Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Chemical Methods to Remove Invasive Plants

Invasive species adversely impact their introduced environments by causing environmental, ecological, and economic damages. Due to the reproductive biology and competitive strength of many invasive species, they can be extremely difficult or impossible to eradicate once established. Early management interventions such as removal and eradication programs can help control or eliminate populations of invasive aquatic plants. Herbicides and other chemical treatments in lakes or rivers have been reported to be successful but are often broad-scale and negatively impact native flora and fauna as well. Application, eradication success, and biological impacts are discussed in these syntheses.

Rating:
All syntheses were scored poorly in CEESAT demonstrating limitations in the rigour and the transparency in which the synthesis was conducted (i.e., no a-priori protocol, critical appraisal, or appropriate search strategy provided). RASCAT scoring was mixed for this intervention; most syntheses reviewed studies based in habitats, climates, and countries relevant to Canada, but many syntheses did not demonstrate any consideration of implications, practical advice, or recommendations for decision-makers. Photo credit: Harry Beatty, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Thouvenot, L., Haury, J., & Thiebaut, G. (2013)

A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests

Title: A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests

Authors: Thouvenot, L., Haury, J., & Thiebaut, G.

Journal: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Year: 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2387

Species or groups: Water primroses, Ludwigia grandiflora

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1135; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1140; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1138

Abstract: 1. Aquatic ecosystems are currently invaded by non-indigenous aquatic plants. A major challenge for biological invasion research is to develop the ability to predict the spread of species. 2. Throughout the world, Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis and Ludwigia grandiflora subsp. hexapetala are now considered to be two of the most invasive aquatic plants. This paper reviews the scientific knowledge about these species, their ecological and socio-economic impacts and methods of management. 3. Water primrose possesses some advantageous biological traits, such as rapid growth rate, efficient reproductive capacity, high plasticity in growth response, broad ecological tolerance and allelopathic compounds which might explain its expansion and colonization of numerous ecosystems. 4. Much attention must be paid to Ludwigia grandiflora subsp. hexapetala and Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis. According to climatic models, global warming will further increase the spread of these species in Europe.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Madsen, J.D. (2000)

Advantages and disadvantages of aquatic plant management techniques

Moreira, I., Ferreira, T., Monteiro, A., Catarino, L., & Vasconcelos, T. (1999)

Aquatic weeds and their management in Portugal: insights and the international context

Title: Aquatic weeds and their management in Portugal: insights and the international context

Authors: Moreira, I., Ferreira, T., Monteiro, A., Catarino, L., & Vasconcelos, T.

Journal: NA

Year: 1999

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0922-4_32

Species or groups: Aquatic weeds

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: A historical insight into the connections between Portuguese researchers working on aquatic weeds and the EWRS Symposia (1964–1998) is given. A review is provided of the major aquatic weeds in Portuguese waters, including fluvial systems, reservoirs, drainage and irrigation canals, and rice fields along with the types of control and aquatic plant management practised in Portugal. Aquatic weed control in Portuguese waters is performed mostly by mechanical means, in spite of several experimental attempts at chemical control and biological control with fish and insects. Aquatic weed studies in other Mediterranean countries are also referred to.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Cilliers, C.J., Hill, M.P., Ogwang, J.A., & Ajuonu, O. (2003)

Aquatic weeds in Africa and their control

Title: Aquatic weeds in Africa and their control

Authors: Cilliers, C.J., Hill, M.P., Ogwang, J.A., & Ajuonu, O.

Journal: NA

Year: 2003

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Aquatic weeds: water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach (Pontederiaceae); red water fern, Azolla filiculoides Lam. (Azollaceae); parrot’s feather, Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. (Haloragaceae); water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae); and salvinia, Salvinia molesta Mitchell (Salviniaceae)

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Tanveer, A., Ali, H.H., Manalil, S., Raza, A., & Chauhan, B.S. (2018)

Eco-biology and management of Alligator Weed [Alternanthera philoxeroides)(Mart.) Griseb.]: a review

Title: Eco-biology and management of Alligator Weed [Alternanthera philoxeroides)(Mart.) Griseb.]: a review

Authors: Tanveer, A., Ali, H.H., Manalil, S., Raza, A., & Chauhan, B.S.

Journal: Wetlands

Year: 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1062-1

Species or groups: Alligator Weed

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1228

Abstract: Exotic plant invasion, a global issue, has a tremendous impact on ecology, economy, human, and animal health. Alligator weed (the world’s first aquatic weed) is a serious invasive weed in 32 different countries of South America, Australia, Asia, and North America. Recently, it has been recorded as a threat weed of rice, maize, soybean, vegetables, fruit trees, and pastures, causing 19–45% yield losses in these crops in addition to its infestation in canals, lakes, and ditches. Alligator weed has the potential to ruin agricultural and natural ecosystems and recreational areas. Ability to propagate via vegetative fragmentation, water-borne dispersal of vegetative propagules, and allelopathic potential contribute towards its success as an invasive weed species of terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and aquatic environments. Application of glyphosate, metsulfuron-methyl, dichlobenil, fluridone, hexazinone, triclopyr amine, dimethylamine, imazapyr, diuron, and amitrole herbicides have been found most effective in controlling this weed in different habitats. Agasicles hygrophila, Vogtia malloi pastana, Amynothrips andersoni, and Nimbya alternanthera have been reported as bio-agents for the control of alligator weed. We present a comprehensive review of the biology, interference, and management options of an extremely dangerous invasive weed species. Although management of alligator weed through chemical, biological, and mechanical means are often effective, there is need for well-planned, long-term field experiments to evaluate the role of different factors that are stated to be responsible for its increasing infestation and distribution (e.g., regeneration after damage caused by herbicides, high soil fertility levels, soil disturbances, shallow vs. deep ploughing and grazing management). It is recommended that future research should focus more on the integration of different management approaches in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and in various ecological regions.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Region: An overview.

Title: Aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Region: An overview.

Authors: Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D.

Journal: Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2017.1363715

Species or groups: Starry stonewart

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are of concern in North America due to their devastating impacts on ecosystems and economies. The Great Lakes region is particularly vulnerable to AIS introduction and establishment with at least 184 nonindigenous species reported in this region from a large number of taxa including viruses, bacteria, diatoms, protozoa, arthropods, mollusks, fish, and plants. Representative species from these groups were explored, describing the features of their natural history and current efforts in prevention and control. Specifically, five AIS that are expected to spread to novel areas in the region are discussed: viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus and heterosporis (pathogens affecting fish), starry stonewort (an alga), zebra mussels (a bivalve), and carps (fishes). Novel strategies for AIS control include next-generation sequencing technologies, gene editing, mathematical modeling, risk assessment, microbiome studies for biological control, and human-dimension studies to address tensions related to AIS management. Currently, AIS research is evolving to adapt to known technologies and develop novel technologies to understand and prevent AIS spread. It was found that AIS control in this region requires a multidisciplinary approach focusing on the life history of the species (e.g., pheromones), adaptive management of anthropogenic structures (e.g., bubble curtains), and the integration of human dimensions to develop efficient management plans that integrate local citizens and management agencies.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

McFarland, D.G., Nelson, L.S., Grodowitz, M.J., Smart, R.M., & Owens, C.S. (2004)

Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (Giant Salvinia) in the United States: A review of species ecology and approaches to management

Title: Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (Giant Salvinia) in the United States: A review of species ecology and approaches to management

Authors: McFarland, D.G., Nelson, L.S., Grodowitz, M.J., Smart, R.M., & Owens, C.S.

Journal: NA

Year: 2004

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Giant salvinia

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: Over the past 70 years, the free-floating aquatic fern Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (giant salvinia) has spread from its native range in Brazil to many tropical and subtropical regions. Though innocuous within its native range, elsewhere this species is an aggressive menace that has had devastating ecological and socioeconomic impacts on aquatic systems in parts of Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, New Guinea, and the Philippines. In the United States, the plant is established in waterways in at least 10 states (mainly in the south) and is expected to continue to expand in areas generally where Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth) persists. Listed as a Federal Noxious Weed since 1984, S. molesta is prohibited from importation to the United States and from transport across state lines. Dense mats of S. molesta can suppress growth of native vegetation and degrade water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and numerous other ecological values. Notably, massive infestations have occurred in the Swinney Marsh Complex, Texas, in the Lower Colorado River, Arizona/California, and in Lake Wilson and Enhanced Lake, Hawaii. This report presents a review of available information on the growth, distribution, and ecology of S. molesta. Information is provided on the plant's taxonomic status, its field characteristics, phenology, and spread overseas and in the United States. Growth responses of S. molesta in relation to environmental variables (e.g., temperature, nutrients, light, pH, conductivity) are emphasized as are impacts of the species on the environment and other aquatic organisms. Different technologies (i.e., physical, chemical, biological, and integrated) applied to control S. molesta infestations are discussed along with information on the effectiveness of these procedures and their need for further study.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hummel, M., & Kiviat, E. (2004)

Review of world literature on the water chestnut with implications for management in North America

Title: Review of world literature on the water chestnut with implications for management in North America

Authors: Hummel, M., & Kiviat, E.

Journal: Journal of Aquatic Plant Management

Year: 2004

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Water chestnut

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: Water chestnut (Trapa natans L., sensu lato) is an annual, floating-leaved aquatic plant of temperate and tropical freshwater wetlands, rivers, lakes, ponds, and estuaries. Native to Eurasia and Africa, water chestnut has been widely gathered for its large nutritious seed since the Neolithic and is cultivated for food in Asia. Water chestnut is now a species of conservation concern in Europe and Russia. Introduced to the northeastern United States in the mid-1800s, the spread of water chestnut as a nuisance weed was apparently favored by cultural eutrophication. Water chestnut is considered a pest in the U.S. because it forms extensive, dense beds in lakes, rivers, and freshwater-tidal habitats. This results in displacement of submergent aquatic plants, interference with boating, fishing, and swimming, and depletion of dissolved oxygen which adversely affects fish communities. Dry weight phytomass ca. 100 to 1500 g/m -2 has been reported in native and introduced ranges. Water chestnut beds in the freshwater- tidal Hudson River support substantial phytophilous macroinvertebrate communities and a few species of small fishes. Larger fishes forage at edges of beds and penetrate into beds during favorable conditions, while birds forage on top of beds and rodents eat the seeds. Herbicides and manual or mechanical harvesting have been used for control. There has been no comparative study of water chestnut in native and introduced ranges, nor has the human food potential been investigated in the United States. Harvest of water chestnut for food, or for energy, might be compatible with local management for fish habitat and recreation.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hussner, A., Stiers, I., Verhofstad, M.J.J.M., Bakker, E.S., Grutters, B.M.C., Haury, J., Van Valkenburg, J.L.C.H., Brundu, G., Newman, J., Clayton, J.S., & Anderson, L.W.J. (2017)

Management and control methods of invasive alien freshwater aquatic plants: a review

Title: Management and control methods of invasive alien freshwater aquatic plants: a review

Authors: Hussner, A., Stiers, I., Verhofstad, M.J.J.M., Bakker, E.S., Grutters, B.M.C., Haury, J., Van Valkenburg, J.L.C.H., Brundu, G., Newman, J., Clayton, J.S., & Anderson, L.W.J.

Journal: Aquatic Botany

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2016.08.002

Species or groups: Introduced invasive alien aquatic plants

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

Abstract: Introduced invasive alien aquatic plants (IAAPs) threaten ecosystems due to their excessive growth and have both ecological and economic impacts. To minimize these impacts, effective management of IAAPs is required according to national or international laws and regulations (e.g. the new EU regulation 1143/2014). Prevention of the introduction of IAAPs is considered the most cost effective management option. If/when prevention fails, early detection and rapid response increases the likelihood of eradication of the IAAPs and can minimize on-going management costs. For effective weed control (eradication and/or reduction), a variety of management techniques may be used. The goal or outcome of management interventions may vary depending on the site (i.e. a single waterbody, or a region with multiple waterbodies) and the feasibility of achieving the goal with the tools or methods available. Broadly defined management goals fall into three different categories of, containment, reduction or nuisance control and eradication. Management of IAAP utilises a range of control methods, either alone or in combination, to achieve a successful outcome. Here we review the biological, chemical and mechanical control methods for IAAPs, with a focus on the temperate and subtropical regions of the world and provide a management diagram illustrating the relationships between the state of the ecosystem, the management goals, outcomes and tools.

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Chemical Methods to Remove Invasive Plants

Thouvenot, L., Haury, J., & Thiebaut, G. (2013)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Madsen, J.D. (2000)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moreira, I., Ferreira, T., Monteiro, A., Catarino, L., & Vasconcelos, T. (1999)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Cilliers, C.J., Hill, M.P., Ogwang, J.A., & Ajuonu, O. (2003)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Tanveer, A., Ali, H.H., Manalil, S., Raza, A., & Chauhan, B.S. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

McFarland, D.G., Nelson, L.S., Grodowitz, M.J., Smart, R.M., & Owens, C.S. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hummel, M., & Kiviat, E. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hussner, A., Stiers, I., Verhofstad, M.J.J.M., Bakker, E.S., Grutters, B.M.C., Haury, J., Van Valkenburg, J.L.C.H., Brundu, G., Newman, J., Clayton, J.S., & Anderson, L.W.J. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions

Article

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Invasive Species Removal – Chemical Methods to Remove Invasive Plants

Thouvenot, L., Haury, J., & Thiebaut, G. (2013)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Madsen, J.D. (2000)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moreira, I., Ferreira, T., Monteiro, A., Catarino, L., & Vasconcelos, T. (1999)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Cilliers, C.J., Hill, M.P., Ogwang, J.A., & Ajuonu, O. (2003)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Tanveer, A., Ali, H.H., Manalil, S., Raza, A., & Chauhan, B.S. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Escobar L.E., Mallez S., McCartney M., Lee C., Zielinski D.P., Ghosal R., Bajer P.G., Wagner C., Nash B., Tomamichel M., Venturelli P., Mathai P.P., Kokotovich A., Escobar-Dodero J., & Phelps., N.B.D. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

McFarland, D.G., Nelson, L.S., Grodowitz, M.J., Smart, R.M., & Owens, C.S. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hummel, M., & Kiviat, E. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hussner, A., Stiers, I., Verhofstad, M.J.J.M., Bakker, E.S., Grutters, B.M.C., Haury, J., Van Valkenburg, J.L.C.H., Brundu, G., Newman, J., Clayton, J.S., & Anderson, L.W.J. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions