全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2014 

Shading as a Control Method for Invasive European Frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.)

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098488

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Invasive European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) has negative environmental and economic impacts in North American water bodies. It is therefore important to develop effective management tools to control this invasive species. This study investigated shading as a control method for European frogbit in both greenhouse and lake mesocosm experiments. A series of shade treatments (0%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 100%) were tested in the greenhouse for three weeks. Results showed that the 100% shade was most effective at controlling European frogbit, and other shade treatments greater than 50% were less effective, reducing frogbit biomass up to 38.2%. There were no differences found in temperature between treatments, but dissolved oxygen decreased as shading increased. A lake mesocosm experiment utilizing 0% shade, 70% shade, and 100% shade treatments was performed in a sheltered inlet of Oneida Lake in New York State for over one month. Resulting European frogbit biomass was significantly (25 times) less in areas treated with the 70% shade and nearly zero with the 100% shade. Shading did not affect temperature but improved DO conditions. Results on the shading effects on submerged macrophytes were not conclusive: no significant differences in changes in species richness and abundance between the three groups at the end of studied period suggested no shading effects; significant differences between the beginning and end communities in the 70% shade and the 100% shade but not in the control group indicated significant impacts of shading. This study is the first one to investigate shading as a control method for European frogbit and it is concluded that a moderately high density shade can effective remove European frogbit likely with minor impacts on the environment. More experiments with larger scales and longer time periods are recommended for further investigation.

References

[1]  Spence DHN (1982) The zonation of plants in freshwater lakes. Adv Ecol Res 12: 37–125. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2504(08)60077-x
[2]  Skubinna JP, Coon TG, Batterson TR (1995) Increased abundance and depth of submersed macrophytes in response to decreased turbidity in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. J Great Lakes Res 21: 476–488. doi: 10.1016/s0380-1330(95)71060-7
[3]  Schindler DE, Scheuerell MD (2002) Habitat coupling in lake ecosystems. Oikos 98: 177–189. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980201.x
[4]  Sand-Jensen K, Borum J (1991) Interactions among phytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries. Aquat Bot 41: 137–175. doi: 10.1016/0304-3770(91)90042-4
[5]  Hudon C, Lalonde S, Gagnon P (2000) Ranking the effects of site exposure, plant growth form, water depth, and transparency on aquatic plant biomass. Can J Fish Aquat Sci (Suppl 1):31–42.
[6]  Wade PM (1990) Physical control of aquatic weeds. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, editors. Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 93–135.
[7]  Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla K (2002) Impacts of zebra mussels on aquatic communities and their roles as ecosystem engineers. In: Leppakoski E, Ollasch S, Olenin S, editors. Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and management. Boston: Kluwer. pp. 433–446.
[8]  Zhu B, Fitzgerald DG, Mayer CM, Rudstam LG, Mills EL (2006) Alteration of ecosystem function by zebra mussels in Oneida Lake, NY: impacts on submerged macrophytes. Ecosystems 9: 1017–1028. doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0049-y
[9]  Zhu B, Fitzgerald DG, Hoskins SB, Rudstam LG, Mayer CM, et al. (2007) Quantification of historical changes of submerged aquatic vegetation cover in two bays of Lake Ontario with three complementary methods. J Great Lakes Res 33: 122–135. doi: 10.3394/0380-1330(2007)33[122:qohcos]2.0.co;2
[10]  Schooler SS (2008) Shade as a management tool for the invasive submerged macrophyte, Cabomba caroliniana. J Aquat Plant Manage 46: 168–171.
[11]  Dore WG (1968) Progress of the European frogbit in Canada. Can Field-Nat 82: 76–84.
[12]  Roberts ML, Stuckey RL, Mitchell RS (1981) Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (Hydrocharitaceae): new to the United States. Rhodora 83: 147–148.
[13]  Cook CDK, Lü?nd R (1982) A revision of the genus Hydrocharis (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquat Bot 14: 177–204. doi: 10.1016/0304-3770(82)90097-3
[14]  Catling PM, Miltrow G, Haber E, Posluszny U, Charlton WA (2003) The biology of Canadian weeds. 124. Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. Can J Plant Sci 83: 1001–1016. doi: 10.4141/p02-033
[15]  Zhu B, Eppers ME, Rudstam LG (2008) Predicting invasion of European frogbit in the Finger Lakes of New York. J Aquat Plant Manage 46: 186–189.
[16]  Catling PM, Spicer KW, Lefkovitch LP (1988) Effects of the floating Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (Hydrocharitaceae), on some North American aquatic macrophytes. Nat Can 115: 131–137.
[17]  Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52: 273–288. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002
[18]  Langdon S (2007) Eradication of European Frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) from the Grasse River in the Town of Clare, St. Lawrence County, New York. Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program 2007 Season Report. 23 p.
[19]  Holz W (1963) Chemical weed control in ditches; trials on the control of submerged plants. 5. Dtsch. Arbeitsbesprechung uber Fragen der Unkrautbiologie u. -bekampfung, Hohenheim, 4 p.
[20]  Renard C (1963) The use of diquat and paraquat to control aquatic plants. Compte rendu Conference du Comite Francais de Lutte contre les Mauvaises Herbes (COLUMA). 9 p.
[21]  Froemming E (1954) Problematic constituents in several marsh plants. Pharmazi 9: 766–769.
[22]  Vaananen VM, Nummi P (2003) Diet of sympatric dabbling ducks in eutrophic wetlands. Suomen Riista 49: 7–16.
[23]  Magomaev FM (1973) The daily diet of two- and three-year-old grass carp. Sbornik Nauchnykh Trudov, Vsesoyuznyi Nauchno-Issledovatel'skii Institut Prudovogo Rybnogo Khozyaistva 10: 192–196.
[24]  Minshall WH (1959) Effect of light on the extension growth of roots of frog-bit. Can J Bot 37: 1134–1136. doi: 10.1139/b59-090
[25]  Richards AJ, Blakemore J (1975) Factors affecting the germination of turions in Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. Watsonia. 10: 273–275.
[26]  Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Primer-E Ltd. Plymouth, UK.
[27]  Kuehl RO (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis. 2nd edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press. 666 p.
[28]  Madsen JD (1997) Methods for management of nonindigenous aquatic plants. In: Luken JO, Thieret JW, editors. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. Springer, NY. pp.145–171.
[29]  Miller JD, Haller WT, Glenn MS (1993) Turion production by dioecious hydrilla in North Florida. J Aquat Plant Manage 31: 101–105.
[30]  Chiariello NR, Gulmon SL (1991) Stress effects on plant reproduction. In: Winner WE, Pell EJ, Roy J, editors. Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses. New York: Academic Press. pp. 161–188.
[31]  Reed DC, Foster MS (1984) The effects of canopy shading on algal recruitment and growth in a giant kelp forest. Ecology 65: 937–948. doi: 10.2307/1938066
[32]  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2005) A Primer on Aquatic Plant Management in New York State. Division of Water. 63 p.
[33]  Panetta FD (2009) Weed eradication - an economic perspective. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2: 360–368. doi: 10.1614/ipsm-09-003.1

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133