Literature review: Impact of Chilean needle grass ... - Weeds Australia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Storrie and Lowien 2003). However under Victorian legislation governing pesticide use these permits did not legalise use: offlabel use, with certain provisions, not being illegal. Label registration for all Nassella species was finally achieved for a flupropanate product in 2004 (McLaren et al. 2005). Label recommendations were for application to actively growing plants, by boom or spot spraying, once per year, in urban open space, woodlands, roadsides, nature reserves and pastures. Other products with on-label uses soon followed. As of October 2007 the only other herbicide with specific label recommendatons for N. neesiana was glyphosate, registered only for spot spraying, although a number of minor use permits were in operation (Snell et al. 2007). Glyphosate Glyphosate prevents synthesis of essential aromatic amino acids. It is probably the world’s most widely used herbicide. It is a non-selective, systemic, water soluble herbicide, absorbed by foliage, rapidly translocated throughout the plant and non-residual, being inactivated on contact with soil (Tom.lin 1997). It has relatively rapid activity, kills all plants, and creates bare ground, so when there is a soil seed bank of N. neesiana the plant quickly re-establishes (Liebert 1996). Pritchard (2002) found it gave excellent initial control, preventing seed formation when applied at the boot stage, but that 10 months after application many tussocks showed new growth. Off-target damage from glyphosate can be high, but depends on the selectivity of the application method. There is no withholding period for livestock grazing or other agricultural activity although stock grazing should not be undertaken for 7 days after application (Snell et al. 2007).. Flupropanate Flupropanate (flupropanate-sodium, formerly called tetrapion) is an halogenated (fluorine) alkanoic acid which functions as an inhibitor of fat sysnthesis. It is a water soluble, systemic herbicide with low contact activity, taken up mainly by roots, and used only for control of perennial and annual grasses in pastures and uncultivated areas (Tomlin 1997). It is moderately selective and slow acting, with soil residual effects that kill emerging seedlings (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992, McLaren et al. 2005). Recommended rates for control of mature N. neesiana are 1.5-3 L ha -1 (Grech et al. 2009a). Effects on target plants may be noticeable after 3-5 months but it may take upt to 12 months for plants to die (Snell et al. 2007). Pritchard (2002) found only slight foliage death 15 weeks after treatment but recorded 92-95% kill of tussocks after 45 weeks. The residual effects are increased at higher application rates and their duration is dependent on rainfall, which leaches the herbicide from the soil (Michelmore 2003). Fluporanate activity and behaviour is dependent on soil type – higher rates are used on fertile basalt soils and in higher rainfall areas, lower rates on infertile soils derived from sedimentary and granitic rocks and in lower rainfall areas (Snell et al. 2007). Flupropanate provides some selectivity: Austrodanthonia, Austrostipa spp. and Microlaena are killed, especially at higher applications rates, while T. triandra, Bothriochloa macra and Poa labillardieri Steud. are generally tolerant at label rates. Phalaris aquatica L., Dactylis glomerata L. and Festuca arundinacea are affected but recover, while young Trifolium subterraneum L. are severely affected (Michelmore 2003). In Australia, a withholding period for grazing stock or cutting for stock food of 4 months minimum after blanket application is mandatory, and 14 days for spot application, along with some other restrictive provisions for production agriculture (McLaren et al. 2005). Flupropanate has been the preferred herbicide for spot spraying in agricultural areas and on land lacking significant native cover (Liebert 1996). An infestation in Geelong, originally with 80% cover, was reduced to 10% cover after spraying in 3 consecutive years and the broadleaf weeds that initially colonised were short-lived and some native grasses began to establish (Liebert 1996). Grech (2007a) found that set-stocking combined with flupropanate spraying resulted in more bare ground and an increase in infestations. Of the range of herbicide and stocking options examined, flupropanate combined with strategic grazing and pasture rehabilitation provided the best control. Grech et al. (2009b) found that low rate treatments with flupropanate (0.25 and 0.75 L Ha -1 ) we ineffective in controlling N. neesiana seedlings. Grech et al. (2009a) found that flupropanate at 2 L Ha -1 effectively controlled N. trichotoma in pot trials, but not N. neesiana, and that a range of native and exotic grasses was unaffected apart from a transient decline in growth. A major disadvantage of flupropanate is the creation of bare ground that persists for long periods (Snell et al. 2007). These areas may be prone to subsequent reinvasion. 2,2-DPA 2,2-DPA is an halogenated alkanoic acid which acts by precipitation of protein (Tomlin 1997). It is a systemic herbicide absorbed by leaves and roots, used mostly for control of annual and perennial grasses (Tomlin 1997). It is selective for some grasses at low rates, and at high rates provides non-selective control of monocots (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). It is generally considered to be less effective and useful than the two most favoured herbicides, and does considerably more damage to nontarget species than flupropanate (Michelmore 2003). Pritchard (2002) found it quickly killed foliage, but 45 weeks after application had only reduced the number of tussocks by 40%. Hartley (1994) found that 2,2-DPA reduced seed production by 90-99%, but detected resistance to 2,2-DPA in New Zealand after 2 years of annual or biannual application. Hexazinone Hexazinone is an inhibitor of photosynthesis and is a non-selective contact herbicide, absorbed by leaves and roots (Tomlin 1997), mainly the latter (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). It has a long residual life in soil (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992) and maintains bare ground for long periods, and is available commonly in granular preparations. Triazines Atrazine is a triazine chemical which acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. It is a water soluble, selective systemic herbicide, absorbed mainly through the roots but also through foliage, mainly used to control broadleaf weeds and annual grasses (Tomlin 1997). It is relatively rapid acting and has pronounced residual effects for 6 months or more after application (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). Simazine is another triazine compound that acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. It is mainly root-absorbed and provides selective pre-emergence control of grasses and broad-leaved weeds, with long residual control at high application rates (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). Pritchard (2002) found that both atrazine and simazine application at the boot stage resulted in 70
a small reduction in seedhead production but no other useful control. Atrazine was used against Nassella spp. by Philips and Hocking (1996) and Mason and Hocking (2002). Mason (2005) reported reductions from c. 20 to 7 plants m -2 two months after application of atrazine at an unstated rate. Other herbicides Paraquat dichloride (“Gramoxone”), a non-selective contact herbicide, has some activity against N. neesiana but is not as good as glyphosate in limiting seed production (Bedggood and Moerkerk 2002). Grass selective herbicides such as fluazifop-P are reportedly effective on N. neesiana seedlings but require excessively costly high application rates to control larger plants (Bedggood and Moerkerk 2002). Fluazifop-P is a relatively fast acting and selective systemic herbicide absorbed by foliage, is not residual and usually kills N. neesiana in 3-5 weeks (Snell et al. 2007). Slay (2001, 2002c) found in spray topping treatments that haloxyflop was superior to glyphosate in reducing seed production and subsequent seedling emergence but was more than ten times as costly. Mason (2005) reported that acetic acid (4% acetic acid vinegar) and surfactant solution applied at 0.5 L m -2 gave close to 100% control of above-ground N. neesiana two months after application and reduced plant density from c. 20 to 8.6 plants m -2 . Soil fumigants Hurrell et al. (1994) examined the efficacy of three soil fumigants to kill buried seed. They found that dazomet and methyl bromide were highly effective, killing 98% of viable seed, while metam-fluid was less effective (83% of viable seed killed). Cleistogenes and panicle seed appeared to be similarly susceptible. Soil treated with these fumigants can be resown within 7 days of application, in contrast to residual herbicides such as hexazinone that create bare ground for long periods. However soil fumigation is expensive, and may be hazardous and difficult. Small patches have been successfully treated with Dazomet (Slay 2002c). Wick wiping Hocking (2009) demonstrated that mechanised wick wiping using glyphosate prior to flowering achieved major reductions in density and cover of N. neesiana, but was less effective when the height differential between with other plants was small and when active N. neesiana growth was limited. Mature tussocks density was reduced by up to 95% when wiping was undertaken in two successive years. Wick wiping was viewed as a valuable approach to integrate with mowing to reduce roadside infestations to a density at which subsequent spot spraying could be cost-effective (Hocking 2007 2009), but the technique may have wider applicability. Grech et al. (2009c) examined the effects of wick wiping with glyphosate, flupropanate and a tank mix of the two herbicides in exotic pasture grassland and found that wiping was no more effective in achieving control than boom spraying, although it used less herbicide. The tank mix was ineffective, indicating antagonistic responses of the two herbicides. Agricultural areas Early recommendations for control in agricultural areas were for spraying of glyphosate to kill established plants, and of 2,2- DPA (dalapon) to control seedlings in pasture (Bourdôt and Ryde 1986 1987a 1987b, Bourdôt 1988) and to prevent flowering and reduce plant density (Hartley 1994). Duncan (1993) recommended glyphosate application in autumn and flupropanate in spring or autumn and noted that paraquat could be mixed with the flupropanate “to provide a quicker dessication and eliminate seed production”. Storrie and Lowien (2003) recommended a glyphosate/flupropanate mix for this latter purpose, but research by NSW Agriculture found that glyphosate reduces the effects of flupropanate and it is better not to mix them, except when a quick marker is required for the treated area. Bourdôt and Hurrell (1987a) found that hand-held wiper application of glyphosate in spring lead to higher rates of tussock survival (56% of plants with some surviving tillers) than boom spray application, which killed all plants (as assessed 9-18 months post-treatment), except when applied under drought conditions. 2,2-DPA was less effective, but suppressed the plant except when applied in winter. Other herbicides tested were ineffective. Wick wiper application was suggested but not experimentally examined. Storrie and Lowien (2003) reported that wiping with glyphosate between flowering and the milkydough stage of the grain prevented panicle seed set, but killed
Page 1 and 2:
Literature review: Impact of Chilea
Page 3 and 4:
Fire 49 Other disturbances 50 Shade
Page 5 and 6:
Conventions and standards Botanical
Page 7 and 8:
neesiana appears to be a habitat ge
Page 9 and 10:
population densities of existing sp
Page 11 and 12:
elated plants have similar defences
Page 13 and 14:
For invasion to occur there must be
Page 15 and 16:
As yet there appears to be no evide
Page 17 and 18:
experimental manipulation of specie
Page 19 and 20: species tend to be those which tran
Page 21 and 22: Taxonomy and nomenclature Stipeae N
Page 23 and 24: Vernacular names ‘Needlegrass’
Page 25 and 26: to Bouchenak-Khelladi et al. 2009).
Page 27 and 28: 1 m (Walsh 1994), ca. 90 cm (Verloo
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2. Anatomy of the seed of N.
Page 31 and 32: are the seeds larger/smaller, longe
Page 33 and 34: also based on a misunderstanding of
Page 35 and 36: Table 2. Modified Feekes Scale for
Page 37 and 38: Argentina, in the provinces of Chac
Page 39 and 40: Figure 3. Recorded distribution of
Page 41 and 42: 1994). Only 3 of 186 exotic grasses
Page 43 and 44: According to Morfe et al. (2003) th
Page 45 and 46: populations have been found in the
Page 47 and 48: (Honaine et al. 2006). The flechill
Page 49 and 50: In Australia the altitudinal range
Page 51 and 52: Proximity to urban development appe
Page 53 and 54: In the southern Brazilian campos of
Page 55 and 56: arundinacea (Gardener et al. 2005).
Page 57 and 58: al. 2008). Cues for masting may be
Page 59 and 60: Approximately 200 alien grass speci
Page 61 and 62: Dispersal of seed in contaminated s
Page 63 and 64: In New Zealand, Hurrell et al. (199
Page 65 and 66: No emergence was observed in undist
Page 67 and 68: and high impact (“ability to caus
Page 69: also noted that despite a wide rang
Page 73 and 74: Slashing and mowing Slashing can re
Page 75 and 76: Themeda re-establishment McDougall
Page 77 and 78: species (Lawton and Schroder 1977 p
Page 79 and 80: y increased importance of ant grani
Page 81 and 82: BIODIVERSITY “Biodiversity ... on
Page 83 and 84: According to Woods (1997 p. 61) “
Page 85 and 86: 2004, Richardson and van Wilgen 200
Page 87 and 88: negative depending on the particula
Page 89 and 90: Competition with native plants Comp
Page 91 and 92: asexual seed production, so local f
Page 93 and 94: GRASSLANDS Grasses: “... the most
Page 95 and 96: susceptible to N. neesiana invasion
Page 97 and 98: Floristic composition, vegetation s
Page 99 and 100: proportion of the flora then presen
Page 101 and 102: tussock space (Stuwe and Parsons 19
Page 103 and 104: Like vascular plant diversity, comm
Page 105 and 106: Opinions differ on the nature and i
Page 107 and 108: Species Common Name Family Aust ACT
Page 109 and 110: in shifting the distribution, exten
Page 111 and 112: of these systems is largely explain
Page 113 and 114: pasture. The least understood trans
Page 115 and 116: tend to benefit more from relaxed c
Page 117 and 118: Bovids crop their food between the
Page 119 and 120: are therefore less likely to distur
Page 121 and 122:
esult in a “short-term flush” o
Page 123 and 124:
Fire effects on weeds Moore (1993 p
Page 125 and 126:
Table 8. Typical nutrient levels in
Page 127 and 128:
grasses produced sigificantly more
Page 129 and 130:
Fossorial vertebrates are or were o
Page 131 and 132:
(Rosengren 1999). Approximately one
Page 133 and 134:
Table 12. Areal extent and conserva
Page 135 and 136:
Foreman (1997) investigated the eff
Page 137 and 138:
Willis (1964) considered that the f
Page 139 and 140:
Austrostipa-Enneapogon) from around
Page 141 and 142:
Woodlands and New England Grassy Wo
Page 143 and 144:
Thylogale billardierii), Peramelida
Page 145 and 146:
Its original habitat on the mainlan
Page 147 and 148:
Table 17. Endangered reptile specie
Page 149 and 150:
equirement, but unlike plants and v
Page 151 and 152:
e assigned the same biodiversity sc
Page 153 and 154:
Nematodes are mostly minute animals
Page 155 and 156:
found in all mainland states, O. co
Page 157 and 158:
Keyacris scurra, Melbourne (1993) o
Page 159 and 160:
was once widespread in south- easte
Page 161 and 162:
eing sluggish and wingless, and exi
Page 163 and 164:
estoration and, if Australia follow
Page 165 and 166:
close to the plant are able to bury
Page 167 and 168:
Species *Chirothrips mexicanus Craw
Page 169 and 170:
Table A2.1 (continued) Species Life
Page 171 and 172:
Table A2.1 (continued) Species *Het
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Nematodes of grasses and grasslands
Page 179 and 180:
REFERENCES Aceñolaza, F.G. (2004)
Page 181 and 182:
Benson, D. and McDougall, L. (2005)
Page 183 and 184:
Chan, C.W. (1980) Natural grassland
Page 185 and 186:
DNRE (Department of Natural Resourc
Page 187 and 188:
Fuhrer, B. (1993) A Field Companion
Page 189 and 190:
Groves, R.H. and Whalley, R.D.B. (2
Page 191 and 192:
Iaconis, L. (2004) Chilean needle g
Page 193 and 194:
Levine, J.M., Adler, P.B. and Yelen
Page 195 and 196:
McDougall, K.L. (1987) Sites of Bot
Page 197 and 198:
Morfe, T.A., McLaren, D.A. and Weis
Page 199 and 200:
Perelman, S.B., León, R.J.C. and O
Page 201 and 202:
Saunders, D.A. (1999) Biodiversity
Page 203 and 204:
Thellung, A. (1912) La flore advent
Page 205 and 206:
Weiss, J. and McLaren, D. (2002) Vi
show all

Literature review: Impact of Chilean needle grass ... - Weeds Australia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?