Management of Invasive Species
Marc C. Hoshovsk and John M. Randall
Before embarking on a weed management program, it is important to develop a straightfor-ward rationale for the actions you plan to take. We believe this is best accomplished using an adaptive management approach as follows: (1) establish management goals and objectives for the site; (2) determine which plant species or populations, if any, block or have potential to block attainment of management goals and objectives; (3) determine which methods are available to control the weed(s); (4) develop and implement a management plan designed to move conditions toward management goals and objectives; (5) monitor and assess the impacts of management actions in terms of effectiveness in moving toward goals and objectives; and (6) reevaluate, modify, and start the cycle again (Figure 1). Note that control activities are not begun until the first three steps have been taken.
It is vital to establish management goals before embarking on any management activities. What is it you want to protect or manage? Is your objective to protect or enhance a certain species or community, preserve a vignette of pre-Columbian America, preserve certain ecosystem attributes, or preserve a functioning ecosystem? A weed control program is best viewed as part of an overall restoration program, so focus on what you want in place of the weed, rather than simply eliminating the weed. Keep in mind that the ultimate purpose of a weed control program is to further the goal of preserving a species, community, or functioning ecosystem.
In many cases it will be easy to identify species that degrade the site or threaten to do so. If impacts of a species are not clear, you may need to monitor its abundance and effects on the natural community. Set priorities to minimize your total, long-term workload. This often means assigning highest priority to preventing new invasions and to quickly detecting and eliminating any new invasions that occur. High priority should also be assigned to the species with the most damaging impacts, to infestations that are expanding rapidly, and to infestations that affect highly valued areas of the site. Also consider the difficulty of control. It is of little use to spend time and resources to attack an infestation you have little hope of controlling.
Consider all control options available: manual, mechanical, encouraging competition from native plants, grazing, biocontrol, herbicides, prescribed fire, solarization, flooding, and other, more novel techniques. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages, and often the best approach is to use a combination of methods. Frequently, one or more methods will not be appropriate for a given situation because they do not work well, their use is objectionable to people in the area, or they are too costly. Herbicides may kill important non-target plants. Mechanical methods often disturb soil and destroy vegetation, providing ideal conditions for establishment of weedy species. It will often be best to employ two or more methods. For example, cutting and herbicides or prescribed fire and herbicides have been used successfully in combination in many weed control programs.
Biological control can be an extremely selective control tool, but there is some risk that control agents may attack desirable species. The best known example of a biocontrol agent attacking desirable species is that of Rhinocyllus conicus, a beetle first released to control non-native thistles in North America in the 1960s that was recently found attacking native thistles and reducing their populations at some sites (Louda et al. 1997).
Some native animals use invasive non-native species for food and cover and may have difficulty finding replacements if infestations are removed and not replaced with non-invasive native or introduced species. For example, huge numbers of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) roost in some groves of Eucalyptus globulus in coastal California. In addition, elimination of plants in a natural area can be alarming to some people, particularly when herbicides are used, so it is important to explain the threats posed by the pest and the reasons why you chose the methods you did.
There is much room for improvement in control methods for many of the species described in this book. Readers may want to experiment with methods that may more effectively and efficiently control these invaders and promote native species.
The Bradley Method is a sensible approach to weed management (Bradley 1988, Fuller and Barbe 1985). In this approach, weed control is begun in portions of the site with the best stands of desirable native vegetation (those with few weeds) and proceeds slowly to areas with progressively worse weed infestations. This is similar to Moody and Mack’s (1988) advice to attack outlying satellite weed populations first rather than larger, denser source populations. They based this advice on modeling work that indicated that the rate of spread of small satellite poplations is generally significantly higher than that of older, larger populations and that containing or eliminating the outliers saves time and effort in the long run. The Bradley Method dictates that the area under control should expand at a rate that allows previously treated areas to be monitored and kept in satisfactory condition. It also advocates the use of techniques that minimize damage to native plants and disturbance to the soil so that the natives can thrive and defend against reinvasion. This approach is particularly promising for small preserves or sites with access to large pools of volunteer labor. More detailed information on the Bradley Method is contained in Fuller and Barbe (1985).
The most effective and efficient weed control strategies are preventing invasions by new plants species and quickly detecting invasions that occur so weeds can be eradicated or contained before they spread. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has long recognized this, and the state’s Noxious Weed List gives highest priority to species that either are not yet established in the state or whose populations are not yet widespread. The state’s native species will be better protected if new invaders are detected quickly and word of their discovery is communicated to those who can take action to prevent their spread, such as the staff at the CDFA Control and Eradication Branch or Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch.
There are already at least 1,045 non-native plant species established in California (Randall et al.1998), and more continue to arrive and become established. If allowed to spread, some of these new species could impact native species and communities as severely as yellow starthistle and tamarisk do now. Preventing or stopping just one new invasive weed would be of greater conservation benefit in the long run than far more costly and difficult efforts to control an already widespread pest.
Taking precautions in normal resource management activities can halt or slow the establishment and spread of weeds in a given area. Wise precautions include: removing seed sources from roads, trails, rights-of-way, watercourses, and other dispersal routes; closing unnecessary roads and trails where possible; planning work projects to minimize soil disturbance and reestablish vegetation as quickly as possible where disturbance does occur; limiting the use of construction materials such as gravel, fill, mulch, straw, and seed mixes that may carry weeds or buying from suppliers who guarantee their products are weed-free; washing vehicles and equipment to remove weed seeds and other propagules before they are used in another area; follow-up monitoring of work sites to detect new weed populations while they are still small and easily controlled; and public education and outreach regarding the importance of weed detection and prevention of invasion.
Eradication is the complete elimination of a species from a given area. The great appeal of eradicating a weed is, of course, that once the project achieves success no more work is required and the species cannot spread unless it is re-introduced. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to eradicate an established weed from a large area. In fact, the history of CDFA’s eradication projects indicates that there is little likelihood of eradicating a species from California once it has spread to a few tens of acres in the state.
It may be possible to eradicate a weed from a given area, such as a preserve or national park if it has not yet become widespread there, but it is likely to re-invade from adjacent lands unless there is some barrier that will prevent it from doing so. Eradication is most likely when the species has just begun to establish in a new area, which underscores the importance of efforts to detect new invaders at national, state, and local levels.
Physical methods of weed control generally are labor intensive and often are used for small populations or where other control methods are inappropriate, such as near sensitive water supplies. Nonetheless, physical methods have been used successfully by volunteer groups and paid workers to control weed infestations on several large sites in California (e.g., Pickart and Sawyer 1998). Physical methods can be highly selective, targeting only the pest species, but they can also disturb the soil or damage nearby vegetation, thereby promoting germination and establishment of weedy species. Physical control methods may also produce large amounts of debris, disposal of which is sometimes difficult.
Physical control methods range from manual hand pulling of weeds to the use of hand and power tools to uproot, girdle, or cut plants. Two companies produce tools specifically for pulling shrubs such as scotch broom, tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Weed Wrench (see Resources section) and the Root Jack (see Resources section) are lever arms with a pincher or clamp at the bottom that grips the plant stem. Once the stem is secured, the user leans back, tightening the clamp in the process. After a little rocking, the entire plant comes up, roots included (Hanson 1996). Other tools for weed control, including girdling knives, axes, machetes, loppers, clippers, chainsaws, and brush cutters, are available from hardware stores and gardening and forestry supply companies. Various attachments are available for bulldozers and tractors to clear and uproot woody plants. Brush rakes or blades may be mounted on the front of the bulldozer, and brushland disks or root plows may be pulled behind. Mowing can prevent seed formation on tall annual and perennial weeds and deplete food reserves of shoots and roots. Unfortunately, repeated mowing can favor low-growing weeds or damage desirable native species (Ashton and Monaco 1991).
Fire can be an effective means of reducing weed infestations, particularly for shrub by weeds and in native communities that evolved with fire. Fire may sometimes be the only element necessary to give native species a chance to recover. Fire may also be used to eliminate old vegetation and litter in areas infested with perennial herbs such as fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) or leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) prior to treating the area with herbicide. This allows more herbicide to reach the living leaves and stems of target plants, potentially enhancing its effectiveness. Fire can also be used to induce seeds of some species to germinate so the seedbank can be flushed and the resulting seedlings can then be killed with another fire or some other method (e.g., Bossard 1993).
Conducting a prescribed burn is not a simple or risk-free operation. Managers considering prescribed burning should be trained and certified and should work close ly with the local office of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to ensure safe, effective, and legal burns. Good logistical planning, coordination of work teams, careful timing with respect to weather (winds, moisture conditions), co or di na tion with air quality agencies, and attention to other details are required to carry out an effective and safe burn. In most parts of California it is necessary to address air quality concerns and to obtain permission from the regional air quality board. Escaped fires are costly and can be disastrous.
Prescribed fires may promote certain invasive, non-native species, and so should be used with caution. Non-native annual and biennial species, such as cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), are most likely to be favored in the years immediately following a burn and in repeatedly burned areas. Hot fires can also sterilize the soil, volatilizing important nutrients and killing microorganisms on which native plants rely. Removal of vegetation by fire can also increase soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Construction of firebreaks and associated soil disturbance can increase erosion and provide a seedbed for invasive weeds.
Blowtorches and flamethrowers can also be used to burn individual plants or small areas. This method has been used with some success on thistles in several areas. Flamethrowers have also been used to heat-girdle the lower stems of shrubs such as scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). This technique has the advantages of being less costly than basal and stem herbicide treatments and suitable for use during wet weather. On the other hand, it is time-consuming and not viable in areas where wildfire is a danger.
Flooding and Draining
Prolonged flooding can kill plants that infest impoundments, irrigated pastures, or other areas where water levels can be controlled. This method may be even more effective if plants are mowed or burned before flooding. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) is sensitive to flood ing, and its populations can be reduced by flood irrigation in pastures. Flooding may also help to control non-natives by promoting the growth and competitive ability of certain native species in some situations. Unfortunately, flood ing will not kill the seeds of many target species.
Draining water from ponds and irrigation canals may control aquatic weeds such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Schlesselman et al. 1989). Drainage can be conducted in different ways, including seasonal, intermittent (within-season), or par tial draw downs (McNabb and Anderson 1989).
Mulching excludes light from weeds and prevents them from photosynthesizing. Commonly used mulches are hay, manure, grass clippings, straw, sawdust, wood chips, rice hulls, black paper, and black plastic film. The most effective mulches are black paper or plastic because of their uni form coverage. Particle mulches cannot prevent all weeds from breaking through (Schlesselman et al. 1989). Mulch materials and application can be expensive and may be suitable only for small infestations. Particle mulches should be weed-free to avoid introduction of other weeds.
Soil solarization is a technique for killing weed seeds that have not yet germinated. A clear polyethylene plastic sheet is placed over moist soil and kept in place for a month or more. The incoming solar radiation creates a greenhouse effect under the plastic, increasing soil temperatures. High temperatures kill some seeds outright and weaken others, making them more susceptible to attack by pathogens (Schlesselman et al. 1989).
Biological control, or biocontrol, involves the use of animals, fungi, or other mi crobes that prey upon, consume, or parasitize a target species. Target species are fre quent ly non-natives whose success in new environments may be due in part to the absence of their natural predators and pathogens.
Classical biological control involves careful selection and introduction of one or more natural enemies to the target species’ new habitat to reduce target populations. Successful control programs of this kind result in permanent establishment of the control agent or agents and permanent reduction in target species populations. Such programs are not designed to eliminate the target species completely, and it may take repeated releases to ensure the establishment of an agent. It may take years or decades before their effects are obvious. Some of the greatest strengths of classical biological control are that once an agent is established it will last indefinitely and it may spread on its own to cover most or all of the area infested by the weed, generally without additional costs. On the other hand, these strengths can become liabilities if the agent begins to attack desirable species as well as the pest it was introduced to control. Biocontrol researchers take great pains to locate and use agents that are highly specific to the targeted weed. This contributes to the high cost and long time required for development and approval of new biological control agents. Several of the species covered in this book are the subjects of ongoing classical biological control programs.
As opposed to classical biocontrol, inundative or augmentative biocontrol involves mass releases of pathogens whose effects on the target are normally limited by their inability to reproduce and spread. Inundative biocontrol agents that are non-native and/or not target-specific may be sterilized or otherwise rendered incapable of establishing permanent populations before they are released. Because they do not become established, they must be reared and released again each time weed populations erupt. There have, however, been instances in which mistakes or back mutations allowed some of these species to establish permanent wild populations.
The USDA must approve biocontrol agents for use. Approved biological control agents have been studied, and their host specificity determined. Accidentally introduced species have unknown host species, are not permitted for distribution, and should not be redistributed. If you have questions about any potential biocontrol agents, contact the CDFA Biological Control Program (see Resources section).
Competition and Restoration
The use of native plants to outcompete alien weeds is a frequently overlooked but potentially powerful technique. Sometimes the natives must be planted into the habitat and given some care until they are well established. This may be appropriate where a native forest community is to be reestablished in an old field currently occupied by a thick cover of alien grasses and forbs. Reseeding with native species also works well in some grasslands. In other cases all that may be required is time; the native community may reestablish itself once human-caused disturbance ceases. Even in these cases, it may be important to locate and remove certain weeds capable of hindering succession. You can also enhance other weed control methods by encouraging competition from native species.
Ideally, seeds or cuttings used in restoration should be collected on the site or from adjacent properties. Unfortunately, in many cases the only available or affordable seeds and plants are from distant or unidentified populations. Potential impacts of using seeds and plants collected at distant sites include project failure if genotypes used are unable to survive conditions on the site, introduction of diseases, and loss of genetic diversity through overwhelming or contaminating locally adapted genotypes.
Grazing animals may be used to selectively control or suppress weeds, but grazing is also known to promote certain invaders in some circumstances. Cattle, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, and grass carp have been used to graze undesirable species at sites around the nation. Often grazing must be continued until the weed’s seedbank is gone, as the suppressed plants may otherwise quickly regain dominance. Another drawback to using grazing animals is that they sometimes spread weed seeds in their droppings.
Herbicides are chemicals that kill or inhibit plant growth. They can be extremely effective tools when used to eliminate certain species. They can also be dangerous and should be used only after careful consideration of other options and only with extreme care. Each species treatment in this book provides specific information on the herbicides, rates, and times that have been found most effective against that species. However, the effectiveness of a given treatment may vary with climate and environmental conditions, and some populations of a given species may be more tolerant of, or even resistant to, a particular herbicide than other populations of the same species. It may be necessary to conduct trials to identify the most effective techniques for controlling a particular problem species.
The most important safety rule for herbicide use is to read the label and follow the directions. Applicators must wear all protective gear required on the label of the herbicide they are using. It is also important to adopt or develop protocols for storing, mixing, transporting, cleaning up, and disposing of herbicides and for dealing with medical emergencies and spills.
California’s programs to regulate pesticides and pesticide applicators are regarded as the most stringent in the nation and as such are the standard against which many other states measure their programs. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation reviews health effects of pesticides independently of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and has more stringent registration requirements. California also has the most stringent pesticide use reporting requirements. Agricultural pesticide use is broadly defined and includes applications made in nature preserves, parks, golf courses, and cemeteries and along roadsides. Such applications are regulated by the CDFA, and county agricultural commissioners’ offices enforce the regulations. Pest control businesses, agricultural pest control advisors, and pest control aircraft pilots must register in each county where they operate. Anyone who wants to buy a restricted pesticide must have a permit from the commissioner’s office. All agricultural pesticide use must be reported monthly to the commissioner’s office. Home-use pesticides (those purchased over-the-counter in small volumes) are exempt. There are also more detailed requirements for applicator training and protective gear. Inspectors from county commissioners’ offices conduct thousands of compliance inspections every year and have the authority to halt pesticide applications if they believe an applicator’s safety is in danger or the pesticide is likely to drift off-site. Contact your county agriculture commissioner’s office for details on training and other regulations before purchasing or applying herbicides. County agricultural agents can answer questions about both wildland and agricultural uses of herbicides, as can certified herbicide applicators.
Environmental risks posed by herbicide use include drift, volatilization, persistence in the environment, groundwater contamination, and harmful effects on animals. Drift and resulting death or damage to non-target plants may occur when herbicides are applied as a spray; chances of drift increase with decreasing size of spray droplets and increase with increasing wind speeds. Volatilization and subsequent condensation on non-target plants resulting in their death or damage is another risk of herbicide use. Some herbicides are much more likely to volatilize than others, and likelihood of volatilization increases with increasing temperature. Some herbicides are more persistent in the environment and thus have a greater opportunity for harmful effects. Most herbicides will decompose more rapidly with increasing temperature and soil moisture, and some are decomposed by ultra-violet light. Chances of groundwater contamination generally increase with increasing solubility and persistence of the herbicide, increasing porosity of the soil, and decreasing depth to the water table. Herbicides with potential to cause direct harm to animals (e.g., diquat) are rarely used in natural areas. Animals may, however suffer from indirect impacts if, for example, their food plants are killed.
In order to minimize these environmental risks, look for compounds that can be used selectively (to kill one or a few species); that degrade rapidly under conditions found at the site; that are immobilized on soil particles and unlikely to reach groundwater; that are non-toxic to animals; and that are not easily volatilized.
Also choose an application method that minimizes risks of harming non-target plants and environmental damage. Possible application methods include: spraying on intact, green leaves (foliar spray); spot application (usually from backpack or handheld sprayer); wick application; boom application (from a boom mounted on a vehicle or aircraft); single spot or around the circumference of the trunk on intact bark (basal bark); cuts in the stem (frill or hack and squirt); injected into the inner bark; cut stems and stumps (cut stump); spread in pellet form at the plant’s base; and sprayed on the soil before seeds germinate and emerge (pre-emergent).
Mix a dye with the herbicide so applicators can see which plants have been treated and if they have gotten any on themselves or their equipment. Some pre-mixed herbicides include a dye (e.g., Pathfinder II® includes the active ingredient triclopyr, a surfactant and a dye). Ester-based herbicides such as Garlon4® require oil-soluble dyes such as colorfast purple, colorfast red, and basoil red (for use in basal bark treatments), which are sold by agricultural chemical and forestry supply companies. Clothing dyes such as those produced by Rit® will work in water-soluble herbicides such as Garlon3A®, and they are inexpensive and available at most supermarkets and drugstores.
Detailed information on herbicides is available in the Weed Science Society of America’s Herbicide Handbook (Ahrens 1994) and Supplement (Hatzios 1998). This publication gives information on nomenclature, chemical and physical properties, uses and modes of action, precautions, physiological and biochemical behavior, behavior in or on soils, and toxicological properties for several hundred chemicals (see Resources section). Critical reviews of several common herbicides are available at a small charge from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (see Resources section).
Beyond this book, additional information and training on weeds and their control can be found by contacting local universities, extension agents, county weed and pest supervisors, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The California Exotic Pest Plant Council can direct readers to other local experts on weeds. The Bureau of Land Management offers an Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Certification course in Denver, Colorado, and the Western Society of Weed Science offers a Noxious Weed Management Short Course in Bozeman, Montana.