- General Invasive Species Control Information
- Running Cooperative Weed Management Areas
- Hybrid and Narrow-leaf Cattail Control
- Purple Loosestrife Control
- Reed Canary Grass Control
- Common and Glossy Buckthorn Control
- Common Reed Grass Control
- Canada Thistle Control
- Crown Vetch and Bird's Foot Trefoil Control
- Sweet Clover Control
- Wild Parsnip Control
- Spotted Knapweed Control
- Japanese Barberry
- Leafy Spurge
- Red Clover
- Garlic Mustard Control
- Carp Management
General Invasive Species Control Information
-The MIPN Control database: allows people to select a plant they want to control, indicate the type of habitat it is in, whether or not they are professionals or novices, etc. and the database comes back with specific chemical, mechanical, and/or biological methods.
MnDOT has a new noxious weed booklet providing weed control recommendations.
PlayCleanGo is a new outreach effort to increase awareness about invasive species.
The DNR’s invasive species web pages have undergone some reorganization and updating.
-Development of Cooperative Weed Management Areas to promote partnerships for the management of invasive species across boundaries.
-Biological control, the use of natural enemies to control non-native pests, can be an effective tool in managing invasive plants. Non-native plants can become invasive because they lack the insects and diseases that control them in their native environments. Biological control reunites natural enemies, such as herbivores and pathogens, with their host (invasive plant) to reduce impacts caused by the pest. The goal of biological control is to reduce the target pest population and its corresponding impact to an acceptable level. The Minnesota Departments of Agriculture (MDA) and Natural Resources (DNR) have implemented successful biological control programs for leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, and purple loosestrife statewide. Development of new biological control efforts for garlic mustard, buckthorn and common tansy are underway. Our programs utilize specialized insects that were tested extensively for host specificity (safety) and efficacy.
Biological control programs in Minnesota are cooperative. Multiple agencies, associations, institutions, and private landowners work together to accomplish goals. Lead agencies help to coordinate efforts, disseminate information, provide expertise, and collect data. (Monika Chandler, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-We have gotten a lot of help in maintenance of public park restorations in from the Sentence-to-Serve program that is part of the County Sheriff Department. The crews have helped with such work as dragging cut buckthorn, pulling mullein, root chopping sweet clover and bird’s-foot trefoil and more. This helps to keep the project cost down considerably (Gina Hugo, Sherburne SWCD).
-The following webpages provide valuable information about Cooperative Weed Management Areas and invasive species control.
- IPAW - www.ipaw.org note it includes a section on CWMAs called "Regional invasive plant groups". Also includes archives of our newsletters with articles on ongoing projects. Our extensive reed canary publication is also on this site. The nursery/consultants list that is on there is a bit out of date. We'll be updating it this winter.
- MIPN - www.mipn.org - be sure to include a link from your site to the "CWMA Resources" here. Kate Howe is coordinating a revision of the MIPN CWMA cookbook and would appreciate any feedback you could provide. Other useful info here includes many publications, power points and conference abstracts
- WI DNR Invasives page - http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/ Our entire website is undergoing a major revamping, so this URL will soon be changed. you may want to wait a month or so to make links to this site. Lots of publications, fact sheets (we have new ones we will be putting on the new site), photos (keep the credits attached if you use them).
Also, Mark Renz's lab at the UW Madison Agry Dept is developing new fact sheets focused on control with lots of details about what herbicides to use for what plants. http://ipcm.wisc.edu/Publications/WeedSciencepublications/tabid/116/Default.aspx
(Kelly Kearns, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
- Information about invasive species control information from the Pope Cooperative Weed Management Area can be found at: http://weedwatchers.org/index.cfm/pageid/65
Running Coooperative Weed Management Areas
-Big Stone SWCD gets the word out to private landowners in two ways 1. Weed of the Week articles in the newspaper with timely and informative articles to educate citizens on up and coming weeds in the county. 2. The intern for the CWMA this past summer worked hard to contact private land owners directly by calling or writing letters to inform them if they had either Queen Anne’s lace or Wild Parsnip on their private property.(Cara Gregor MDNR, Big Stone/ Traverse CWMA)
-For the past two summers, one intern has been hired to work on mapping, contacting landowners, and treating the infestations. Each year a great amount of work has been done that would not get done otherwise. This is the best spent money of the CWMA. Both summers, we have had energetic and knowledgeable college students work on the project and have great results. Getting a baseline map of weed locations in the county is one of the biggest accomplishments. Before that other agencies have been mapping but there was no consolidation of the information. Now there is. Next summer, the intern will start looking more at Traverse County.(Cara Gregor MDNR, Big Stone/ Traverse CWMA)
-A key to successful quick response to early detection of invasive species is communication and respect between the team members. Trust in the correct identification of a plant allows confidence in choosing and implementing a management plan, minimizing time wasted. And time is money.(Jyneen Thatcher, Washington Conservation District, Washington CWMA)
-Free weed tours and hands-on biocontrol experience have worked very well. Ramsey CWMA and MISAC held a well-attended invasive plant tour at AHATS. Becker CWMA and I held a spotted knapweed identification and control workshop. We collected knapweed bioagents at both of these events. These events were informal without registration. People were told when and where to show up for the event. A sign-up sheet was passed around to track attendance and contact participants with follow up information. This format minimizes the time and labor involved with advanced planning such as registration. No cost makes it much easier for people to attend and there is no work involved with processing fees. I think that a number of CWMAs held events during the field season. These events are fun, inexpensive and very effective communication/learning opportunities. Pope CWMA and I have floated the idea of a similar workshop next June for spurge biocontrol. I’m guessing that we would all like to do more of this outreach. I’d say that CWMA outreach is working well. (Monika Chandler, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-The Wright Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) sent out requests for letters of support prior to applying for the CWMA grant from BWSR to obtain an idea from multiple organizations on the need for noxious and invasive species control. It was from these supporters and the financial commitment of Wright County, matching a BWSR grant of $15,000 the SWCD was able to start a CWMA for Wright County. Multiple start up meetings were scheduled to inform, educate and finalize an official CWMA for Wright County by developing Annual Plans, Memorandum of Understanding, Hold Harmless Agreements, Cooperative Agreement, Informational Handouts, Strategic Management Plan, and other pertinent information. Steering committee representatives were voted to lead representatives in working cooperatively to educate, detect, inventory, monitor, control, and prevent the spread of noxious/invasive weeds across jurisdictional boundaries within the CWMA. (Brian Sanoski, Wright SWCD)
-Effective control efforts were achieved by aligning all townships, county highway and parks department, MN DoT, Minnesota DNR, USFWS, and SWCD. Each party plays an important role in inventory, control and education sharing cooperative efforts to achieve better management of noxious and invasive weeds while improving working relationships between parties and local community. Parties control and inventory their own property and the SWCD is responsible for ensuring private land is being treated or obtaining permission to treat on areas that noxious and invasive species were found to escape passed right-a-ways. Any CWMA member or private landowner treating noxious and invasive species targeted by the CWMA is eligible to receive 100% reimbursement on approved herbicides; provided they submit proof of purchase, time logs and map of area sprayed. At year end all reporting, budgeting, inventory and documentation is completed by the SWCD. This information is displayed on the SWCD website and shared with CWMA members during annual meetings, for consideration in the decision making process of the following seasons annual plan.(Brian Sanoski, Wright SWCD)
-We have done no mapping as all work is done on easements and are easy to find/track. The admin is also easily done because all work is done in-house. The hardest things when working with the landowners are meeting the match requirement and convincing them to keep up the suppression efforts after we are done. Some landowners are very enthusiastic and will continue after we have described the reasons and methods of control and others don’t seem to mind if the easement is eventually all box elder, buckthorn,… . We actually had a landowners with a CREP easement that wouldn’t let the contractor remove the 30’-40’ cottonwood. (Eric Gulbransen, Resource Conservationist, Steele SWCD)
-The biggest parts of administering the CWMA program for me are education, cooperation and communication. Education is important for both me and for landowners. Some invasive species are new to me and some are new species. I generally have to educate myself before I can educate the landowner as these new things come up. I take advantage of learning opportunities offered as they come up. I also have a variety of contacts that I call for help. They are from the MDA, TNC, the DNR, and chemical representatives, as well as local professionals. I also like to hear “what is working” from the landowners I work with. Sometimes they try different approaches and they work, or sometimes they don’t and we learn from that, also. I communicate information to and from the landowners to other professionals that I am working with. What we all gain from one project is good information to go forward. There are several ways I find people interested in CWMA. The first is someone may call our office or come in with questions. A landowner may be interested in the EQIP program through NRCS and after talking we decide CWMA will work just as well or better for their situation. We write informative articles for the newspaper people call because they are interested. Our office may be working on a larger overall project that involves different agencies or programs. We could offer CWMA as a component of the project if it applies. Lastly, I may have a particular species of interest that I am mapping and I will send letters out to particular landowners in an area of interest.(Terri Peters, Wabasha CWMA )
-Direct landowner contact is important to the success of the program. Cost share for treatments doesn’t seem to be as important as education and direction. We’re lucky to have media support in that the Pope County Tribune will post a ‘Weed of the Week’ article during the summer months. The articles are well received and generate questions.(Luan Johnsrud, Pope CWMA)
Hybrid and Narrow-leaf Cattail Control
-Establishment of aggressive emergent plants before cattails become established.
-Pulling of young plants before extensive root systems develop.
-Application of aquatically certified glyphosate or Imazapyr herbicide directly to foliage (permits must be obtained first).
-Cutting stems low to the ground in the fall and winter and then raising water levels (with spring snowmelt) at least a few inches above growing vegetation. This technique depends on the ability to collect and hold water within a wetland.
Purple Loosestrife Control
-Hand pulling seedlings or using a garden fork to pull out individual mature plants.
-Application of aquatically certified glyphosate directly to foliage before flowering. If flowering, heads can be cut and bagged and herbicide applied directly to cut stem.
-Use of leaf eating beetles to defoliate plants. This technique works best in dense stands (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/purpleloosestrife/index.html).
Reed Canary Grass Control
-Glyphosate at 24 oz/acre with NO surfactant (e.g. original formulation of "Roundup, or any generic that does not have the word "plus" in the label..ie "Bucaneer Plus" has surfactant, but "Bucaneer" does not.) In the metro area I start spraying AFTER Oct. 10th. At this time many native species are dormant, but reed canary is very susceptible. I have sprayed as late as Halloween with good results. Hard frosts do not seem to matter. So long as there is any hint of green, even pale faded green, on the reed canary leaves the glyphosate is very effective. I find this to be much more effective (~100 kill of adult plants) than spring treatments, and the big plus is that many native species are unharmed. I only use this treatment on plantings that are at least 3 years old....do not use on first year plantings. Also do not use near open water (as not aquatically certified). If the reed canary has been mowed in previous two months, the treatment is still very effective, but is also more likely to hurt the native speices. If I plan on spaying a field for reed canary grass that has lots of native species, I either do not mow it, or only mow before July. Resistant native speices include: Ironweed, Joe Pye, Golden Alexander, Liatris spp., Indian grass, Big + Little Blue, Muhlenbergii spp., Side Oats, Sunflower spp., Culvers Root, Ohio Spiderwort, Milkweed spp. and many other.Native species that are hurt by this method include: Bergamot, Yellow Coneflower, June Grass, and Black-eye Susan.(Shawn Schottler, Science Museum of Minnesota )
-A wetland bank project in Ottertail county has had success mowing reed canary grass in September followed by an early October application of the grass specific herbicide “Select” with the active ingredient Clethodim. The application allowed native sedges and forbs to dominate where reed canary grass was present.
-A sequence of late summer mowing, late fall (Late September to mid October) application of 3% glyphosate (aquatically certified glyphosate if standing water is present), early spring prescribed burning and repeated glyphosate application in the spring/summer as needed (http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200436.pdf).
-A combination of weed whipping flowers to prevent seed production, dormant overspray with an aquatic formulation of glyphosate, and spot treatment with glyphosate and sethoxydim (during dry periods) has led to a dramatic reduction in reed canary grass cover and a substantial increase in three square bulrush abundance in a lakeshore/wet meadow restoration (Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District).
-Combinations of spring tilling and herbicide application.
-Periodic late fall (after killing frost) applications of glyphosate in stands of warm season native species (other natives may be affected).
-Use of grass specific herbicide to remove seedling reed canary grass (grass specific herbicides are not aquatically certified). (http://na.fs.fed.us/spfo/invasiveplants/downloads/index.asp and select "Effects of a selective herbicide, Sethozydim, on reed canary grass").
-Scraping to 8-12 inches to remove reed canary grass mat. Full removal of rhizomes is needed. This technique should only be used where there is expendable soil, preferable where sediment has accumulated.
Common and Glossy Buckthorn Control
-With controlling buckthorn, both in highly infested sites and those with low level infestations we have found persistence to be the most important element of control. In highly infested fire dependant woodlands prescribed burning is a very efficient means of control when it follows an initial removal. Keeping in mind the seed bank that has accumulated and the fact that they are viable for at least 7 more years, it has been imperative to keep knocking it back. In high level infestations, we have found prescribed burning, as frequent as leaf litter accumulation will allow, to be the most efficient choice as long as the buckthorn regeneration is smaller than ¼”. To keep it small – we have been doing critical period cuts. In July – when the plant has spent all the energy it will on growth for the year – we go in with brush saws and cut it all – forcing it to re-sprout and expend more energy on growth – when it would have otherwise been pulling energy into its root store. By the time it has grown back there is relatively little time left in the growing season for it to pull energy down in to its depleted root system. Then in the spring burn season – all the water sprouts that were caused by the critical period cut are small and tender – vulnerable to fire. With this method – we do end up cutting native shrubs but have found diversity of woodland herbs to bounce back dramatically and the native shrub diversity and abundance is gaining strength as well.
In low level infestations – persistent annual control is essential to preventing degradation of the woodland. We have coordinated with the County Sentence to Serve Crew. Even two staff can go through several acres of lightly infested woodland in a few hours. We arm ourselves with a pair of loppers, a buckthorn blaster http://buckthornblaster.com/ loaded with glyphosate – 50% solution, and flagging tape. When we run across a large buckthorn that requires a hand saw we wrap tape around it. At the end of the day – we go back through with the hand saw and get the large ones. We keep track of where we have been with a GPS – then map it back at the office.(Gina Hugo, Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District)
-Management for buckthorn (as well as other invasives) should be approached with the understanding that only in rare instances will a one-time treatment of the invasive produce the desired long-term result. Developing (and sticking with) an integrated and adaptive approach using multiple tools (cut/treat, fire, grazing/browsing, supplemental seeding, herbicide application, biocontrol-if available, etc.) is critical for success. In areas where fire is to be used as part of an integrated management approach on buckthorn, fine fuels (i.e. grasses, and to some degree sedges) are key. If the pre-existing ground layer lacks fine fuels, supplemental seeding with native grasses such as bottlebrush grass, silky wildrye, Virginia wildrye and others is important. Along with oak leaf litter, fine fuels are critical to enable burning with appropriate frequency and intensity to keep ahead of buckthorn. I generally discourage soil disturbance. Removing thick stands of buckthorn creates a vacuum that can be readily recolonized by buckthorn or other weeds. Soil disturbance (i.e. by using a weed wrench or similar) also has the potential to also damage desirable native plants (further increasing the likelihood that undesirable plants will recolonize). Unless the site is exceptionally native species-poor AND supplemental native seeding will be conducted, soil disturbance should be avoided.(Paul Bockenstedt, Stantec)
-The following are some recommendations for buckthorn removal. I advise landowners to remove female plants from the entire project area. The seeds remain viable for 5+ years, so I advise them to the go back to those areas and expect to pull the small new growth before it becomes big. Landowners have used Garlon 4 and Pathway with a surfactant (I had someone who used Element, it cost less and has the same active ingredient as Garlon 4 and worked well). Chemical treatment has been used successfully on smaller stems (< 3” in diameter) as a basal bark application. For stems over 3” we use either a cut stump method or girdle and apply product to the stem. For this treatment I advise that fall and winter if accessible is the best time for application. Burning or torching small growth is effective if the landowner is comfortable with working with fire. Planting desirable species is advised. Maple and Walnut trees stands have been notably lacking invasion, even in the midst of surrounding invaded areas.(Terri Peters, Wabasha CWMA)
The following information summarizes input from landowners who participated in a cost-share program. We are also creating a web-page with Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.mnwcd.org/land_habitat_restoration_invasive.php
-Based on input from our local residents: Young seedlings (less than 2 years old) are sensitive to repeated cutting. Be sure to cut (and treat) larger stems low, to allow for later mowing.
-Mesic oak-aspen woods community appears to be relatively resilient and able to regenerate, when buckthorn is controlled. Delay replanting until you see what returns naturally (See photo).
-Broadcast spraying of groundlayer is not selective; it will kill more than just buckthorn, and can have residual effects suppressing the desired regrowth.
-Cutting of large buckthorn will release seedlings. Without follow-up (such as mowing and/or herbicide stump treatment) this just compounds the problem.
-Basal bark or hack-and-squirt methods kill slowly. Seed production drops off the first year, but the tree may survive for several years.
-Providing loaner tools, such as Weed Wrenches. The tools are purchased through grants or by partner agencies, and are loaned out at no charge, other than a refundable deposit. Landowners typically pick up the tool mid-week and use it through the weekend. If it's working well, they might consider purchasing one of their own, or they re-sign up for the loaner pieces.
-Regarding grants (not limited to buckthorn): Without a commitment to the end goal, grant funding for a single episode of management might not show adequate results. In reviewing prospective landowner/participants, it helps to evaluate their previous accomplishments.
-Regarding invasive species (not limited): Managing invasive species is tedious; recognition and reinforcement of landowners' efforts are very important.
-Simple but effective education efforts include displays of live specimens, such as a planting bed or vase in public view.
-Simplified factsheets, such as a short comparative list of herbicides or vendors, help landowners make choices, and are worth the time spent by staff on creating the summaries. (Jyneen Thatcher, Washington Conservation District).
-Managing buckthorn in the fall after other trees and shrubs have lost their leaves (www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/index.html).
-Educating landowners about the need to treat stumps after removal (Redwood SWCD).
-Targeting fruiting buckthorn first to prevent future spread.
-Pulling seedling buckthorn when soils are moist, using weed wrenches or other tools to aid removal.
-Cutting large buckthorn and treating with 50% glyphosate (aquatically certified glyphosate in wetlands).
-Basally treating the lower 10 inches of sapling and larger buckthorn with Garlon 4 in the dormant season. 10-20 percent mixes for smaller trees and 40 percent mixes for larger trees (www.smm.org/scwrs/publications/rendezvous/2005/basalbark/).
-Using prescribed fire to control seedlings when sufficient fuel (dead plant material) is available to carry a burn.
-Using Krenite herbicide (bud inhibitor) with soft water to control seedling herbicide.
-Propane torch for burning seedlings.
Common Reed Grass Control
- I wanted to let you know about a nice, recently-launched Phragmites website: Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative http://greatlakesphragmites.net/. It has lots of information on Phragmites biology, management, and on-going research. For example, there is interesting research about disrupting the symbiotic microbes associated with Phragmites http://greatlakesphragmites.net/control-options/ (Laura Van Riper, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)-Application of aquatically certified glyphosate or Imazapyr to upper foliage during flowering, mowing or prescribed burning in the spring followed by additional herbicide treatments as needed (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogl-ais-guide-PhragBook-Email_212418_7.pdf).
Canada Thistle Control
-For Canada thistle, if can be done, very aggressive, competitive plant communities that maintain cover will eventually relegate C thistle to fragmented patches or none at all as in the case of diverse, aggressive prairie communities or sod-bound brome on productive soils, or aggressive rotational grazing systems. Sites with continual disturbance such as periodic flooding, traffic, low fertility, non-productive soils with perpetually open niches for invasion are problematic.(Roger Becker, University of Minnesota Extension)
If herbicides are needed my picks are: 1)Milestone (aminopyrchlor) 5 oz. followed by below labeled rate 3 oz the following year if needed to clean-up. 2)Transline/Stinger (clorpyralid) 10.67 oz. followed by below labeled rate 8 oz. the following year if needed to clean-up. -aminocyclopyrachlor (Perspective, Streamline from DuPont) is very effective but limited to localized spot treatments or to industrial areas, guard-rails, etc. - areas where vegetation impacts not that critical. -Tordon (picloram) same issues and less effective than aminocyclopyrachlor products.-2,4-D repeated over a few years will work, more non-target dicot damage than 1 and 2 above. Tank mixes with products above work very well but relegated to grasslands, not mixed plant communities with dicots.-Garlon/triclopyr and Banvel/dicamba including Overdrive not that good on C thistle-Sulfonylureas like Glean/Telar (chorimuron-ethyl), Oust (sulfometuron-methyl) good at high enough rates but lots of nontarget issues, and Ally/Escort (metsulfuron-methyl) not that good (Roger Becker, University of Minnesota Extension)
-In plantings where primarily warm grass species were planted and early succession forbs are absent, thistles have no competition and often reach maturity before warm season grasses like big bluestem and Indian grass even start to green up. Having a strong Canada wild rye component as well as composite forbs, like black eyed Susan and Yellow coneflower seems to put pressure on thistle populations (Martin SWCD).
-For high quality communities, hand pulling or careful wick application of clopyralid herbicide.
-Spot treatment of thistle early in development before it has a chance to spread.
-Push Canada thistle control with spot spraying rather than whole field spraying when forbs are present (Redwood SWCD).
-Renville SWCD has developed a landowner handout giving recommendations regarding chemical control for Canada thistle as they have nearly 400 RIM/PWP/CREP easements requiring management. The SWCD strongly recommends Milestone application in both spring and fall and has found that to be the only effective way to control thistles. The handout works for not only landowners, but is also given to other interested parties and to Township Boards as they try to administer the Noxious Weed Law.
Crown Vetch and Bird’s Foot Trefoil Control
-Repeated pulling in sand or moist soils.
-Mowing in late spring successive years.
-Triclopyr or glyphosate herbicide at 2% by volume concentration applied to foliage in early spring.
-Spring burns successive years.
Sweet Clover Control
-Spring burns successive years. First burn before green-up of plants to stimulate seed germination the first year. Conduct low intensity burn the following spring when plants are 6-10 inches high.
-Pulling by hand in sandy or moist soils.
Wild parsnip Control
-I have been removing wild parsnip from approximately 6 acres every year since 2006, by hand pulling. Removal has been thorough, with essentially all seed-bearing plants, and hence seed deposition, eliminated each year. The plants are primarily located along woodland trails, in a wet meadow and along a restored prairie edge, all of which have a history of mowing. It seems probable that the plant was introduced to this isolated site by mowing with a contaminated mower.
I have counted all plants as they are weeded. Over five years plant numbers have decreased from 8,000 in 2006 to 2,000 in 2010. As of August, 2010, juvenile plants were still visible in moderate abundance, primarily in the meadow. As these plants mature and are removed in the next year or two, I expect that abundance will continue to decline.
Long sleeves and gloves are required. Try to get the plants before the seed is viable. Dispose of the seed-bearing plants where there is no danger of seed germination. Based on my experience, I suspect that seed longevity estimates might be somewhat low. The youngest plants at this site originate from seed dropped no later than 2005. A parsnip predator reduces labor slightly and eliminates broken stems. Do not use it on anything other than parsnip, though, as the tool is not sturdy enough for larger plants. (Hugh Valiant, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
-Cutting root 1” below ground, being careful to avoid touching cut vegetation as it can cause severe blisters.
-Repeated mowing starting when the plant starts to flower. In some cases mowing can cause more harm than good; if mowing early in the year wild parsnip will re-sprout like a stump sucker on a tree sending out 2-3 plants (Wright SWCD).
-Glyphosate (2%) or 2,4D treatments to basal rosettes March to May or August to October.
-Effective herbicides include 2,4-D and Weed-B-Gone (until plants reach 8-inches), Curtail and Crossbow (with a surfactant), Round Up and Ranger (all effective from early spring until plants turn woody and produce viable seed) (Wright SWCD).
-Once the plant has gone to seed and is viable, cutting the tops of the plants with a scissors or clipper and bagging the seed, and burning will reduce the number of viable seeds (Wright SWCD).
Spotted Knapweed Control
-The following are considerations for managing spotted knapweed in a native prairie remnant. Herbicides with soil residual are undesirable as they impact non-target species. We are having good success in dry prairie with a combination of hand-pulling in targeted areas (typically small isolated populations), spot-spraying basal rosettes in late fall with glyphosate, prescribed burning to reduce vegetation cover (and then spray basal rosettes afterwards), and knapweed root weevils. Seedhead weevils help too, but root weevils are best. But it took about five years to see the impacts of biocontrol, so meanwhile we worked on the perimeter to slow the spread. Ultimately the biocontrol has done the most, but the other methods helped to control the knapweed until the bug population reached adequate numbers.(Karen Schik, Friends of the Mississippi River)
-The following information documents biocontrol efforts for spotted knapweed around Bemidji west to Bagley and north to Turtle River in 2006 and 2007. When the knapweed began moving in I was astounded at how quickly it became dominant. I thought it would take some time, but it took over completely within just a year or two, so something had to be done quickly. We even got inquiries from state legislators asking what we were going to do about it. So, I began releasing weevils here and there in the hopes that we could get control of the situation. I followed up with releases of seedhead weevils later at the same locations. I monitored the release sites every year after the fact, and hardly found any weevils (other than seedhead weevils which were everywhere), so I gave up thinking it was a complete failure. However, the amount of knapweed kept declining on Highway 2 until a few years ago I noticed it was almost totally gone. I thought that Mn/DOT had simply gone around town and sprayed it out. However, I received an email written by Monika Chandler (MDA) indicating that she was convinced that the weevils were responsible for the decline of knapweed on Highway 2 in the Bemidji area. If she is correct, then it has been a huge success. There is almost no knapweed in many places along Highway 2 and the population of knapweed is being reduced every year. We had several good years for the weevils to grow, so they should have done well in the locations where I put them, but I never found many at all. Maybe they had moved to other locations from where they were released? I tried to put them in very dense populations of knapweed so they wouldn't need to travel far, but maybe they dispersed farther than I was expecting. Regardless, it looks like this was a good success and it happened much quicker than I was expecting it to. Best hopes for biocontrol! (Lawrence Puchalski, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
-Pulling individual plants before flowers develop. Pull when soils are moist to avoid breaking roots.
-Application of Clopyralid or Aminopyralid herbicide on rosettes in the fall and early spring and mature plants in late spring early summer prior to flowering (Tony Cortilet, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-Information about biological control for spotted knapweed can be found on the MDA website at:http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/plants/badplants/knapweed.aspx (Tony Cortilet, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-Pulling individual plants before flowers develop. Pull when soils are moist to avoid breaking roots.
-Application of Clopyralid or Aminopyralid herbicide on rosettes in the fall and early spring and mature plants in late spring early summer prior to flowering (Tony Cortilet, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-Information about biological control for spotted knapweed can be found on the MDA website at: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/plants/badplants/knapweed.aspx (Tony Cortilet, Minnesota Department of Agriculture)
-Japanese barberry was my introduction to invasive species. The landowner I worked with was already in progress of a contract and had tried different chemicals with no success. However, the area was so thick that he could not safely get in to do any cutting and he could not successfully do a basal treatment. Most of it was being applied by spray and was not reaching where it was needed. Based on a recommendation from Dale Sutherland of CPS Timberland, he tried a mixture of 3% Garlon 4 ultra and liberate (also recommended for multi-flora rose). There was dieback progress from spraying this in May when there was full leaf. This landowner later had a chopper come in and mow this area down and then re-sprayed where cut. The seeds are viable for 10+years and will remain a management problem for some time. I mapped the area and found other sites that have also been invaded by Japanese barberry. Planning and landowner contact on this project continues.( Terri Peters, Wabasha SWCD)
Leafy Spurge Control
-The following are considerations for leafy spurge management in a native prairie remnant. Tordon is typically considered the most effective herbicide, but may not be desirable to use on a prairie remnant. We used Roundup for a very small patch of spurge. It seemed to kill the stand at first, but then it grew back around the perimeter of the treated area. Literature suggests monthly treatments of Roundup are needed. For large stands (in a prairie remnant), we've had best control from leafy spurge flea beetles (Aphthona nigriscutisa), but it took about 5 years. And of course the spurge is not eradicated.(Karen Shik, Friends of the Mississippi River)
-The situation at this site was that the clover was HUGE - maybe 3 feet tall - and had formed a nearly continuous canopy over all the other vegetation. It was the first growing season after seeding the previous fall. Prairie Restorations was doing the work and it was their suggestion to broadcast a 2% transline mix over the field. Black-eyed Susan was one of the few species visible along with the clover. The herbicide set them back, but didn't kill them and otherwise did not harm much else. This was partly because the clover had formed such a canopy over everything that it protected other species from the chemical. The method worked very well. At other sites with less robust clover I think it would have to be spot-treated.(Karen Shik, Friends of the Mississippi River)
Garlic Mustard Control
-Pulling in moist soils before flowers develop.
-Glyphosate herbicide application to foliage in spring before flowering. Or treatment in late fall or early spring after frost, when rosettes are active but other plants are dormant.
-The RWMWD entered a partnership with Dr. Sorensen, University of Minnesota, to study common carp in the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed. Past research has suggested that this fish species can substantially influence water quality, especially in shallow lakes. The main objectives of the research are to: 1) determine the abundance of carp; 2) evaluate the potential effects of carp on nutrient cycling; and 3) assess whether game-fish might be used to control carp. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) is partnering with the watershed to fund this work. For more information, please visit: www.rwmwd.org/carp (Bill Bartodziej, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District).