Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:33:53.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A case study of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) control in Puerto Rico using glyphosate and hand removal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

Wilfredo Robles Open the ORCID record for Wilfredo Robles [Opens in a new window]  and
Edda L. Martínez
Wilfredo Robles*
Affiliation:
Professor of Weed Science, Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus, Corozal, PR
Edda L. Martínez
Affiliation:
Extension Agent, Agricultural Extension Service, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus, Naranjito, PR
*
Author for correspondence: W. Robles, Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, HC-5 Box 10322, Corozal, PR 00783-9521. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Waterhyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solm] is an aquatic invasive plant that is widespread in Puerto Rico, where it negatively effects estuaries, freshwater wetlands, potable water reservoirs, and wildlife refuges. Specifically, the tropical estuary San Juan Bay Estuary (SJBE) has been impacted with the presence of E. crassipes. Infestations have led to a reduction of water circulation in the system and have facilitated the establishment of invasive fauna. Therefore, a field study was conducted in a cove between Laguna San Jose and Peninsula Cantera to assess the use of glyphosate and hand removal as a management tool for E. crassipes control. Aquatic macroinvertebrates and water quality were also monitored as a measure of environmental impact due to management activities. Results indicated that at 2 wk after glyphosate application, E. crassipes biomass (dry weight) was significantly reduced to 0.27 kg DW m−2 at the treated plot compared with the nontreated plot, which yielded 0.62 kg DW m−2. Fresh weight of E. crassipes decreased more than 90% when hand removal was used compared with glyphosate treatment. Dissolved oxygen and water pH were not significantly different between sites; however, water salinity increased to 8 to 9 ppt at both plots as a result of tidal activity. The order Hemiptera followed by Sarcoptiformes were common in the aquatic macroinvertebrate community. Macroinvertebrate species found associated with E. crassipes and considered natural enemies were: Orthogalumna terebrantis Wallwork, Niphograpta albigutalis (Warren), and Neochetina eichhorniae Warner. The use of glyphosate to manage E. crassipes at the Laguna San Jose was useful as a short-term control method, and its efficacy may be enhanced over time with follow-up applications in combination with hand removal.

Keywords

Aquatic arthropodsbiomassheavy metalstropical estuary
Type
Case Study
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 196 - 203
Check for updates
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

References

Abreu, E, Bernier, L (2002) Plantas invasoras en Puerto Rico. Informe Cooperativo DRNA y UPR número 3. San Juan, PR: Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources and the University of Puerto Rico. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, JA, Hetges, JF, Bagnall, LO (1974) Preservation and cattle acceptability of waterhyacinth silage. Hyacinth Contr J 12:79–81 Google Scholar
Barrett, SCH (1989) Waterweed invasions. Sci Am 261:90–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booms, TL (1999) Vertebrates removed by mechanical weed harvesting in Lake Keesus, Wisconsin. J Aquat Plant Manage 37:34–36 Google Scholar
Boyd, CE, Vickers, DH (1971) Variation in the elemental content of Eichhornia crassipes . Hydrobiologia 38:409–414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, TD, Allen Dray, F Jr, Jubinsky, GP, Grodowitz, MJ (1999) Biological control of waterhyacinth under conditions of maintenance management: can herbicides and insects be integrated? Environ Manag 23:241–256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, TD, Spencer, NR (1981) The phenology and growth of waterhyacinth in a eutrophic north-central Florida lake. Aquat Bot 10:1–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[ENLACE] Corporación del Proyecto ENLACE del Caño Martín Peña (2016) Final feasibility Report, Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project. Jacksonville, FL: US Army Corps of Engineers. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Cummins, KW (1973) Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annu Rev Entomol 18:183–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Rienzo, JA, Casanoves, F, Balzarini, MG, Gonzalez, L, Tablada, M, Robledo, CW (2020) InfoStat Versión 2020. Córdoba, Argentina: Centro de Transferencia InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. http://www.infostat.com.ar. Accessed: June 14, 2021Google Scholar
Duke, SO (2020) Glyphosate: Environmental fate and impact. Weed Sci 68:201–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. EPA 120/R-07/001. Washington, DC: Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 172 pGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2020) Glyphosate: interim registration review decision. Case number 0178 EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/glyphosate-interim-reg-review-decision-case-num-0178.pdf. Accessed: June 29, 2021Google Scholar
Franqui, RA, Santiago-Blay, JA, Medina Gaud, S, Abreu, E (1997) The “Museo de Entomología y Biodiversidad Tropical” of the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico. Fla Entomol 80:490–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangstad, EO (1977) Aquatic weed problems in Puerto Rico. J Aquat Plant Manage 15:3–5 Google Scholar
Gettys, LA (2009) Waterhyacinth. Pages 113–117 in Gettys, LA, Haller, WT, Bellaud, M, eds. Biology and control of aquatic plants: a best management practices handbook. Marietta GA: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation Google Scholar
Gonzalez, H, Lodenius, M, Otero, M (1989) Waterhyacinth as indicator of heavy metal pollution in the tropics. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 43:910–914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, BK, Blankinship, M, McNabb, TJ (2006) Control costs, operation, and permitting issues for non-chemical plant control: case studies in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Region, California. J Aquat Plant Manage 44:40–46 Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Lopez, E (1993) Effect of glyphosate on different densities of waterhyacinth. J Aquat Plant Manage 31:255–257 Google Scholar
Haller, WT, Sutton, DL, Barlowe, WC (1974) Effects of salinity on growth of several aquatic macrophytes. Ecology 55:891–894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1991) The world’s worst weeds: distribution and biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger. 609 pGoogle Scholar
Knipling, EB, West, SH, Haller, WT (1970) Growth characteristics, yield potential, and nutritive content of water hyacinths. Proc Soil Crop Soc Florida 30:51–63 Google Scholar
Lenka, M, Panda, KK, Panda, BB (1990) Studies on the ability of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) to bioconcentrate and biomonitor aquatic mercury. Environ Pollut 66:89–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, SW, Chang, WL (2004) Heavy metal phytoremediation by waterhyacinth at constructed wetlands in Taiwan. J Aquat Plant Manage 42:60–68 Google Scholar
Madsen, JD (1993) Growth and biomass allocation patterns during waterhyacinth mat development. J Aquat Plant Manage 31:134–137.Google Scholar
Malpica-Sierra, K, Abreu-Rodriguez, E, Almodóvar, LE (2002) Catastro de enemigos naturales del jacinto de agua (Eichhornia crassipes) en Puerto Rico. Page 3 in Proceedings of the Sociedad Puertorriqueña de Ciencias Agrícolas Annual Meeting. San Juan, PR: Puerto Rican Society for Agricultural Sciences Google Scholar
Masifwa, WF, Twongo, T, Denny, P (2001) The impact of waterhyacith, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms on the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates along the shores of northern Lake Victoria, Uganda. Hydrobiologia 452:79–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVea, C, Boyd, CE (1975) Effects of waterhyacinth cover on water chemistry, phytoplankton, and fish in ponds. J Environ Qual 4:375–378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, RW, Cummins, KW, Berg, MB (2008) An Introduction to Aquatic Insects of North America. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 1158 pGoogle Scholar
Montoya, JE, Waliczek, TM, Abbott, ML (2013) Large scale composting as a means of managing waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:243–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parra, JV, Hortenstine, CC (1974) Plant nutritional content of some Florida waterhyacinths and response by pearl millet to incorporation of waterhyacinth in three soil types. Hyacinth Contr J 12:85–90 Google Scholar
Penfound, WT, Earle, TT (1948) The biology of the waterhyacinth. Ecol Monogr 18:447–472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[PRCCC] Puerto Rico Climate Change Council (2013) Puerto Rico’s State on the Climate 2010–2013: Assessing Puerto Rico’s Social-Ecological Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. San Juan, PR: Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 316 pGoogle Scholar
Robles, W (2011) Aquatic weed species of concern in tropical freshwater systems. Page 213 in Symposium: Monitoring and Managing Invasive Aquatic Plants in Tropical Freshwater Systems. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Conference 64. San Juan, PR: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Robles, W (2019) El glifosato sigue siendo un herbicida con registro de uso. Revista SEA del Oeste 2:33 Google Scholar
Robles, W, Gonzalez, VM, Gonzalez, S (2010a) Distribución geográfica de plantas invasoras en PR. Page 19 in Proceedings of the Sociedad Puertorriqueña de Ciencias Agrícolas Annual Meeting. San Juan, PR: Puerto Rican Society for Agricultural Sciences Google Scholar
Robles, W, Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM (2010b) Detecting and predicting herbicide injury on waterhyacinth using remote sensing. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 3:440–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, W, Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM (2015) Estimating the biomass of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) using the normalized difference vegetation index from simulated Landsat 5TM. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushing, WN (1974) Waterhyacinth research in Puerto Rico. Hyacinth Contr J 12:48–52 Google Scholar
[SJBEP] San Juan Bay Estuary Program (2000) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the San Juan Bay Estuary. San Juan, PR: San Juan Bay Estuary Program. 274 pGoogle Scholar
Timmer, CE, Weldon, LW (1967) Evapotranspiration and pollution of water by waterhyacinth. Hyacinth Contr J 6:34–37 Google Scholar
Tipping, PW, Martin, MR, Pokorny, EN, Nimmo, KR, Fitzgerald, DL, Allen Dray, F Jr, Center, TD (2014) Current levels of suppression of waterhyacinth in Florida USA by classical biological control agents. Biol Control 71:65–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, JD, Simenstad, CA, Cordell, JR, Grimaldo, LF (2003) The effects of introduced waterhyacinth on habitat structure, invertebrate assemblages, and fish diets. Estuaries 26:746–758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, TK, Vandiver, VV Jr, Conant, RD Jr (1986) Effect of herbicide rate and carrier volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. J Aquat Plant Manage 24:66–69 Google Scholar