Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:54:35.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Response to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey F. Derr
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455. Author's E-mail address: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The invasive biotype of common reed has taken over wetlands and can spread into roadsides, turf, and ornamental sites. Additional control options are needed for managing this biotype in noncrop areas and other sites. In container trials, fosamine, glyphosate, and imazapyr all provided excellent control of common reed. Triclopyr suppressed common reed, with increasing rates improving the growth reduction. Chlorflurenol, primisulfuron, and sulfosulfuron did not suppress common reed growth. In field trials, glyphosate and imazapyr were more effective than fosamine, providing 82 and 93% control, respectively, the following April after either June or September applications. The optimum window of application for glyphosate may therefore include both summer and fall applications, wider than the commonly accepted window of only fall treatments. Fosamine provided greater suppression of common reed when applied in September (68% control) compared to June applications (43% control).

Keywords

Chlorflurenolfosamineglyphosateimazapyrprimisulfuronsulfosulfurontriclopyrcommon reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.invasivenonselective herbicidesnoncrop herbicides
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 153 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ailstock, M. S., Norman, C. M., and Bushmann, P. J. Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restor. Ecol 2001. 9:49–59.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , Phragmites australis in the Chesapeake Bay Region—Key Issues. 2000. Annapolis, MD Chesapeake Bay Commission. 5.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , Aquamaster herbicide label. 2007a. St. Louis, MO Monsanto Company. 21. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld4BL000.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2007.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2007b. Renovate herbicide label. Carmel, IN SeaPro Corp. 8. http://www.sepro.com/documents/Renovate_Label(REV).pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2007.Google Scholar
Benoit, L. K. and Askins, R. A. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut marshes. Wetlands 19:194–208.Google Scholar
Czarnota, M. A. and Derr, J. F. 2007. Controlling bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.) with herbicides. Weed Technol 21:80–83.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, E. J. and Meyerson, L. A. 1999. Species composition and inter-annual dynamics of a freshwater tidal plant community following removal of the invasive grass, Phragmites australis . Biol. Invasions 1:115–127.Google Scholar
Havens, K. J., Priest, W. I. III, and Berquist, H. 1997. Investigation and long-term monitoring of Phragmites australis within Virginia's constructed wetland sites. Environ. Manag 21:599–605.Google Scholar
Kay, S. 1995. Efficacy of wipe-on applications of glyphosate and imazapyr on common reed in aquatic sites. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 33:25–26.Google Scholar
League, M., Seliskar, D., and Gallagher, J. 2007. Predicting the effectiveness of Phragmites control measures using a rhizome growth potential bioassay. Wetl. Ecol. Manag 15:27–41.Google Scholar
Mal, T. K. and Narine, L. 2004. The biology of Canadian weeds. 129. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Can. J. Plant Sci 84:365–396.Google Scholar
Marks, M., Lapin, B., and Randall, J. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Phragmites australis . Arlington, VA The Nature Conservancy. 28. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/phraaus.rtf. Accessed September 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Monteiro, A., Moreira, I., and Sousa, E. 1999. Effect of prior common reed (Phragmites australis) cutting on herbicide efficacy. Hydrobiologia 415:305–308.Google Scholar
Orson, R. A. 1999. A paleoecological assessment of Phragmites australis in New England tidal marshes: changes in plant community structure during the last few millennia. Biol. Invasions 1:149–158.Google Scholar
Riemer, D. N. 1973. Effects of rate, spray volume and surfactant on the control of Phragmites with glyphosate. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 27:101–104.Google Scholar
Riemer, D. N. Long-term effects of glyphosate applications to phragmites. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 1976. 14:39–43.Google Scholar
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of Phragmites australis into North America. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 99:2445–2449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltonstall, K. 2005. Common Reed Fact Sheet Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pdf/phau1.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2007.Google Scholar
Teal, J. M. and Peterson, S. 2005. The interaction between science and policy in the control of Phragmites in oligohaline marshes of Delaware Bay. Restor. Ecol 13:223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewksbury, L., Casagrande, R., Blossey, B., Hafliger, P., and Schwarzlander, M. 2002. Potential for biological control of Phragmites australis in North America. Biol. Control 23:191–212.Google Scholar
[USDA NRCS] U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Profile Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud 2007. Common Reed. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profilesymbolPHAU7. Accessed September 5, 2007.Google Scholar