Evaluation of Multiple Herbicides for Control of Sponge Plant (Limnobium laevigatum)

Ben E.  Willis; Mark A.  Heilman; West M.  Bishop; Scott W.  Shuler

doi:10.4236/gep.2018.66004

Ben E. Willis^*, Mark A. Heilman, West M. Bishop, Scott W. Shuler

Abstract: Sponge plant is an emerging threat that has spread throughout California including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is an important water resource for agriculture as well as critical habitat for a variety of threatened and endangered species. More data are needed on effective control methods for this spreading invader, as current management practices are not preventing proliferation. The overall objectives of this research were to evaluate imazamox, penoxsulam, topramezone, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, and carfentrazone-ethyl for control of sponge plant using three testing scales, as well as compare image analysis software to traditional biomass response for measuring herbicide performance. Overall, 280 g imazamox ha^−1 (with one-percent methylated seed oil surfactant) was found as a potent solution for all different growth stages of sponge plant, and 70 g penoxsulam ha^−1 as an alternative for control of sponge plant in the seedling and rosette growth stage. The image analysis software yielded similar measurement of herbicide effects as traditional biomass measure. Mesocosm testing indicated imazamox treatment sites should be inspected at four week intervals to identify plants missed by prior applications. This research provides water resource managers critical information for identification of an aquatic invasive species, and selecting an effective rapid management program.

Keywords: Imazamox, Clearcast, Penoxsulam, Galleon, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Canopeo

Cite this paper: Willis, B. , Heilman, M. , Bishop, W. and Shuler, S. (2018) Evaluation of Multiple Herbicides for Control of Sponge Plant (Limnobium laevigatum). Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 6, 56-64. doi: 10.4236/gep.2018.66004.

References

[1] Cook, C.D.K. (1985) Range Extensions of Aquatic Vascular Plant Species. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 23, 1-6.
https://www.apms.org/japm/vol23/v23p1.pdf

[2] US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, USDA-ARS (2016) US National Plant Germplasm System, Online Database.
https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/search.aspx

[3] California Department of Food and Agriculture, CDFA (2010) A New Invader South American Sponge Plant: Worse than Water Hyacinth?.
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ipc/hydrilla/sos/sos_flyer.pdf

[4] Anderson, L. (2011) Sponge plant: A New Aquatic Weed Threat in the Delta. Cal-IPC News, 19, 4-5.

[5] US Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Boating and Wa-terways USDA and CDBW (2012) Water Hyacinth Control Program Biological Assessment, 274.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/pages/28702/files/WHCP-Biological_Assessment-121025.pdf

[6] Mackenzie, K.K. (1920) The Records for Limnobium spongia in the Northern United States. Torreya, 22,102-104.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40596336?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[7] Catling, P.M. and Dore, W.G. (1982) Status and Identification of Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae and Limnobium Spongia in Northeastern North America. Rhodora, 84, 523-545.

[8] Cook, C.D.K. and Urmi-König, K. (1983) A Revision of the Genus Limnobium including Hydromystria (Hydrochari-taceae). Aquatic Botany, 17, 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(83)90015-3

[9] California Department of Parks and Recreation, CDPR (2013) Water Hyacinth and Sponge Plant Control Programs: Water Hyacinth Control Program and Sponge Plant Control Program Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan. 15 p.
https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/pages/28702/files/WHCP%20SC
P%20Aquatic%20Pesticide%20Application%20Plan%202013.pdf

[10] Madsen, J. (2016) Personal Communication. 14 September 2016.

[11] Patrignani, A. and Ochsner, T.E. (2015) Canopeo: A Powerful New Tool for Measuring Fractional Green Canopy Cover. Agronomy Journal, 107, 2312-2320.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0150

[12] SePRO (2017) Galleon® SC Aquatic Herbicide Specimen Label.
http://www.sepro.com/documents/Galleon_Label.pdf

[13] SePRO (2017) Clearcast® Aquatic Herbicide Specimen Label.
http://www.sepro.com/documents/Clearcast_Label.pdf

[14] Netherland, M. and Richardson, R.J. (2015) Evaluating Sensitivity of Five Aquatic Plants to a Novel Arylpicolinate Herbicide Utilizing an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Weed Science, 64, 181-190.
https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-15-00092.1

[15] Getsinger, K.D., Poovey, A.G., Glomski, L., Slade, J.G., and Richardson, R.J. (2011) Utilization of Herbicide Concentration/Exposure Time Relationships for Controlling Submersed Invasive Plants on Lake Gaston, Virginia/North Carolina. US Army Corp Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-11-5, 16 p.

[16] Masser, M.P., Murphy, T.R., and Shelton, J.L. (2013) Aquatic Weed Management: Herbicides. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 361.
http://aquaculture.ca.uky.edu/sites/aquaculture.ca.u
ky.edu/files/srac_361_aquatic_weed_management_herbicides.pdf

[17] SePRO (2017) Stingray® Aquatic Herbicide Specimen Label.
http://www.sepro.com/documents/Stingray_Label.pdf