Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:50:56.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of florpyrauxifen-benzyl formulation and rate for waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) control in a mesocosm setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2021

Christopher R. Mudge Open the ORCID record for Christopher R. Mudge [Opens in a new window] ,
Gray Turnage Open the ORCID record for Gray Turnage [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael D. Netherland
Christopher R. Mudge*
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (USAERDC), Environmental Laboratory, LSU School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Gray Turnage
Affiliation:
Research Associate III, Geosystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA
Michael D. Netherland
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, USAERDC, Environmental Laboratory, Gainesville, FLUSA
*
Author for correspondence: Christopher R. Mudge, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (USAERDC), Environmental Laboratory, LSU School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Waterhyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms] has been the focus of national legislation efforts and has been listed as noxious, invasive, potentially invasive, or prohibited by at least seven U.S. states. Auxinic herbicides are one of the most effective control methods labeled for use in aquatic sites. In the United States, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, a synthetic auxin, was recently (2018) registered for use in aquatic sites, but limited information has been published on efficacy, especially differences between the two formulations. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to evaluate two formulations of florpyrauxifen-benzyl—suspension concentrate (SC) and emulsifiable concentrate (EC)—at three rates each (14.8, 29.5, and 58.9 g ai ha−1) for control of E. crassipes under outdoor and greenhouse conditions. All rates of each florpyrauxifen-benzyl formulation reduced E. crassipes biomass by 90% to 100% when compared with nontreated plants at 5 wk after treatment. Based on plant recovery in the outdoor trial, there was some evidence that the lowest rate (14.8 g ai ha−1) of florpyrauxifen-benzyl SC and EC may not be as efficacious at reducing E. crassipes biomass as the SC and EC formulations when applied at 29.5 and 58.9 g ai ha−1. Future work should evaluate the florpyrauxifen-benzyl rates tested in this research against E. crassipes in field trials and/or an operational setting to confirm findings.

Keywords

Auxinic herbicideemulsifiable concentrate (EC)floating plantfoliar applicationinvasive speciessuspension concentrate (SC)
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 35 - 39
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Ryan M. Wersal, Minnesota State University

†

Deceased.

References

Alimi, T, Akinyemiju, OA (1990) An economic analysis of water hyacinth control methods in Nigeria. J Aquat Plant Manag 28:105–107 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) ProcellaCOR™ EC herbicide product label. Carmel, IN: SePRO Corporation. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) ProcellaCOR™ SC herbicide product label. Carmel, IN: SePRO Corporation. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2020a) Triclopyr 3 herbicide product label. Opelika, AL: Alligare. 7 p Google Scholar
Anonymous (2020b) Weedar® 64 herbicide product label. Alsip, IL: Nufarm, Inc. 18 pGoogle Scholar
Bagnall, LO (1982) Bulk mechanical properties of waterhyacinth. J Aquat Plant Manag 20:49–53 Google Scholar
Benton, AR, James, WP, Rouse, JW (1978) Evapotranspiration from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in Texas reservoirs. Water Resourc Bull 14:919–930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessin, R (2018) Using Pesticide Formulations. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/PSEP/3formulations.html. Accessed: November 20, 2020Google Scholar
Cush, R (2006) Back to Basics: A Review of Pesticide Formulation Types. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/turf/shortcourse/BacktoBasics.pdf. Accessed: November 20, 2020Google Scholar
EDDMaps (2020) Common water hyacinth: Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. www.eddmaps.org. Accessed: September 30, 2020Google Scholar
Gangstad, EO (1971) Aquatic plant control program. Hyacinth Control J 9:46–48 Google Scholar
Glomski, LM, Mudge, CR (2013) Effect of subsurface and foliar applications of bispyribac-sodium on water hyacinth, water lettuce, and giant salvinia. J Aquat Plant Manag 51:62–65 Google Scholar
Haag, KH (1986) Effective control of water hyacinth using Neochetina and limited herbicide application. J Aquat Plant Manag 24:70–75 Google Scholar
Howard, GW, Harley, KLS (1998) How do floating aquatic weeds affect wetland conservation and development? How can these effects be minimized? Wetl Ecol Manag 5:215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, JC, Haller, WT (1984) Effect of 2,4-D and gibberellic acid on waterhyacinths under operational conditions. J Aquat Plant Manag 22:75–78 Google Scholar
Langeland, KA, Haller, WT, Thayer, DD (1983) Phytotoxicity of DPX 5648 to waterhyacinth. J Aquat Plant Manag 21:106–107 Google Scholar
Langeland, KA, Hill, ON, Koschnick, TJ, Haller, WT (2002) Evaluation of a new formulation of reward landscape and aquatic herbicide for control of duckweed, waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and hydrilla. J Aquatic Plant Manag 40:51–53 Google Scholar
Mailu, AM (2001) Preliminary assessment of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of water hyacinth in the Lake Victoria basin and the status of control. Pages 130–139 in Julien MH, Hill MP, Center TD, Jianqing T, eds. Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, 9–12 October 2000. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)Google Scholar
McVea, C, Boyd, CE (1975) Effects of water hyacinth cover on water chemistry, phytoplankton, and fish in ponds. J Environ Qual 4:375–378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, G, Das, N (1969) Studies on the control of water hyacinth. Hyacinth Control J 8:22–23 Google Scholar
Mitchell, DS (1985) African aquatic weeds and their management. Pages 177–202 in Denny, P, ed. The Ecology and Management of African Wetland Vegetation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: W. Junk CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudge, CR, Netherland, MD (2014) Response of giant bulrush, water hyacinth, and water lettuce to foliar herbicide applications. J Aquat Plant Manag 52:75–80 Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Sartain, BT (2017) Evaluation of a new SC formulation of flumioxazin for control of hydrilla and water lettuce. Aquatics 39(2):5–7 Google Scholar
Netherland, MD, Richardson, RJ (2016) Evaluating sensitivity of five aquatic plants to a novel arylpicolinate herbicide utilizing an organization for economic cooperation and development protocol. Weed Sci 64:181–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poovey, AG, Skogerboe, JG, Getsinger, KD (2004) Efficacy of AVAST!® fluridone formulation against Eurasian watermilfoil and nontarget submersed plants. ERDC/EL TR-04-9. Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. https://apcrp.el.erdc.dren.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel04-9.pdf. Accessed: January 12, 2021Google Scholar
Ramaprabhu, T, Kumaraiah, P, Parameswaran, S, Sukumaran, PK, Raghavan, SL (1987) Water hyacinth control by natural water level fluctuations in Byrmangala reservoir, India. J Aquat Plant Manag 25:63–64 Google Scholar
Richardson, RJ, Haug, EJ, Netherland, MD (2016) Response of seven aquatic plants to a new arylpicolinate herbicide. J. Aquat Plant Manag 54:26–31 Google Scholar
Robles, W. Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM (2011) Herbicide efficacy assessment on waterhyacinth and aquatic plant community monitoring in Lake Columbus, Mississippi. J Aquat Plant Manag 49:89–93 Google Scholar
Seabrook, EL (1962) The correlation of mosquito breeding to hyacinth plants. Hyacinth Control J 1:18 Google Scholar
Spira, WM, Huq, A, Ahmed, QS, Saeed, YA (1981) Uptake of Vibrio cholerae biotype eltor from contaminated water by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Appl Environ Microbiol 42:550–553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabita, A, Woods, JW (1962) History of hyacinth control in Florida. Hyacinth Control J 1:19–23 Google Scholar
Timmer, CE, Weldon, LW (1967) Evapotranspiration and pollution of water by water hyacinth. Hyacinth Control J 6:34–36 Google Scholar
Turnage, G, Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM (2015) Comparative efficacy of chelated copper formulations alone and in combination with diquat against hydrilla and subsequent sensitivity of American lotus. J Aquat Plant Manag 53:138–140 Google Scholar
University of Florida (2018) Plant Management in Florida Waters: An Integrated Approach. Details about the Aquatic Herbicides Used in Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/manage/control-methods/details-about-the-aquatic-herbicides-used-in-florida. Accessed: October 15, 2020Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2020) Natural Resource Conservation Service: Plants Database. www.plants.usda.gov. Accessed: September 30, 2020Google Scholar
Van, TK, Vandiver, VV Jr, Conant, RD Jr (1986) Effect of herbicide rate and carrier volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. J Aquat Plant Manag 24:66–69 Google Scholar
Villamagna, AM, Murphy, BR (2010) Ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): a review. Freshw Biol 55:282–298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wersal, RM, Madsen, JD (2010) Combinations of penoxsulam and diquat as foliar applications for control of waterhyacinth and common salvinia: evidence of herbicide antagonism. J Aquat Plant Manag 48:21–25 Google Scholar
Wersal, RM, Madsen, JD (2012) Combinations of diquat and carfentrazone-ethyl for control of floating aquatic plants. J Aquat Plant Manag 50:46–48 Google Scholar