Environmental impacts, treatment methodologies and management criteria for establishment of a statewide policy for the control of the marsh plant Phragmites year one

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, TREATMENT
METHODOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT
CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A
STATEWIDE POLICY FOR THE CONTROL OF
THE MARSH PLANT PHRAGMITES
YEAR ONE 1989

QK
495
.G74
A3 5
1989

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, TREATMENT METHODOLOGIES AND
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATEWIDE POLICY
FOR THE CONTROL OF THE MARSH PLANT PHRAGMITES
YEAR ONE

PREPARED FOR

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

PREPARED BY

M. STEPHEN AILSTOCK

THEODORE W. SUMAN

DAVID H. WILLIAMS

ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

ANNE ARUNDEL COMMUNITY COLLEGE

ARNOLD, MARYLAND
1984

US Department of commerce
Coastal Services Center Library
South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Successful completion of this portion of the project
required cooperation among a number of programs within the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Special
appreciation Is extended to Frank Dawson, project manager,
for his valuable suggestions and recommendations and his
untiring efforts to coordinate the Inter- and Intra-agency
activities In the face of seasonal constraints and proJect
deadlines. Appreciation Is further extended to Larry
Hindman, Pat Kaiser and Ashley Straw of the State's
waterfowl programs for their assistance In aerial
reconnaissance of site selection and support of the
treatment programs.

The authors would also like to recognize Michael Nouman and
Peter McGowen, Environmental Technicians of AACC, for their
extraordinary commitment to the project. Finally, special
thanks are extended to Eileen Davlds for her exceptional
patience and valuable contributions durinqithe preparation
of this report.

This project was funded by the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources contract No. C114-89-031.

CONTENTS

I. Introduction ......................................... 1

II. Site Selection ....................................... 4

III. Treatment Protocol ................................... 6

A. Herbicide Application ............................. 6

B. Burning .......................................... 7

IV. Experimental Objectives .............................. 8

V. Methods .............................................. 8

VI. Results ............................................. 10

A. Survey pre- and post treatment use of Phragmites by
mammals and terrestrial invertebrates . ........... 10

B. Monitor pre- and post treatment changes in the
density of plants and macroinvertebrate terrestrial
invertebrates . ................................... 12

C. Determine the availability of seed stock in site
sediments . ....................................... 13

D. Evaluate changes in the physcial environment
associated with the treatment program . ........... 14

VII. Project Summary ..................................... 14

A. Determine ecological uses of monotypic Phragmites
stands . .......................................... 14

B. Measure the effectiveness of recommended control
measures and their ecological Impacts under
conditions typical to Maryland . .................. 15

C. Identify the factors influencing the recruitment in
treated areas by species other than Phragmites .... 16

D. Develop a predictive indicator for ratc@; of
vegetative recruitment following herbicide
applications . .................................... 16

E. Provide recommendations for site evaluation in the
establishment of Phracffnltes control programs In
moist uplands and non-tidal wetlands . ............ 17

V I I I. Re commendat 1 on a ..................................... 17

A. Treatment Protocols .............................. 17

B. Management Policy ................................ 21

1. General ........................................ 21

2. State Lands .................................... 25

IX. Tables

X. Figures

XI. Appendix

XII. Literature Cited

INTRODUCTION

Phrac-ffnltes australls (common reed) Is a large, coarse

perennial grass 1.5 - 4 m in height. While primarily found

In brackish and freshwater wetlands where it grows at and

above mean high water, the plant is also common in moist

uplands and the dune systems of Atlantic coast barrier
Islands (Brown and Brown, 1984; Fernald, 1970; Gleason and

CronquIst, 1963). Phragmites seeds profusely and spreads

vegetatively by a vigorous system of rhizomes and stolons.

Once established, the plant forms dense stands and may

Invade adjacent areas crowding out more desirable wetlands

species and reducing the overall species diversity of the

affected system (Galinato and van der Valk, 1986;

Szczepanska and Szczepanski, 1982; Weisser and Ward, 1982;

Woodhouse and Knutson, 1982; Weisser and Parsons, 1981).

Since It Is a native plant, Its status as a "pest" Is

probably related to Its ability to survive changes Induced

by human activity Impinging negatively on wetlands.

The large size, high reproductive potential and rapid growth

rate of Phraamltes are the underlying bases for the

differences of opinions held by biologists and resource

managers with respect to the plant's ecologica I value and

potential usefulness for environmental enhancement (Anderson

and Ohmart, 1985; Eleuterlus and Gill, 1983; Kruczynskl,

1983; Bibby, 1982). Phra-qmltes reduces natural plant

diversity and Is not considered to be an Important wildlife

food or cover plant. However, It can be an Important soil

stabilizer and may have application as a nutrient sink for

treating wastewater prior to release (Brix, 1987; Gersberg

et al., 1986; Kamlo, 1985; Bonham, 1983). These potential

uses have led to several efforts for developing propagation

and field establishment protocols (Stout, 1977; Eleuterius,

.1974)-. Unfortunately, because Phragmites produces an

abundance of propagules which can be dispersed by wind,

water, animal vectors and machinery, programs for control

and use are largely incompatible (Smith and Kadlec, 1983;

Best et al., 1981; Izatt, 1979; Llnedale, 1978; Kasaslan,

1977; Nir, 1976) . This Incompatibility has led to three

divergent policies of Phragmites management - eradication,

control and tolerance.

To better evaluate the extent of Phragmites growth In

Maryland, aerial reconnaissance of areas Identified by

members of the Department of Natural Resources as "problem"

sites was conducted In the summer of 1987. A number of

observations were made relevant to the establishment of a

statewide Phragmites management policy. Most noteworthy

were:

1. Practices which cause soil disturbance promote PhuagmiLvu;

colonization.

2. Phracimites In undisturbed areas often appear as circular

colonies suggesting a single-parent origin.

3. Maryland, with the possible exception of Cecil County and

Kent Island, generally lacks extensive acreage of PhLacffjlte5

common In other coastal states. Dense monotypic stands are

more commonly found In isolated pockets or along stream

borders. This distribution often poses problems for

Implementing preferred methods of control.

4. Management schemes which do not adhere to recommended

control practices and do not include subsequent management

for replacement species recruitment are generally

ineffective.

S. Phragmites provides some positive benefits through sail

stabilization, nutrient removal and water filtration.

Based upon these observations, two studies were Initiated by

Anne Arundel Community College through support from the

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater

Administration, Coastal Resources Division. The objectives

of the first study were to:

1. Measure the effectiveness of recommended control measures

and their ecological impacts under conditions typical to

Maryland.

2. Determine ecological uses of monotyplc Phra-qmites stands.

3. Identify the factors Influencing the recruitment In

treated areas by species other than Rhragmites.

4. Develop a predictive indicator for ratee, of vegetative

recruitment following herbicide applications.

5. Provide recommendations for site evaluation in the

establishment of Phragmites control programs In molst

uplands and non-tidal wetlands.

The second study, to be conducted in 1989, Is an extension

of the first. The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. Measure the expansion rates of Isolated Phragmites

colonies In a tidal wetland. (Greens Island Wildlife

Management Area).

2. Measure the decline in species diversity in and around

these colonies.

3. Test the effectiveness for controlling these populations

by the use of Rodeo in hand-held direct contact herbicide

applicators.

This combination will provide the Information necessary to

finalize the Phragmites Management Policy for the State of

Maryland.

SITE SELECTION

All state properties designated for herbicide control or

Phracffnite s in the fall of 1987 were evaluated as potential

study sites. Final selection was restricted by an Inability

to secure EPA approval for applying Rodeo in tidal wetlands

at the Greens Island WIldlIfe Management area, the presence

of regionally threatened species at the Grove Neck Wildlife

Sanctuary and prior history of attempted control at the

Courthouse Point, a state-managed Army Corps of Engineers

dredge spoil property.

Three study sites we re established at the Army Corps Of

Engineers, Stemmers Run Wildlife Management Area in Cecil

County, Maryland (Fig. 1). Two were modified non-tidal

wetlands and the third was a disturbed upland area. The

non-tidal sites were natural non-tidal wetlands prior to the

development of the property as a dredge spoil repository in

the 1960's. These two closely spaced, similar sites are

located outside of the drainage ditch which surrounds the

spoil Impoundment. One wetland, Identified as the "V" site,

was designated for burning following herbicide application.

The second, Identified as the "W" site, was designated to

serve as an unburned control. The upland site, established

directly on the containment berm, was divided in half to

evaluate the effects of burning. All sites were dominated

by stands of Phraomites and received identical herbicide

treatments.

Three site monitoring periods were scheduled for the first

year. Pre-treatment inventories of plants and sediment

collections for analysis of soil macroinvertebrates and seed

stocks were made 10-87. Additlonal sampling was conducted 8

(6-88) and 12 (10-88) months post-treatment with one

exception. In the spring of 1988, the Army Corps of

Engineers began an extensive project to reinforce the spoils

containment berm. This work, which was necessary to maintain

the Integrity of the berm for additional spoil treatment,

destroyed the upland study site. As a result only data

collected pre-treatment Is Included In this study.

TREATMENT PROTOCOL

Herbicide Application

Rodeo (Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO., active Ingredient:

Isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, N-(Phosphonomethyl)

glycine) Is the'herblclde of choice for controlling

Phragmites in aquatic ecosystems (Nir, 1976; Nir and Raz,

1985; Bucsbalm et a]., 1985; Sedon, 1981; Riemer, 1976;

Hodkinson, 1974). This product, a water soluble liquid,

mixes readily with water and nonionlc surfactant (O'Sullivan

et al., 1981). It is applied as a foliage spray for the

control of most herbaceous plants. Rodeo is translocated

through the plant from the point of foliage contact to and

Into the root and rhizome system. The mode of action of the

compound is primarily through the Interference with plant

hormone function (Fedtke, 1982; Moreland et al., 1981).

For the control of Phragmites the recommended application

rates of 4 pints per acre for a broadcast spray (or a 1 1/2

percent solutions for hand held spray equipment) were used.

For aerial application, the broadcast rate with surfactant

was adJusted with plus 3 - 20 gallons of water as a carrier

(Monsanto Product Label, 1988; Evans, 1987; Sandberg et al.,

1978; Rlemer, 1973).

A fall application was made because of the abundance of

foliage for absorption and because some selectivity may be

achieved if Rodeo is applied at a time when deciduous

perennials are entering dormancy <Prasad, 1984; Buhler and

Burnside, 1983).

Rodeo was applied to all sites on October 15, 1987 from a

Bell 47 Soloy helicopter. This craft had a boom width of 32

feet with an effective spray swath of 40 feet. The sprayer

was turbine powered. A volume trigger timer in the cockpit

with clock calibration was used to regulate spray rates and

to continuously monitor flow. To avoid drift, application

was restricted to periods where wind speeds were less than 5

mph. A similar system was used during the second

application on October 15, 1988.

This system proved very effective. Uniformity of contact,

as determined by visual inspection was excellent averaging

5-7 droplets per exposed leaf surface. Drift to areas

outside of the designated spray areas was undetectable.

Burning

The upland and one of the non-t1dal wetland sites were

burned In February 1988. The necessary permits were

obtained and the burn conducted by Maryland Forest and Parks

personnel. Burning was effective In most areas, reducing

standing crop to 1116 to 1/8 Inch of fine ash. Burning was

not successful In areas adJacent to standing water.

EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVES

1. Survey Pre- and Po5t-treatment use of Phraqmltes by

mammals and terrestrial invertebrates.

2. Monitor pre- and post-treatment changes in the density of

plants and macroinvertebrate terrestrial invertebrates.

3. Determine the availability of seed stock In site

sedliments.

4. Evaluate changes In the physical environment associated

with the treatment program.

METHODS

Pre-treatment use of the study sites by mammals and

terrestrial Invertebrates was determined by sightings,

tracks, nests and scats.

Quadrats, 3.16 m long by 0.32 m wide, arranged in belt

transects, were set up to monitor changes in the density of

plants and macroinvertebrate terrestrial 1nfauna. Transect

locations were selected around the periphery of the

Phraq-mites stands to evaluate differences in sunlight

exposure, and border and canopy effects within and among the

three study sites (Fig 2.). Transects began I m outside of

dense Phragmite5 in order to sample adjacent vegetation. At

each location transects extended Into the stand until 5

consecutive belt transects Included only PhracmItes In the

pre-treatment survey. The total number of quadrats for all

sites was 147.

These transect locations were also used for collecting soil

samples used to inventory macroinvertebrate terrestrial

Infauna and seed stock. Core samples, each a total volume of

100 CM3, were collected approximately 6 inches outside the

mi.dpoint of each transect. Samples were returned to the lab,

and those intended for the inventory of sediment seed stock

were stored in refrigerated chambers at 4 C for 100 days.

This was done to overcome stratification requirements common

to native plants In temperate environments. Those used for

Invertebrate analysis were placed In Berlase funnels and

extracted for 4 days. Invertebrates were stored in 70%

ethanol prior to counting.

The cold treated soil samples used to Inventory seed stock

were spread over a sterilized commercial potting soil In 1/2

gallon containers and were covered with 1/2 inch of

vermiculite. Containers were bottom watered throughout to

maintain uniformly high soil moisture. Plants were harvested

after growth had occurred which was sufficient for precise

identification.

Physical parameters of the site were measured In areas 10 m

from transect locations to avoid problems associated with

matting of vegetation. Temperature, relative humidity and

light gradients were determined for each sites In areas of

densest Phragmites growth.

Initially an Impounded site was selected which Insured water

availability irrespective of seasonal precipitation. This.

site was located at the Grove Neck Wildlife Management Area

In Cecil County, Maryland and was scheduled for Phraqmltes

treatment. Ground truthing identified the presence of 2

plant species which are currently species of concern in the

state, American Lotus and Sagittarla calycina. The presence

of these species precluded Phragmites spraying at the site.

The alternative non-tidal sites used In these studies were

fed by 3 intermittent sources and typically have standing

water on site. Unfortunately the record droughts resulted

In zero on site water availability which eliminated the

possibility of water column residue testing.

Soil moisture data Is not presented because of the record

drought recorded for the 1988 growing season.

RESULTS

Survey pre-treatment and post treatment use of Phraqjjiltp_,@; by

mammals and terrestrial Invertebrates.

Mammals

Phragmites stands at the wetland sites are frequented by

whitetail deer, raccoon and muskrats. Trails through the

stands are abundant and well used by these species. With the

exception of muskrat no evidence of feeding activity was

observed, thus the primary function appears to be one of

cover. The upland site was also used by these species to a

lesser degree. Some lack of use may be attributed to the

moderately heavy presence of people and machinery at the

upland site.

Birds

No nests were observed In areas of dense Phracjmltes.-Bird

use was minimal and was primarily restricted to short term

resting by perching birds flushed from surrounding cover.

Species observed were red-winged blackbirds, grackles,

sparrows and finches.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Evidence for Phra-qmltes use by reptiles and'amphlbians wa,,.;

minimal. The few sighting were of short duration which

precluded accurate Identification.

Insects and Spiders

Insects and spiders were the predominant forms associated

with above ground biomass. Most were found in the

inflorescences at the top of the plant canopy or the surface

of soil leaf litter. Areas of dense stem growth supported

relatively few species. This may be attributed to problems

for the study of access and sampling In this type of cover.

Monitor pre- and post treatment changes In the density of

plants and macroinvertebrate terrestrial Invertebrates.

Total number of individual plants, pre- and post-treatment

for all belt transects at each wetland study site is given

for plants In Figures 3-5 and for soil macroinvertebrates in

Figures 6-8. Representative examples of species inventoried

for quadrats having high, mo derate and low initial diversity

are given in Figures 9-20. For the transects in this study

these data Indicate:

1. Average pre-treatment density of Phraconites was slightly

lower In the W site (11.3 IndIvIduals/quadrat) than In the V

site (15.1 Indlvlduals/quadrat).

2. No significant change In the number of plant species or

macroinvertebrate taxa was observed between between the 8

and 12 month post-treatment Inventories.

A summary of changes In vegetation I year after treatment-is

given in Table 1.

1. Phragmites was reduced by 83.5% at the unburned W site

and by 64.5% at the burned V site.

2. Plant species other than Phracffnltes Increased by 404% at

the W site and by 546% at the V site.

3. Total number of all Individuals decreased by 16% at the W

site but Increased by 142% at the V site.

Determination of Simpson's Index of Diversity (Table 2)

showed:

1, A significant Increase In plant species dlverslty at both

the W and V sites at 8 and 12 months post-treatment;

2. Recruitment of vegetation following herbicide application

was enhanced by burning.

3. Neither the application of Rodeo nor burning had a

significant effect on the numbers and diversity of soil

macroinvertebrates.

Determine the availability of seed stock in site sediments.

1. Seed stock were not representative of the types of

vegetation present at the site prior to the wetland

disturbance associated with the establishment of the dredge

spoil.

2. Of the 12 species represented by seed stock in the

pre-treatment soil collections from the W site, only 5 were

inventoried on the pre-treatment W site. Of the 13 species

represented by seed stock in the pre-treatment soil

collections from the V site, only 7 were inventoried on the

pre-treatment V site.

3. Of the 12 species represented by seed stock in the

pre-treatment soil collections from the W site, only 7 were

Inventoried on the post-treatment W site. Of the 13 species

represented by seed stock In the pre-treatment soil

collections from the V site, only 10 were Inventoried on the

post-treatment

V site.

Evaluate changes In the physical environment associated with

the treatment program.

Changes In temperature, relative humidity, and light

transmission at pre-treatment and 1 year post-treatment for

both sites are given in Table 3. Not surprisingly,

Phracimites shades the soil and decreases temperature and

light transmission while Increasing relative humidity of the

ambient air. When compared with the unburned control only

light transmission was shown to be significantly affected at

the V site. Improved light penetration caused by burning is

a major factor for the enhanced recruitment at this site.

PROJECT SUMMARY

Determine ecological uses of monotypic Phragnites stands.

Phracanites at the Stemmers Run test sites serves as cover

and resting areas for a variety of animals. This Function

can be maintained at the sites by recrulting vegetation

which will ultimately reach comparable heights and densities

During the transition phase, however, the availability of

cover was diminished, especially at the V site where burning

was added as a component of control. At this location other

forms of cover are abundant and this temporary loss is not

.seen as damaging.

Measure effectiveness of recommended control measures and

their ecological Impacts under conditions typical to

Maryland.

The obJective of a Phraqmltes control program Is twofold;

to eradicate the Phragmites and to optimize recruitment of

other plant species. This combination is desirable to

minimize any loss of environmental function attributed to

PhraomItes prior to treatment. Treatment efficiency mu-st

thus be evaluated In light of these two goals.

At the burn site (V), there was reduced control efficiency,

64.5% vs. 83.5%, but greater diversity, Simpson's Index,

4.54 vs. 3.48. The decrease In control may be attributed to

the same factor responsible for the Increase In diversity.

The reduction In standing crop, which favors recruitment of

non-target species also favors seedling recruitment of

Phraamites. The potential for site recruitment by

Phragmites seedlings was shown to be high in the analysis of

sediment seed stock. Interestingly, total vegetative density

at the burned site increased by 142% and decreased by 16% at

the unburned control. This suggests that despite reduced

control efficiency, burning may have considerable value for

maintaining ecological function during the critical

transition period from Phragmites to other types of

vegetation.

.2@ more complete determination of how these two seemingly

contradictory findings can be used in evaluating treatment

protocols will require careful site evaluation, as planned,

over the next two years.

Identify the factors Influencing the recruitment In treated

areas by species other than Phraqmltes.

The two principle physical factors limiting plant

recruitment in dense stands of Phragmites are the

availability of unoccupied soil and light. In the densest

stands measured, the total number Phragmites stems averaged

160/m2, of which only 30 were living. Such densities

severely limit soil space suitable for supporting

colonization by other plants. Also, in stands of such

density, light transmission to the soil level may be limited

by up to 82%. Site burning, which has been shown to enhance

recruitment diversity, improves the availability of both of

these limiting factors and provides a partial explanation

for the Increased diversity found at the V site (Cerazzi,

1986; Shay and Shay-, 1986; Best et al., 1982; Shay and

Thompson, 1981).

Develop a predictive indicator for rates of vegetative

recruitment following herbicide applications.

Pre-treatment plant Inventories and analysis of

Pre-treatment soil sediments for seed stock were tested to

develop a predictive model for plant recruitment at the

treatment sites. Pre-treatment plant inventories were 69%

(W site) and 64% (V site) effective as predictive

Indicators, while seed stock analysis was 58% and 77%

effective respectively. Thus, both methods are useful as

predictive Indicators for evaluating recruitment potential

In the development of a management strategy for a given

property. Plant inventories are less costly and require

less time, but are limited to the growing season. Soil seed

stock analysis would be justified when time constraints

preclude site evaluatlon during the growing season.

Provide recommendations for site evaluation in the

establishment of PhraqmItes control programs In moist

uplands and non-tidal wetlands.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Treatment Protocols

Regulations governing application rates, uses and

restrictions for herbicides are a part of the label

instructions provided by the manufacturer. Adherence to

these label Instructions is required by law; however, some

flexability exists concerning application times, procedures

and anc I I I ary treatments.

The protocol used for this study and described in the

methods provides good control of Phragmites for larger

acreages where aerial application Is an option. The key

components of this protocol are the accurate application of

the herbicide and surfactant at the approved rates, the

timing of application to obtain some degree of selectivity,

the removal of the standing crop by burning and the serles

of follow-up treatments. In other environments, modification

of one or more of these components may be necessary.

Accurate application of Rodeo Is made difficult by the

plants' height and the hydric nature of the soils where It

is commonly found. Aerial application, which circumvents

these problems, Is a convenient method for treating large

populations of Phragmites. Ground applicators amenable to

large spray operations requiring high spray booms on wet

soils are available and have been successfully used on

su garcane plantations; however,*these are not readily

available in Maryland. Further this type of equipment would

be extremely difficult to transport between sites on

properties interrupted by streams. An option which should be

evaluated for upland sites Is the use of conventional ground

applicators having adjustable boom heights. These may prove

useful for treating road borders or the berms on

Impoundments constructed for waterfowl when aerial

application is precluded because of drift hazzards or

problems of access.

For smaller populations or where drift is unacceptable,

hand-held applicators may be preferable. Small dense

colonies can be successfully treated with backpack spray

applicators. The limitation to this technique is the

applicator's ability to direct spray to the interior

foliage. Two options which overcome this problem are to cut

the PhraqmItes during mid summer to sufficiently reduce

plant height for an effective fall application or extend the

treatment over a number of years, treating only the

peripheral plants In a particular season. The former mr-thod

seems preferable but has not been fully tested. A second

type of applicator which works well when Phragmites has an

abundant understory of desirable species is a contact

applicator. These applicators have a reservior for holding

the herbicide solution which Is connected to a wick system.

The chemical Is literally wiped on the target plants; thus

there is no danger of contact with plants being recruited to

the site. This method of application, because of its

simplicity Is well suited to the homeowner Interested In

treating Phragmites.

Time of application Is used to Impart selectivity in

PhraqmItes control programs and to optimize translocatIon of

the active ingredient to the rhizomes. The active ingrediant

of Rodeo, glyphosate, is toxic to most plant species;

however, for the chemical to be effective It must be

absorbed through the foliage and then translocated to other

tissues of the target plant. One of the reasons a fall

application Is encouraged, Is that unlike many other types

of vegetation, Phragmites remains active longer. As a

result, it remains susceptable to the compound when other

plants, by entering dormancy, are not. This minimizes the

dangers of drift and avoids killing more desirable species.

In some applications, where accurate delivery Is ensured,

Rodeo could be applied safely at any point during the

growing season. An example of such an application would he

spot treatments using hand-held contact applicators.

The removal of the standing crop of PhraqmIte5 In dense

colonies Is advisable for rapid recruitment of desirable

plant species ( see Table I and results). Removal exposes

seeds to sunlight and provides a competitive growth

en@lronment. For dense stands, burning is the preferred

method because erect stems and the thick layer of Phragmites

thatch that accumulates above thc sul I surface are rujijuvud.

(Van der Toorn and Mook, 1982). Under these condition,

mowing without biomass removal would provide a -suil mulch

which would Interfer with recruitment by other plants

(Vestergaard, 1985; McManus and Alizai, 1983; Mook and Van

der Toorn, 1982; Polunin, 1982). In less dense stands where

thatch accumulation Is not a problem rnowing or hand

harvesting is effective.

Irregardless of the primary treatment used for the control

of Phragmites, some measures must be taken to insure

complete eradication and prevent Phragmites recruitment.

Spot treaments of Individual plants or clusters not killed

In the Initial control program Is sufficient to remove

remnant populations which persist along the borders of the

treatment site. At these locations, herbicide application

is often less effective because of Interference by woody

plant canopies (where they occur) or because the plants

reside just outside of the original treatment area.

Preventing new recruitment Is more difficult. Phracmites

seed stock In the soll may be plentiful. Seeds may also be

introduced by wind and animal vectors. In this study, it was

shown that these seeds will grow if exposed to a nonlimiting

environment (see results). The best method for discouraging

this type of recruitment is to rapidly establish other forms-

of vegetation which serve to outcompete seedling growth. In

some areas, natural seed reserves of desirable species may

be adequate for this purpose. When this Is'not the case,

effort should be made to vegetate exposed soils. This

recommendation extends to marsh manipulations in areas where

Phraqmltes Is not an Immediate problem but where recruitment

potential Is high. For example, during ditch and berm

construction in moist soils stabilization with desirable

vegetation should be a routine activity. This not only

serves to minimize recultment but also curbs erosion. In

some applications temporary cover with annuals has been used

to minimize Phracimites recruitment until more permanant

stabilization plans can be implemented.

Management Policy

General

The obJectives of this particular study were to mt-Asure the

effectiveness of recommended PhragmItes control procedures

and to evaluate the effects of these procedures on ecosystem

composition. The establishment of a management policy for

Phra-qmltes requires additional factors to be considered.

Most Important Is the public's perception of the-plant and

ownership as it affects Implementation of control

strategies. The perception of the plant by the the general

public is favorable. Phragmites has a number of ornamental

features which, with its size, makes it one of the more

recognizable wetland species. Given the attention currently

placed on the preservation of wetlands vegetation, the

policy must be thorough, antIcIpatIng concerns to be raised

over Phragmites control.

Four situations are common In the state which impact

Phraomites control. In most instances Phragmites will have a

minimal understory of mixed vegetation. These are:

1. small colonies occurring on a single property.

2. populations existing on multiple properties.

3. populations existing in areas, often urban, where

preferred control methodologies are difficult to implement.

4. large populations occurring on a single property.

Following are recommendations for Phragmites control and/or

descriptions of issues which must be reconciled in the

Phragmites control policy for each of these situations.

1. Small colonies occuring on a single property.

Small colonies of Phragmites occurring on a single property

may be controlled In a number of ways depending upon the

!size and density of the population. At densities of less

than.10-15 stems/m2, where understory vegetation is present,

satifactory control can be achieved through repeated pruning

of the standing crop. Over time, this effectively starve,J

the overwintering rhizome. The availability of sunlight to

understory plants encourages their growth and thus there is

no loss of environmental function.

At higher plant densities, but where some understory

vegetation is present, chemical treatment coupled with a

reduction In standing crop Is needed. Rodeo can be applied

as a spray with hand-held equipment or wiped directly on the

plant with a contact applicator. Either of these methods

protects understory vegetation for herbicide contact.

Application rates should be those recommended by the

manufacturer. Standing crop can be removed by burning or

cutting depending on local fire regulations. Again, under

these conditions, control of Phragmites will stimulate

growth of understory vergetation.

The most difficult situation involving small populations on

a single property is when the stand density is such that

understory vegetation is lacking. This is a common occurence

on waterfront properties where Phragmites serves to

stabilize shoreline but restricts waterview. Control may be

obtained by any of the described treatments; however,

control will result In Increased erosion If the protective

function is not replaced. In brackish environments

replacement with Spartina Patens and 5. atterniflora will

negate this Impact.

2. Populations existing on.multiple properties.

Populations of Phragmites extending over several properties

are common In urban areas. The colonies may be as large as

10-30 acres or quite small, less than 1/4 acre. Under these

conditions effectiv e control is difficult and a sensitive

Issue unless agreements can be reached between property

owners. The fundamental problems are the Invasive nature of

Phra=-ites, the perception of Phragmites as a valuable

wetland plant and objections raised over control procedures.

Since the plant is an invasive species control of only a

port I on of the popu I at I on w 1 1 1 resu I t i n rap 1 d uccjL'ow Lh i n

the treated site. Without a cooperative agreement over

control issues, partial treatment is inadvisable. Cases of

this type are currently being examined in the judicial

system.

3. Populations existing In areas, often urban, where

preferred control methodol ogles are difficult to implement.

Phragmites may occur In environments where the

implementation of preferred control mthodologies are

precluded by topography, land use, or lack of cooperative

agreements between landowners. An outstanding example of

this situation Is found along the Route 50 corridor, near

Kent Narrows, In Queen Annes County. At this locatlon the

PhCaqmltes Is relatively extensive. It Is distributed over a

number of properties In tidal, non-tIdal and upland

environments. In this example, a control protocol needs to

be inclusive but could be tailored to the individual

properties and habitats. Such control would be expensive,

requiring different methods of herbicide application and

removal of standing crop. In additon, because of the natural

richness and diversity of the area, mitigation measures to

replace losses in ecological function would be desirable.

This will be the most difficult situation to define In the

management policy. A mechanism for flexible site by site

analysis will be required to tailor control to the

restrictions and management objectives of the particular

location.

State Lands

The control of large populations of Phracimites on state

properties or private farms is an expensive, multiple year,

labor intensive endeavor. These populations are commonly

found along stream borders, in semi-isolated nontidal

wetlands or as individual colonies existing in natural

marshes. Where size warrants, control can be successful if

the treatment protocols used in this study are followed (see

methods). However, the ability to control Phraqmlte5 on

these properties Is only one of several factors which must

be con!51dered In e5tablishing a management Plari. 'Su c. I i --:t

plan Is advisable given the magnitude and importance of

these areas. The following Is a sequential checklist of the

parameters which should be considered by land use planners

in evaluating sites for a Phragmites control program. A

brief rationale Is given to Illustrate the Importance of

each parameter.

1. Identify the management objectives for the site.

Identification of management objectives are central to the

success of any program concerned with habitat manipulation.

This is especially true for the establishment of a

Phracimites control program because the plant has value for

wildlife cover, sail stabilization and water treatment.

For example, populations of Phragmites growing within a

dredge spoil Impoundment were targeted for treatment in a

1987 control program. In this environment Phraqmlte5 Is

beneficial, serving as both a nutrient sink and a mechanical

filter. Its destruction would have resulted in a loss of

treatment efficiency, since it is unlikely that other forms

of vegetation would be recruited in the area until water

levels were stabilized. Clearly, In this Instance, control

would have been inconsistent with luunediate management

objectives.

2. Determine whether site characteristics and adjacent land

use are compatible with meeting management objectives.

Conversion of areas of mixed wetlands to monotypic

Phracffnltes stands Is often concomitant with changes In

adJacent land use. These changes may preclude a return of

the site to a fully functioning wetland serving as high

quality habitat. Control of Phragmites for the purpose of

restoring habitat value should be carefully evaluated to

avoid superficially attractive mitigation pro posals.

:3. Evaluate the site for recruitment potential by Phragmites

following treatment.

In many areas Phragmites Is found along shorelines where it

serves as a so!] stabilizer. Permits to remove Phragmites

for reasons of aesthetics or because of the need to modify

the shoreline in construction require some type of

mitigation, often in the form of a replacement planting with

more desirable wetland vegetation. Unless some management

plan Is directed toward the prevention of the vegetal.ivu

spread of Phragmites from adjacent properties, these

mitigation efforts will not be successful.

4. Evaluate the site to determine if Phragmites control by

itself Is adequate to achieve the desired management

objectives.

Phragmites Invasion is often associated with wetland

modification. These activities may change drainage patterns

and drastically alter soil hydrology. The return of such an

area to a mixed wetland will require more than the removal

of Phracanltes. It will require restoration of soil

hydrology to levels compatible with a diverse wetiand

community. Restoration may require reconstruction of

historic drainage patterns, land excavation and/or

installation of some form of water control structure. These

activities compound the difficulty of project planning

because of the need for extensive departmental reviews and

approvals.

5. Determine whether site characteristics and adjacent land

use are compatible with the treatment protocols necessary to

effectively control Phracffnlte

Current treatment protocols for Phragmites strongly

recommend the inclusion of some measure to reduce standing

biomass following herbicide application. The methods most

commonly suggested are mowing or burning. In many areas

mowing is difficult because of soil characteristics and

burning Is objectionable because of Interferences with human

activity or for reasons of safety. State foresters are an

excellent resource in evaluating sites for the applicablMy

of these methods at. a given site.

6. Conduct an on site evaluation of resident blota and

existing ecological function.

In Maryland, Phracimites Is most often found Tijlxed with other

wetland plant species. In 1987, ground truthing of

potential treatment sites has prevented herbicide

application to at least 2 regionally threatened (BI on the

Maryland State Hertiage Program list) species, Nelumbo

lutea, American Lotus and Saqlttaria calvclna, Deep Water

Duck Potato, at one location. (See Appendix I)

7. Identify all permits and reviews which must be obtained

for treatment of the site.

Federal, state and local departments involved with

regulating areas capable of supporting Phragmites are

numerous and diverse. At the time this project was

initiated, there was a general lack of information exchange

between departments concerning the types of approval necded

to enact a Phra-QmItes control program on a given property.

Although this problem has been greatly alleviated, an

interagency orientation/information exchange meeting is

encouraged.

B. Establish a sequence of activities needed to mect prajecL

objectives.

The control of Phragmites Is a multiple year effort which

may be only one component of a total site development plan.

Implementation of the plan requires coordination among

diverse activities. Further, the preferred sequence of

these activities will influence the effectiveness of control

and the avoidance of the reinvasion of Phragmites following

treatment. Interruptions or Inappropriate sequencing In the

process will result In a significant loss of both control

and investment.

9. Establish a time line for all activities necessary for

site development.

In manipulating biotic systems, seasonality Is the driving

force dictating activities. Reconciling biological

requirements with the multitude of potential implementation

inputs associated with habitat modification demands precise

planning.

10. Secure all funding, permits and cooperative agreements

necessary for project implementation.

Long term uninterrupted commitment Is required for projects

involving Phragmites control. Securing funding, permits and

cooperative agreements,is a safeguard against diversions

from management and control strategies.

TABLE 1: Summary of changes In vegetation 1 year after
treatment with Rodeo at the burned and unburned non-tidal
study site. Percent change is calculated from pretreatment
samples, a (-) Indicates a decrease in the total numbers of
individuals for the posttreatment survey.

Individuals Sampled

I Month Pretreatment 12 Months Posttreatment Relative % Change

Burned Unburned Burned Unburned Bur'llf-ld UI I b u E- I I Cd

Phragmites 878 691 312 114 -65 -84

Other species 231 145 1262 586 +546 +404

Total 1109 836 1574 700 +142 -16

TABLE 2: Simpson."s Index of Diversity for plant species and soil
macroInvertebrate taxa Inventoried at Phargmites test sites located at The
Stemmers Run Wildlife Management Area, Cecil County, Maryland. Treatment
consisted of a single aerial application of 4 pints per acre Rodeo on 15
Oct. 1987. The "W non-tldal wetland was burned 4 months after treatment.

Plant Species Pre-treatment 8 Months 12 Months
10 Oct. 1987 Post Treatment Post Treatment

W" Non-tidal Wetland 1.43 3.48 3.48

"V" Non-tidal Wetland 1.57 4.54 4.54

Upland 4.06 N.A. N.A.

Soil Macroinvertebrate Pre-treatment 8 Month,,:: 12 Mrinths
Taxa 10 Oct. 1987 Post Treatment Post Treatment

W" Non-tidal Wetland 1.82 1.99 2.01

"V" Non-tidal Wetland 1.37 1.72 1.75

Upland 1.84 N.A. N.A.

TABLE 3: Percent change In temperature, relative humidity
and light transmission at the soil level from values
obtained 2 M above (approx. height of pretreatment plant
canopy). Percent change is calculated from pretreatment
sample values, a (-) indicates a decrease in the parameters.

Percent Change

Pretreatment Posttreatment Posttreatment
Burned Unburned

Temperature -12.0 � 3.0 0 0.1 -5 � 0.1

% Relative Humidity +50 + 9.0 +1 0.4 0 4 0.6

% Light Transmission -82 + 3.0 0 0.3 -50 + 0.3

Appendix I

Heritage Status - The Maryland State heritage program (MSHP)
ranks species according to the following list (abbreviated
for use In this report):

A3 = Rare throughout range (close to extinction)
B1 = Threatened reglonall@ and critically state care
(In danger of extinction In Maryland)
B2 = Critically state rare (In danger of extinction
In Maryland)
B3 = State rare (in danger of extinction in
Maryland)
C= Uncommon, local, or seriously declining in MD

RySTAL
C Bf
P r- R-T Y
PRII,
'I -.-C

C,
FXF

% % q

Po At V.
** a as
,\, piVA-rF-
p T %
Y
pKj)?FP,

C 'Pro of
p 0 p R 0.q 0 %

Colo IOtt
0 10000
400440
I;nck-- 2000"
A GPOVE
N
NEC X
WAD
fn N TO
SlAw 41CE -PoirA N9CK
ROAD
Figijre 1. Stemmers Hun Area
(modified from Rules and
Ilegulations, for Ceell C6,unty:
CI, I-Ta-naped 11tintInp kreasvub-
=shed by IID F.P, and S.)
Not to scale.

A . I
13 S-AA r-K
0. kA?LAI)b.S
1W f I I REP,14 6 A-11
MPLA110S
< Ponb
A-11 ri-IRFIGJAITES WEST -SOMTHYlErr PHRAC
Af
A9
A:f

W SITE UNBURNED WP.,rj,AtlD
UPL

V SITE BURNE
PHRArmITES %APLAilbS

-D IT c vi ROAD
Fig. 2 1)
\>otull of the 3 s
rIL approximat

transects
qtiadrats b
13 7 --- F. 131 'TOP OF BERIA
A- Ce- A-Q-A-- C..-. AC-.- An- A - 86C.- A. --,D_
INRELI)Qf. SPOIL bi-SPOSAL SITE

B SITE UPLAtit)

Figure 3

Summmy W t v=ss Inventwied at the
unbumod ) :M- I wetland test elb
loosted at ths mmffwo ft" "Wilfe managerment
Ansm, Cooll County. Maryland HerbloWe treatffwnt W site
oonalsted of a sIngle asdal appliostlon of 4 pint
I mom Rodoo on 10-16-1907. l8peolee wwo re-
Inwntorled 8 and U months post treatmont.

0 10 100 1000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
phragmites - - - - - - -
Boehemerla
4 G 6 16
Acer rubrum
Phylolacca . ........ . P -3
Polygonum sp
Polygonum sagittatum
Erechtiles
Vaccinlum vacellans
Vaccinlum strococum
Prunue 99rotIna
SmIlax rolundllolla
Parthenoclesue
Rubus sp
Arlsaema
Lonleerla laponica
Dichanthellum sp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Panicurn ep
Impatlens
Lycopodlum
VMS ep
Myflca
cyperus
Ludwigla palustris
T. palustrus

Figure 4

Ownmery of plant spedev Inventoded at ft
tKwrwd CV) non-tidal wetland For additional
detall a" LagefA MW* 3. V site

0 10 100 1000
PhirsomItes On
Boohemorla
Uquidambar
Acer rubrum - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rhus radicans --------------- i
Rhus (sumac)
P hytolacca
Poll?onum ,,ep A A. - - - - - - - - - - -
rech
- ------ ------ -------------
Dicanthellum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
vaccInIum vacellans
Selarla - - - --- - - - - - - - --
Prunue serotIns
SmIlax rotundifolia
Parthonooleaus
Rubus 9
Ambro a r r r
Arlsaema ---
Lonloora Japonica
Nyasa
Onocolea
UrIodendron
Poaceno. UnIdent
Campels radIcans
Ilex vertIcIllata
Rosa sp
SoIldago sp
Cornue amomum
Sassafras
Eu
,palorlum
a
COP Is"Iflus,

M io-ie-v EO EO io-iis-ee

Figure 5

Surnmry of plant spoolm InventDriod at ft
upland M all& For additional detall see
Leger4 Figure S. B s-i te

0 10 100 1000
I lift I I I lilt I I I III
Phragivilloo
Llquldambar
Rhus radlcans
Phytolacca
Polyganum op j
Polygonum oflontale
sotarla
Rubus op.
Posoose #1 unident
Poaceae #2 unldent
Poaceae #3 unldont
8011dago op
S. gramlnlfolla
Poa comprossa
Digitarla
Chonopodlum album
vitle op
Quorcus phollos

9-6 7

Figure 6

summary of edl Mearoinvortebroto tax& InvenbDrIed
at the unburned I*W) non-Odal wetland For addltlonO
detall see L*Wr4 MW* s. W site

0 10 100 1000 10000

Arachnids (Miles)
G A A A A 4 4-4 . .......
Collembols - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- --------------- - - - - -
Hymenoptera (Ants)
Colooptera
- ----- ------
Thyeanopters
"Pry"
Diptera .4
6.-
Arachnids (Spiders) - - -
Hotolpters
Annelids
Chilopoda ..... .........
(Pasudoscorplons)
. ......... .
"ymonoptera (Wasps) i
Dlplopoda
Diplura
Thysanura
loopoda
Lopidoptera
Peocoplera
Protura
Tardigrada

Me-87 Me-ae wig-as
H

Figure 7

Summary of 901 maorvInvertebrate toxv Inventoried
at 00 burn" M ftowtidal wetlan& For &MU"I
&Ull ses Lepr4 ngure a
V site

0 10 100 1000 10000

----------
Arachnids (Ultes)
Collembola - - - - - - - A A A 6 --------
Hymenopters (Ants)
Coleoplera
Thyssnoptera
Olptera
...............
Arachnids Mplders)
Hemlptera
.. ........
t
Annelids
Chilopods
(Pasudoecorplons)
Hymenoptera (Wasps)
Diplopods
Diplura
Thysanura
Isopods
Lopidoptera
Peocoplera
Proturs
7ardigrada

9-87 Me-88 M 9-88
5
. -- .-. r-M..

Figure 8

fltxrwmry ot @01 mooral - wo at* w3to lnvwftftd
It ft U08rw Cw) Wb& For WMI"Mod "all
go* Loger4 ftufo 8. B site

10 100 1000

Arachnids (Miles)
Collembola
Hymenoptera (Ants)
Colooptera
7hysanoptera
Diplera
Arachnids (Spldero)
Hemlptera
Annelids
Chllopoda
(Pasudoecorplons)
Hymenoptera (wasps)
Diplopoda
Dlplura
Thyss"Ura
leopoda
Lopidopters
Psocoptera
Protura
Tafdlgrada

Figure 9

Plant apoOse Invoi torled from quadrat WOO whloh
had the greatest initial Mont diversity at ft
unbuffoW CW) rwt" watiand vita.
W site
Quadrat W30

10 100 1000

Acer rubrum
.. ........

Sloohmorls cyclindra

Cyperus op

Lycopodlum complanam

PanIcum op.

Phragivillso australle

Prunue'sorotIna

SmIlax rolundifolla

10-16-87 E2 a-15-se io-iis-se

Figure 10

Plant op"m I twei torled from wmcirst WaN whloh
had mo&mtg Initial plant dtvwolty at the
unbunW CW) nwi)-liftl %vollancl sits, W site
Quadrat W3N

10 100 1000

Acer rubrum

Bo*hmerfa cyclindra

H.
cyperus op.
N

Lyoopodlum complanam

Panicum op.

Phragmites australle

Prunue serotina

SmIlax rofundifolls

M 10-16-87 0-16-86 10-15-86

Figure 11

Plant speoles I'veo Wad from qusdmt wID wm0h
had the least Initial plant diverelty at ft
unbu"W CW) non-t1dol wetland OW. W site
Quadrat W1D

10 100 1000

Acer rubrum

Boohmorla cyclindra

cyperus op.

LY00padlum complanam

Panicum op.

Phragmites austfallo

Prunuo 99rotIna

SmIlax rotundifolia

-----------

10-15-87, 0-15-88

Figure 12

Plant apeolem Inventoried tMIR clumdrat VSA whloh
had the Weateat InItIal plant 6%walty at Owa
bwf" rv*) non-tim twftfw w1e. V site
Quadrat V8A

0 10 100 1000

Acer rubrum
...........
Erecht. h1orselfalla
LiquIdam. straclijus

Urlodendron

Nyasa sylvatica

Parthenoclsous

PhragmItes
Phytolacca americans frfi fi fi
Prunus seratina

Rhus radicans

Rubus op.

SmIlax rotundifolls

Solldago op.
j

10-5-87 G-15-88 10-15.88

Figure 13

Plant vpW" Inventorlod from qvWrot VOC whloh
had moderalm InItIal Oant dlvwWW at ft
bwnW (V*) non-tidal wetland Ow V site
Quadrat V8C

0 10 100 1000

Acor rubrum - -

Erecht. h1oracIfolla

LiquIdam. straciflun

UrIodondron

"yoga sylvatica

Parthonoclosue

Phragmitoo
Phytolacca americana

Prunuo sorotina

Rhus Fadicans

Rubus op.
SmIlax rofundIfolls

SoIldago op.

10-16-87 a- 16-86 10-16-88

Figure 14

Plant ap"m Inventoried ftm quadrat VOIT whloh
had ft least Initial plant (Overalty at the
burned non-O&I mtland Wta. V site
Quadrat V8F

0 10 100 1000

Acer rubrum

Erecht. hformalfolla

Liquidam. stracIflua

UrlodendFon

Hysea sylvallca

Parthenoclesue

Phragmiloo
Phyfolacca amoricana

Prunue sorcitina

Rhus radicans

Rubus op.
SmIlax rotundlicilla

Solldago op.
j

10-16-87 G-16-88 10-16-88

Figure 15

Soil mmoirmwbolvato taxa lnv*nW*d from
quidrat WSO whloh had the weaboot Irittal
Ommllv st ft unbwrW (W) non-Odal
wilarw OW W site
Quadrat W30

0 10 100 1000
1 111111 1 111111 1 1 11111
AraChnids (Miles) - - - - - -
Collembola
Hymenoptera (Ants)
Coleoptera
Thyannoplera
Diptera
Arachnids (SpIdefe) -
Hemiptera -
Annelids-
Chllopoda -
(Peoudoecorplons)
Hymenoptera (Wasps)
Diplopoda
Diplura
Thyeanura
loopoda
Lopidoptera
Peocoplera -
Protura -
Tafdlgrada

m 9-87 E@3 G-88 Me-Be

Figure 16

Soil ffularainvwtebrate taxe Inveriloded fton
quaodrat WON whloh had moderate InItIal
dtnmlty at the unburned M non-t1dal
wetlaw afte. W site
Quadrat W3N

10 100 1000

Arachnids Miss) --------
Collembola
Hymenoptera (Ants)
Coleopters
Thyeanoptera
DIptera - ---------
Arachnids (SpIders)-
Hemiplers -
Annelids-
Chilopoda -
(Pseudoscorplons)
Hymenoptera (Wasps)
Dlplopoda
Diplura
Thyssnurs
leopoda
Lopidoptera
Peocoptera
Proturs
7ardi1jrada

9-87 6-88 9-88

Figure 17

Sall mmahv"brate taxe InvanWed from
quadrat WO whIch had the but Initial
dWmlty at Ow untourned (W) rwwtidal
wetland all*. W site
Quadrat W1D

0 10 100 1000

I Jill I
Arachnids (Mites)
Collembola
Hymenopterm (Ants)
Colsoptera
Thysanoptera
DIpterm - 332=
Arachnida (Spiders) -
b:
Hemiptera -
Annelids -
ChIlopoda
(Poeudoecor pion a)
Hymenoptera (Wasps)
DIplopoda
DIplura
Thysanura
Isopoda
Lep1doptera
Peocoptera
Protura
TEFdlgrada

M 9-67 030-85 mg-88

Figure 18

Soil mmmknwtobrate taxa Inventmied from
qwdrat VSA whloh had greatest InItIal
dtvwolty at dw bwmd non-Wal
md&W olts. V site
Quadrat V8A

0 10 100 1000

AfachnIda (Mites) 11; f4 1; A II;
Collembola
Hymenoptera (Ant
Coleoptera
Thyeanoptera
DIptera .......
Arachnids (Spiders)
Hem1pterm
Annelids
C,hilopoda
(Pasudoecorplons) ........ .......... . .
Hymenoptera (Wasps)
Olplopods
DIplura
Thyeanura
loopoda
Lopidoptera -
Peocoptera -
Proturs -
7ardigrada

Figure 19.

Soil mooroln%mortebroto taxa Inventoried from
qwWrat VSC whloh had moderate Initial
dlywilty at the burned M) mn-Wal
%*fdand *IW V site
Quadrat V8C

0 10 100 1000

Arachnids (Mites)
Collembola
Hymenoplera (Ants)
Colooplera
7byeanoptera
Dlptera
Arachnids (Spiders) -
Hemiptera -
Annelid&
Chliopode
(Posudoacorplons) vvvv@
Hymenoptern (wasps)
Diplopoda
Diplura
Thyeanura
leopoda
Lopidoptera
Peocoplera
Prolurs
Tardigrada

Cm 9-87 -as 0-88

Figure 20

$oil moomirnmortalwate tax& lnv*nW*d from
quadrat VOP which had the last Initial
dtvmltY at the burned M) rooro-tMal
we""sits. V site
Quadrat V8F

0 10 100 1000

Arachnids (Mit9s) -4 A A 6- -@-6 -5 0 -S
Collembola
Hymonoptora (Ants)
Colooptera
Thysanoptera
Diptera
Arachn1da (SpIders) -
Hemiptera -
Annelids -
ChIlopoda -
(Posucloscorplons) -
Hymenoptera (Wasps) -
DIplopoda
Diplura
Thysanura
loopoda
Lop1doptera
Psocoptera
Protura
Tardigrads

0-88 9-88

Figure 21

Ounwnty of plant s"Oes Wmn fn" ssW
etcok oollooted as M* var*" fr" spoh
last Wto Vlor to hwMdde apolostlom Seed Bank

0 10 100 1000

Phragmltes
Boohmerla
Rhus typIns
Rhus copallina
Phytolacca
Polygonum
Polygonum orlentale
Erechfifee
DIchanthellum
SOWN
Rubus ep j
Urlodendron
POA compresen - --------
Agrostle hyamalle
Gyperus
Ludwlgla palustrls
Vltle ep
Echinoohola cruagall

Oftenopodlum album

w v

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, Bertin W. and Ohmart, Robert D., 1985. Habitat use
by Clapper Rails in the lower Colorado River valley. The
Condor, 87: 116-126.

Babaev, A., 1980. Use of remote-sensing methods for mapping
the zone of Influence of the Kara-Kum Canal, USSR. Problems
of Desert Development, Allerton Press, New York, pp. 38-44

Barclay, A.M. and Crawford, R.M.M., 1982. Plant growth a.:nd
survival under strict anaeroblosis. Journal of Experimental
Botany, 33034): 541-549i

Best, Elly P.H., Zippin, M. and Dassen, J.H.A., 1981. Growth
and production of Phragmites australis in Lake Vechten (the
Netherlands). HydroblologIcal Bulletin, Netherlands
Hydrobiological Society, 15(3): 165-174.

Best, E I I y P.H. , ZI pp In, M. and J. H. A., I
Studies on decomposition of PhEagmites australi5 leaves
under laboratory conditions. Hydroblological Bulletin,
16(1): 21-23.

Best, R.G., Wehde, M.E. and Linder, R.L., 198i. Spectral
reflectance of hydrophytes. Remote Sensing of Environment,
11: 27-35.

Bibby, Colin J. and Lunn, J., 1982. Conservation of reud
beds and their avifauna in England and Wales. Biological
Concervation, 23:167-186.

Bloomfield, J.R.G., 1975. The use of dalapon and glyphosate
for the control of Ph@`aqmite@ australis (Cav.) Trin. ex.
Steud, in established alfalfa. Joint Agricultural Research
and Development Project, University of North Wales, Bangor,
UK and Ministry of Agriculture and Water, Saudi Arabia.
Publication No. 56, 8pp.

Bonham, A.J., 1983. The management of wave-spending
vegetation as bank protection against boat wash. Landscape
Planning, 10<1): 15-30.

Brix, Hans, 1987. Treatment of wastewater In the rhizosphere
of wetland plants - the root-zone method. Water Science
Technology, 19 ( 1-2): 107-118.

Brown, Melvin L. and Brown, Russell G., 1984. Herbaceous
Plants of Maryland. Port City Press, Baltimore, p. 180.

Buhler, D.D. and Burnside, O.C., 1983. Effects of spray
components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed
Science, 31(l): 124-130.

Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, 1979. 79th Annual
Report to the Minister for Primary Industries for the year
ended June 30, 1979. Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations,
99 Gregory Terace, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 68 pp.

Bucsbaum, H., Horowitz, M., Klelfeld, Y, Herzilriger, G. and
Bargutti, A., 1985. Experiments on the control of Phra-qmltes
in drainage canals. Phytoparasitica, 13 (3-4): 249-250.

Ceruzzi, D.M., 1986. Analysis of decomposition of Phragmites
commurils and Typha angustifolla In the Connecticut River
estuary. Abstract. The Bulletin, New Jersey Academy of
Science, 31(l):6.,

Davis, Andrew N. and Briggs, Timothy L., 1986. Dispersion
pattern of aerial shoots of the common marsh reed Phragmites
australis (Poaceae). Rhodora, 88<855): 325-330.

Dawson, F.H. and Hallows, H.B., 1983. Practical applications
of a shading material for macrophyte control in
watercourses. Aquatic Botany, 17:301-308.

Dinka, Maria, 1986. The effect of mineral nutrient
enrichment of Lake Balaton on the common reed (Phragmites
australls). Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 21(1):
65-84.

Eleuterlus, L.N., 1974. A study of plant establishment on
spoil areas in Mississippi Sound. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Field Report DA (NOI-72-C-001).

Eleuterius, L.N. and Gill, J.I., Jr., 1983. Long-terrm
observations on seagrass beds In salt marsh established from
transplants. Proceedings of the 8th Ann. Conf. Wetlands
Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Commuity College,
Tampa, Fla.

Evans, D.M., 1987. Phragmites control with glyphosate
through selective equipment. Proceedings 6th EWRS
International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Brussels, Belgium,
pp. 209-211.

Fedtke, Carl, 1982. Biochemistry and Physiology of Herbicide
Action. Sprunger-Verlag, New York, 202 pp.

Fernald, Merritt Lyndon, 1970 corrected printing. Gray's
Manual of Botany - Eighth Edition. D. Van Nostrand Company,
New York, p. 131-132.

Forney, D.R. and Davis, D.E., 1981. Effects of low
concentrations of herbicides on submersed aquatic plants.
Weed Science, 29<6): 677-685.

Galinato, M.I. and van der Valk, A,(,',, 1986, Seed
germination traits of annuals and emergents recruited during
drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic
Botany, 26:89-102

Gallagher, John L. and Mills, Maureen J., 1986. Seasonal
changes in storage carbohydrates in Phracnites austrglis,
Abstract. American Journal of Botany , 73(5): 667.

Gersberg, R.M., Elkins 'B.V., Lyon, S.R. and Goldman, C.R.,
1986. Role of aquatic plants In wastewater treatment by
artificial wetlands. Water Research, 20(3): 363-368.

Gleason, Henry A., 1952. The New Britton and Brown
Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and
Adjacent Canada, Volume 1. Hafner Press, New York, p. 134.

Gleason, Henry A. and Cronquist, Arthur, 1963. Manual of
Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent
Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, pp. 65-66.

Hansson, Lars-Anders and Granell, Wilhelm, 1984. Effects of
winter harvest on water and sediment chemistry in a stand of
reed (Phragmites australls). Hydrobiologia, 112(2): 131-136.

Heckman, Charles W., 1986. The role of marsh plants in the
transport of nutrients as shown by a quantitative model for
the freshwater section of the Elbe esturay. Aquatic Botany,
25(2): 139-151.

Hodkinson, H.D., 1974. The use of a glyphosate salt for weed
control in amenity and non-crop areas. Proceedings of the
12th British Weed Control Conference, Brighton. pp.
1003-1013.

Izatt, L., 1979. Phragmites - a real reed problem. Catic
Growers' Quarterly Bulletin, Queensland, Australia,
43(2):40-41.

Kamio, Akira, 1985. Studies of the drying of marshy arid
heavy clay soil ground by means of vegetations - Changes in
soil water caused by evapotranspiration of Phragmites
communis. J. Yamagata Agr1c. For. Soc., 42: 53-60.

Kasaslan, L., 1977. The chemical control of miscellaneous
weeds at the Hofuf Agricultural Research Centre. Joint
Agricultural Research and Development Project, University
College of North Wales, Bangor, UK and Ministry of
Agriculture and Water, Saudi Arabia, Publication Number 104,
8pp.

Krucznski, W.L., 1983. Salt marshes of the Northeastern
Gulf of Mexico. In: Creation and Restoration of Coastal

Plant Communities, R.R. Lewis III (Editor). CRC Press, Boca
Raton.

Linedale, A., 1978. Round up your reed problems. Cane
Growers/ Quarterly Bulletin, Nambour, Queensland 4560,
Australia, 41(4): 16-118.

McManus,J. and Alizal, S.A.K., 1983. Sediment-filled reed
stems as contributors to marsh sediment fabrics. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 53(2):407-409.

Min, Byeong Mee and Kim, Joon Ho, 1983. Distribution and
cyclings of nutrients In Phragmites communis communities of
a coastal salt marsh. Korean Journal of Botany, 26(1):
17-32.

Mook, J.H. and van der Toorn, J., 1982. The Influence of
environmental factors and management on stands of Phragmites
australis II. Effects on yield and its relationships with
shoot density. Journal of Applied Ecology, 19(2): 501-517.

Moreland, Donald E., St. John, Judith B. and Hess, F. Dana,
(Editors), 1981. Biochemical Responses Induced by
Herbicides. American Chemical Society, Washington, n.r..,-
274 pp.

Myartseva, S.N., 1982. New data on encyrtid wasps
(Hymenoptera, Encyrtldae) parasltlzing scale insects
(Homoptera;, Coccoldea) of the common reed Phracffnitc.@_0
australis. Entomol Obozr (Entomol Rev), 61(l): 145-155.

Nlr, A., 1976. Control of perennial weeds In drainage
ditches. Abstract, Phytoparasitica, 4(2): 157.

Nir, A *and Raz, A., 1985. New herbicides for control of
perennial weeds at roadsides and in drainage ditches.
Phytoparasitica, 13(3-4): 249.

O/Sullivan, P.A., O/Donovan, J.T. and Hamman, W.M., 1981.
Influence of nonlonic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water
quality and spray volume on the phyto toxicity of
glyphosate. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 61(2):
391-400.

Polunin, Nicholas V.C., 1982. Processes contributing to the
decay of reed (PhragMites augtralis) litter in fresh water.
Arch. Hydrobiol., 94(2): 182-209.

Prasad, R., 1984. Impact of glyphosate on macrophytes. Plant
Physiology, 75( Suppl. 1): 139.

Raven, P.J., 1986. Changes of in-channel vegetation
following two-stage channel construction on a small rural
clay river. Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(l): 33-345.

Rezk, Malak R. and Edany, Taha Y., 1978. Comparative
responses of two reed sp. to water table levels. Egypt. J.
Bot., 22(2): 157-172.

Rlemer, Donald N., 1973. Effects of rate, spray volume, and
surfactant on the control of phragrnites with glyphosate.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed
Science Society, 27:101-104.

Rlemer, Donald N., 1976. Long-term effects of glyphosate
applications to phragmites. Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management, 14(June): 39-43.

Roman, Charles T. and Daiber, Franklin C., 1984. Aboveground
and belowground primary production dynamics of two Delaware
Bay tidal marshes. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club,
111(l): 34-41.

Sandberg, C.L., Meggltt, W.F. and Penner, D., 1978. Effect
of d1luent volume and calcium on glyphosate phyto toxicity.
Weed Science, 26(5): 476-479.

Sedon, J.C., 1981.-The control of aquatic weeds with the
lsopropy'lamilne salt of N-phosphonomethyl glycine.
Proceedings of the Conference on Aquatic Weeds and Their
Control, Christ Church, Oxford, England, pp. 141-148.

Seneca, Ernest D., Broome, Stephen W. and Woodhouse, William
W., Jr., 1985. The influence of duration-of-inundation on
development of a man-inltlated Spartlna alterniflora Loisel.
marsh in North Carolina. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, 94(1-3): 259-268.

Shay, J.M. and Thompson, D.J., 1981. Effect of fire on
Phragmites australls dominated communities at Delta,
Manitoba. Abstract, Proceedings of the 13th International
Botanical Congress, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia, 13(0): 113

Shay, Jennifer M. and Shay, C. Thomas, 1986. Prairie marshes
in western Canada, with specific reference to the ecology of
five emergent macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Botany,
64(2): 443-454.

Smith, Loren M. and Kadlec, John A., 1983. Seed banks and
their role during drawdown of a North American marsh.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 20(2):673-684.

Stankovic, A., Arsenovic, M., Dimitriievic, M. and
Konstantinovlc, B., 1982. A study of the possibility of the
elimination of emerged vegetation in irrigation systems by
new herbicides. Proceedings EWRS 6th Symposlum on Aquatic
Weeds, pp. 185-192.

Stout, J.P., 1977. Evaluation of plants as medium for
dredged material dewatering. Report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District. Contract number DAC-WOI-76-070.

Szczepanska, Wanda and Szczpanski, A., 1982. Interactions
between Phracimitg_Q (Cav. ) Trin. ex Stvud. arl:_',
Typha latifollsi L. Ekologia Polska (Polish Journal of
Ecology), 30(1-2): 165-186.

Ulrich, Karl E. and Burton, T.M., 1985. The effects of
nitrate, phosphate and potassium fertilization on growth and
nutrient uptake patterns of Phragmites australis (Cav.)
Trin. ex Steudel. Aquatic Botany, 21:53-62.

Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. and Knutson, P.L., 1982. Atlantic
Coastal marshes. In: R.R. Lewis III C Editor),
Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fla.

Van der Toorn, J. and Mook, J.H., 1982. The influence of
env i ronmental f actors and management on staridt@; of Phr-aclijill t
australis I. Effects of burning, frost and insect damage on
shoot density and shoot size. Journal of Applied Ecology,
19(2): 477-500.

Vestergaard, P., 1985. Effects of mowing on the composition
of Baltic salt-meadow communities - preliminary results.
Vegetatio, 62(1-3): 383-390.

Vostokova, E.A. and Skatershchikov, S.V., 1980. Use of
satellite photos for determining the zone of influence of
the Kara-Kum Canal, USSR. Problems of Desert Development,
No. 4, Allerton Press, New York, pp. 39-44.

Weisser, P.J. and Ward, C.J., 1982. Destruction of the
ZbD_g.n_Lx_,/H1biscus and Barringtonia racemosa Communities at
Richards Bay, Natal, South Africa, 14(l):123-125.

Weisser, P.J. and Parsons, R.J., 1981. Monitoring Phracuiltes
australis increases from 1937 to 1976 in Siyal Lagoon
(Natal, South Africa) by means of photo interpretation.
Bothalia 13(3-4): 553-556.

White, David A., 1983. Plant communities of the lower Pearl
River basin, Louisiana. Am Midi Nat, 110(2): 381-396.

Yamasaki, Shlori, 1981. Effects of water level of the
development of rhizomes of three hygrophytes. Jap. J. Ecol,
31:353-359.

Yamasaki, Shlorl, 1981. Growth responses of Zizania
latifolia, Phracmites Australis and MIscanthus
i9aPrh;--iriflnru9 to varying inundation. Aquatic Botany,
10:229-139.

Yamasaki, Shlorl, 1984, Role of plant acration in zonation of Zizania latlfolla and Phragmites australls. Aquatic Botany, 18:287-297.

illin@ililloillill
3 6668 14103 2989
- I--- ----I -- -

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I