TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONTROL OF ROOTED AQUATIC PLANTSOPTION7.c) Fungallbacterial/viralpathogens7.d) Selective plantingsMODE OF ACTION•1 noculum used to seed lake ortarget plant patch•Growth of pathogenpopulation expected toachieve control over targetspecies•Establishment of plantassemblage resistant toundesirable species•Plants introduced as seeds,cuttings or whole plantsADVANTAGESMay be highly species specific•May provide substantialcontrol after minimalinoculation effortCan restore native assemblage•Can encourage assemblagemost suitable to lake uses•Supplements targeted speciesremoval techniquesDISADVANTAGES• Largely experimental;effectiveness and longevity ofcontrol not well known• Infection ecology suggestsincomplete control likely• Possible side effects not wellunderstood• Largely experimental at thistime; few well documentedcases• Nuisance species may eventuallyoutcompete establishedassemblage• Introduced species may becomenuisancesD<strong>SEIS</strong> for <strong>Eagle</strong> <strong>Lake</strong>30ENSR
Benthic BarriersThe use of benthic barriers, or bottom covers, is predicated upon the principles that rooted plantsrequire light and can not grow through physical barriers. Applications of clay, silt, sand, andgravel have been used for many years, although plants often root in these covers eventually, andcurrent environmental regulations make it difficult to gain approval for such fill deposition. Anexception may exist in the reverse layering technique (KV A, 1991), in which sand is pumpedfrom underneath a muck or silt layer and deposited as a new layer on top of the muck or silt.This is technically a re-organizing of the sediments, not new filling. Although expensive on alarge scale and not applicable where the muck is not underlain by suitable materials, thistechnique restores the natural lake bottom of some previous time without sediment removal.Artificial sediment covering materials, including polyethylene, polypropylene, fiberglass, andnylon, have been developed over the last three decades. A variety of solid and porous forms havebeen used. Manufactured benthic barriers are negatively buoyant materials, usually in sheetform, which can be applied on top of plants to limit light, physically disrupt growth, and allowunfavorable chemical reactions to interfere with further development of plants (Perkins et aI.,1980).In theory, benthic barriers should be a highly effective plant control technique, at least on alocalized, area-selective scale. In practice, however, there have been many difficulties in thedeployment and maintenance of benthic barriers, limiting their utility in the broad range of fieldconditions. Benthic barriers can be effectively used in small areas such as dock spaces andswimming beaches to completely terminate plant growth. The creation of access lanes andstructural habitat diversity is also practical. Large areas are not often treated, however, becausethe cost of materials and application is high and maintenance can be problematic (Engel, 1984).Benthic barrier problems of prime concern include long-term integrity of the barrier, billowingcaused by trapped gases,. accumulation of sediment on top of barriers, and growth of plants onporous barriers. Additionally, benthic barriers are non-selective, killing all plants over whichthey are applied. Oxygen depression and related chemical changes under the barrier result inreductions in the density and diversity of the benthic invertebrate community, but recovery israpid once the barrier is removed (Ussery et aI., 1997). One final problem is the tendency ofproducts to come and go without much stability in the market. Few of the barrier materials onthe market at any time continue to be available for more than 5 to 10 years; most need to be madein bulk to keep costs down, yet cost remains high enough to hinder demand and reduce bulk use.D<strong>SEIS</strong> for <strong>Eagle</strong> <strong>Lake</strong> 31 ENSR
- Page 1 and 2: - -'- --:;:;;;-- -.-----.. ----- -
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEurasian watennilf
- Page 7 and 8: PROJECT SETTING AND BACKGROUND INFO
- Page 9 and 10: -....... E-~E-
- Page 11 and 12: The nuisance aquatic macrophyte .My
- Page 13 and 14: severity of the milfoil nuisance ar
- Page 15 and 16: Regional ImpactsWhen multiple lakes
- Page 17 and 18: Table 1. Eagle Lake Submersed Vascu
- Page 19 and 20: Sonar® is considered to have low t
- Page 21 and 22: leading to the recommendation that
- Page 23 and 24: However, if the treatment can be ap
- Page 25 and 26: Physical ControlsTABLE 3. MANAGEMEN
- Page 27 and 28: TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CON
- Page 29 and 30: TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CON
- Page 31 and 32: TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CON
- Page 33: TABLE 3. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CON
- Page 37 and 38: Benthic barriers have been used at
- Page 39 and 40: expected when light penetrates to t
- Page 41 and 42: undoubtedly applicable; this is a d
- Page 43 and 44: Key issues in choosing a harvester
- Page 45 and 46: Drawdo\vn has a long and largely su
- Page 47 and 48: Chemical ControlsThere are few aspe
- Page 49 and 50: and Getsinger, 1993) have revealed
- Page 51 and 52: A1ilfoil WeevilThe use of insects t
- Page 53 and 54: dissemination and growth with seedi
- Page 55 and 56: luegill (Leopomis macrochirus), and
- Page 57 and 58: eradicated from the system. The oth
- Page 59 and 60: depression is expected. Field tests
- Page 61 and 62: MONITORING PLANFluridone Monitoring
- Page 63 and 64: REFERENCESArnold, W.R. 1979. Flurid
- Page 65 and 66: Getsinger, K.D., GJ. Davis and M.M.
- Page 67 and 68: NaIl, L. and J. Schardt. 1980. Larg
- Page 69 and 70: Tanner, C., R. Wells and C. Mitchel
- Page 71 and 72: aterAT LAKE GEORGEBASELINE AQUATIC
- Page 73 and 74: SummaryEurasian watennilfoil (Myrio
- Page 75 and 76: Adirondack Mountains in the Hudson
- Page 77 and 78: Aquatic Plant PopulationsAquatic pl
- Page 79 and 80: Grid EnumerationThe pennanent grids
- Page 81 and 82: Diver Swimover SurveyDiver swimover
- Page 83 and 84: Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-cover
- Page 85 and 86:
APPENDIX I. Aquatic Plant Survey Da
- Page 87 and 88:
EAGLE LAKE SONAR DEMONSTRATION PROJ
- Page 89 and 90:
EAGLE L~KE SONAR DEMONSTRATION PROJ
Change language