounts of sediment. Rotovating is an efficient process but requires a separate disposal method.

Hydro-raking works similarly to rotovating. A backhoe is used to target the roots and rip the plant out of the sediment, followed by a rake to remove the vegetation. This method works best for thick, difficult plants to remove, and is effective for long-term removal since roots are removed. Hydro-rakings holds the same challenges as rotovating, with the potential to indirectly spread species, damage more plants than necessary, and create turbidity by suspending sediment. [8]

Pulling by hand or suction harvesting are diver/snorkeler operated, highly selective methods of removing aquatic plants. Individuals manually pull or vacuum suck the entire plant from the sediment. Vacuum suction removes the entire plant (stem, leaves, roots) including the surrounding sediment from the floor of the aquatic environment. This provides a long-term effect with minimal regrowth of the plants. Manual removal is a slow, inefficient process that is often only performed on small vegetative communities in underdeveloped areas. [12] [8] Suction harvesting requires more technology and is more expensive. Pulling by hand is more cost effective; however, pulling by hand runs the risk of suspending excess sediment, suction harvesting does not have this risk. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logging</span> Process of cutting, processing, and moving trees

Logging is the process of cutting, processing, and moving trees to a location for transport. It may include skidding, on-site processing, and loading of trees or logs onto trucks or skeleton cars. In forestry, the term logging is sometimes used narrowly to describe the logistics of moving wood from the stump to somewhere outside the forest, usually a sawmill or a lumber yard. In common usage, however, the term may cover a range of forestry or silviculture activities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aquatic plant</span> Plant that has adapted to living in an aquatic environment

Aquatic plants are plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. They are also referred to as hydrophytes or macrophytes to distinguish them from algae and other microphytes. A macrophyte is a plant that grows in or near water and is either emergent, submergent, or floating. In lakes and rivers macrophytes provide cover for fish, substrate for aquatic invertebrates, produce oxygen, and act as food for some fish and wildlife.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dredging</span> Excavation of sediment, usually under water

Dredging is the excavation of material from a water environment. Possible reasons for dredging include improving existing water features; reshaping land and water features to alter drainage, navigability, and commercial use; constructing dams, dikes, and other controls for streams and shorelines; and recovering valuable mineral deposits or marine life having commercial value. In all but a few situations the excavation is undertaken by a specialist floating plant, known as a dredger.

<i>Elodea</i> Genus of aquatic plants

Elodea is a genus of 6 species of aquatic plants often called the waterweeds described as a genus in 1803. Classified in the frog's-bit family (Hydrocharitaceae), Elodea is native to the Americas and is also widely used as aquarium vegetation and laboratory demonstrations of cellular activities. It lives in fresh water. An older name for this genus is Anacharis, which serves as a common name in North America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clearcutting</span> Forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in an area are uniformly cut down

Clearcutting, clearfelling or clearcut logging is a forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in an area are uniformly cut down. Along with shelterwood and seed tree harvests, it is used by foresters to create certain types of forest ecosystems and to promote select species that require an abundance of sunlight or grow in large, even-age stands. Logging companies and forest-worker unions in some countries support the practice for scientific, safety and economic reasons, while detractors consider it a form of deforestation that destroys natural habitats and contributes to climate change. Environmentalists, traditional owners, local residents and others have regularly campaigned against clearcutting, including through the use of blockades and nonviolent direct action.

<i>Alternanthera philoxeroides</i> Species of aquatic plant

Alternanthera philoxeroides, commonly referred to as alligator weed, is a native species to the temperate regions of South America, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Argentina alone hosts around 27 species that fall within the range of the genus Alternanthera. Its geographic range once covered only the Parana River region of South America, but it has since expanded, having been introduced to over 30 countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many more. This invasive species is believed to have been accidentally introduced to these non-native regions through sediments trapped by, or attached to, tanks and cargo of ships travelling from South America to these various areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aquatic ecosystem</span> Ecosystem in a body of water

An aquatic ecosystem is an ecosystem found in and around a body of water, in contrast to land-based terrestrial ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems contain communities of organisms—aquatic life—that are dependent on each other and on their environment. The two main types of aquatic ecosystems are marine ecosystems and freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems may be lentic ; lotic ; and wetlands.

The need for a clearly defined and consistent invasion biology terminology has been acknowledged by many sources. Invasive species, or invasive exotics, is a nomenclature term and categorization phrase used for flora and fauna, and for specific restoration-preservation processes in native habitats. Invasion biology is the study of these organisms and the processes of species invasion.

<i>Myriophyllum spicatum</i> Species of flowering plant in the family Haloragaceae

Myriophyllum spicatum is native to Europe, Asia, and north Africa, but has a wide geographic and climatic distribution among some 57 countries, extending from northern Canada to South Africa. It is a submerged aquatic plant, grows in still or slow-moving water, and is considered to be a highly invasive species.

<i>Pontederia crassipes</i> Aquatic plant native to the Amazon basin

Pontederia crassipes, commonly known as common water hyacinth, is an aquatic plant native to South America, naturalized throughout the world, and often invasive outside its native range. It is the sole species of the subgenus Oshunae within the genus Pontederia. Anecdotally, it is known as the "terror of Bengal" due to its invasive growth tendencies.

<i>Nymphoides peltata</i> Species of aquatic plant

Nymphoides peltata is perennial, rooted aquatic plant with floating leaves of the family Menyanthaceae.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dam removal</span>

Dam removal is the process of demolishing a dam, returning water flow to the river. Arguments for dam removal consider whether their negative effects outweigh their benefits. The benefits of dams include hydropower production, flood control, irrigation, and navigation. Negative effects of dams include environmental degradation, such as reduced primary productivity, loss of biodiversity, and declines in native species; some negative effects worsen as dams age, like structural weakness, reduced safety, sediment accumulation, and high maintenance expense. The rate of dam removals in the United States has increased over time, in part driven by dam age. As of 1996, 5,000 large dams around the world were more than 50 years old. In 2020, 85% percent of dams in the United States are more than 50 years old. In the United States roughly 900 dams were removed between 1990 and 2015, and by 2015, the rate was 50 to 60 per year. France and Canada have also completed significant removal projects. Japan's first removal, of the Arase Dam on the Kuma River, began in 2012 and was completed in 2017. A number of major dam removal projects have been motivated by environmental goals, particularly restoration of river habitat, native fish, and unique geomorphological features. For example, fish restoration motivated the Elwha Ecosystem Restoration and the dam removal on the river Allier, while recovery of both native fish and of travertine deposition motivated the restoration of Fossil Creek.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glenbrook Lagoon</span> Reservoir

Glenbrook Lagoon is a fresh water lagoon located in Glenbrook, New South Wales at the foot of the Blue Mountains. It is heritage-listed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Riparian-zone restoration</span> Ecological restoration of river banks and floodplains

Riparian-zone restoration is the ecological restoration of riparian-zonehabitats of streams, rivers, springs, lakes, floodplains, and other hydrologic ecologies. A riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream. Riparian is also the proper nomenclature for one of the fifteen terrestrial biomes of the earth; the habitats of plant and animal communities along the margins and river banks are called riparian vegetation, characterized by aquatic plants and animals that favor them. Riparian zones are significant in ecology, environmental management, and civil engineering because of their role in soil conservation, their habitat biodiversity, and the influence they have on fauna and aquatic ecosystems, including grassland, woodland, wetland or sub-surface features such as water tables. In some regions the terms riparian woodland, riparian forest, riparian buffer zone, or riparian strip are used to characterize a riparian zone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Invasive species in the United States</span>

Invasive species are a significant threat to many native habitats and species of the United States and a significant cost to agriculture, forestry, and recreation. The term "invasive species" can refer to introduced/naturalized species, feral species, or introduced diseases. Some introduced species, such as the dandelion, do not cause significant economic or ecologic damage and are not widely considered as invasive. Economic damages associated with invasive species' effects and control costs are estimated at $120 billion per year.

Mechanical weed control is a physical activity that inhibits unwanted plant growth. Mechanical, or manual, weed control techniques manage weed populations through physical methods that remove, injure, kill, or make the growing conditions unfavorable. Some of these methods cause direct damage to the weeds through complete removal or causing a lethal injury. Other techniques may alter the growing environment by eliminating light, increasing the temperature of the soil, or depriving the plant of carbon dioxide or oxygen. Mechanical control techniques can be either selective or non-selective. A selective method has very little impact on non-target plants where as a non-selective method affects the entire area that is being treated. If mechanical control methods are applied at the optimal time and intensity, some weed species may be controlled or even eradicated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deforestation in British Columbia</span>

Deforestation in British Columbia has resulted in a net loss of 1.06 million hectares of tree cover between the years 2000 and 2020. More traditional losses have been exacerbated by increased threats from climate change driven fires, increased human activity, and invasive species. The introduction of sustainable forestry efforts such as the Zero Net Deforestation Act seeks to reduce the rate of forest cover loss. In British Columbia, forests cover over 55 million hectares, which is 57.9% of British Columbia's 95 million hectares of land. The forests are mainly composed of coniferous trees, such as pines, spruces and firs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aquatic weed harvester</span>

An aquatic weed harvester, also known as a water mower, mowing boat and weed cutting boat, is an aquatic machine specifically designed for inland watercourse management to cut and harvest underwater weeds, reeds and other aquatic plant life. The action of removing aquatic plant life in such a manner has been referred to as "aquatic harvesting".

Privets are any of a number of shrubs or trees in the genus Ligustrum, many of which are invasive. The genus contains about 50 species native to the Old World and Australasia. Many members of the genus are grown as ornamental plants in parts of the world.

Garden waste, or green waste dumping is the act of discarding or depositing garden waste somewhere it does not belong.

References

  1. ↑ Nichols, Stanley A. (February 4, 1974). "Mechanical and Habitat Manipulation for Aquatic Plant Management: A Review of Techniques". Department of Natural Resources – via Google Books.
  2. ↑ Azevedo-Santos, V.M.; O. Rigolin-Sá; F.M. Pelicice (2011). "Growing, losing or introducing? Cage aquaculture as a vector for the introduction of non-native fish in Furnas Reservoir, Minas Gerais, Brazil". Neotropical Ichthyology . 9 (4): 915–9. doi: 10.1590/S1679-62252011000400024 . ISSN   1679-6225.
  3. ↑ Zettler, F W; Freeman, T E (1972). "Plant Pathogens as Biocontrols of Aquatic Weeds". Annual Review of Phytopathology . Annual Reviews. 10 (1): 455–470. doi:10.1146/annurev.py.10.090172.002323. ISSN   0066-4286.
  4. ↑ "Aquatic Plant Management". Florida Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission.
  5. ↑ "Aquatic Plant Management Program: Environmental Impact Statement". February 4, 1980 – via Google Books.
  6. ↑ "Journal of Aquatic Plant Management – Plant Management in Florida Waters". plants.ifas.ufl.edu.
  7. ↑ "Aquatic Plant Management". City of Winter Park.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Quilliam, Richard S.; van Niekerk, Melanie A.; Chadwick, David R.; Cross, Paul; Hanley, Nick; Jones, Davey L.; Vinten, Andy J.A.; Willby, Nigel; Oliver, David M. (April 2015). "Can macrophyte harvesting from eutrophic water close the loop on nutrient loss from agricultural land?". Journal of Environmental Management. 152: 210–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.046 . hdl: 10023/6517 . PMID   25669857.
  9. ↑ Carpenter, S (1978). "Mechanical cutting of submersed macrophytes: Immediate effects on littoral water chemistry and metabolism". Water Research. 12 (1): 55–57. doi:10.1016/0043-1354(78)90196-3.
  10. ↑ Verhofstad, M.J.J.M.; Poelen, M.D.M.; van Kempen, M.M.L.; Bakker, E.S.; Smolders, A.J.P. (September 2017). "Finding the harvesting frequency to maximize nutrient removal in a constructed wetland dominated by submerged aquatic plants". Ecological Engineering. 106: 423–430. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.012.
  11. ↑ Harper, David M. (1999). The Ecological Bases for Lake and Reservoir Management : Proceedings of the Ecological Bases for Management of Lakes and Reservoirs Symposium, held 19-22 March 1996, Leicester, United Kingdom. Bill Brierley, Alastair J. D. Ferguson, Geoff Phillips. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. ISBN   978-94-017-3282-6. OCLC   851378687.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Madsen, John D. (2000-09-01). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Aquatic Plant Management Techniques". Fort Belvoir, VA. doi:10.21236/ada392169. hdl: 11681/2969 .{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.