[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


         Ailstock, M. Stephen
                                          PREPARED FOR:

                                          MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
                                          NATURAL RESOURCES
                                          TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
                                          ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND




                                   TASK 22




               ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, TREATMENT
         METHODOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
         FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATEWIDE POLICY FOR
         THE CONTROL OF THE MARSH PLANT Phragmites


                         FINAL REPORT: DECEMBER 1991


 






















        PREPARED BY:

        M. STEPHEN AILSTOCK
        THEODORE W. SUMAN
        QK   D H. WILLIAMS
        495
       .G74  RONMENTAL CENTER
	  A35  ARUNDEL COMMUNITY COLLEGE
	 1991	 OLD, MARYLAND














      













                                               Acknowledgements






             This work was supported by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater
             Administration, Annapolis, Maryland through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone
             Management Act 1972, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
             Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Special thanks is extended to David F.
             Bleil, Aquatic Resources Specialist, Coastal Resources Division for his patience, technical
             contributions and project management.









                                                                           Table of Contents



                         I. Acknowledgements                ..................................................................................... Page I
                         IL Table of Contents            ........................................................................................ Page 2

                       III. Introduction         .................................................................................................. Page 3

                       IV. Experimental Objectives - Year Four                      ........................................................ Page3

                        V. Methods         ......................................................................................................... Page3

                            Method A           ...................................................................................................... Page3
                            Method B         ....................................................................................................... Page4
                            Method C         ....................................................................................................... Page4
                            Method D           ...................................................................................................... Page5

                       IV. Results       ........................................................................................................... Page6

                            Objective A-I         ................................................................................................. Page6
                                   Parameter 1         ........................................................................................... Page6
                                   Parameter 2         ........................................................................................... Page7
                                   Parameter 3        ........................................................  .................................. Page9
                                   Parameter 4         ........................................................................................... Page 10

                            Objective A-II         ................................................................................................ Page 11
                            Objective B        ..........; ......................................................................................... Page 13
                            Objective C        .........................................I .......................................................... Page 15
                            Objective D        .................................................................................................... Page 16

                      VII. Discussion          ..................................................................................................... Page 21

                     VIII. Appendix A            .................................................................................................. Page 24

                       IX. Appendix B          ................................................................................................... Page 31

                         X. References         ..................................................................................................... Page32









               INTRODUCTION

               In 1987 a four-year study was initiated by the Environmental Center of Anne Arundel
               Community College for the Mar@4and Department of Natural Resources Tidewater
               Administration to assess the environmental impacts, evaluate treatment methodologies,
               and devise management criteria for the control of Phragn3ites. The first year's study
               concentrated on evaluating the nature of Phraemites growth in Maryland and to establish
               belt transects in two nontidal wetland environments to evaluate chan          in diversity of
               Flants; and terrestrial invertebrates following an     ial application of e herbicide Rodeo
                 J@ "'                                             aen i
                   onsanto, St. Louis, MO). This study was expanded in 1989 to measure the expansion
               rates and changes in plant diversity occurring in Phragmites populations present in tidal
               wetlands. The methods employed and the experimental restflts of these studies were
               presented in the annual        rts; covering years one and two of the prplect (Ailstock et al.,
               1988,1989). In 1989 a         component was added the objective of which was to evaluate
               the factors which contribute to the establishment of PhrgMtes colonies. This report
               summarizes the findings of the entire study.


               EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVES - YEAR FOUR
               A. To continue post treatment inventories of plant and terrestrial invertebrate diversity in
                   previously treated nontidal wetlands study sites.
               B.  To establish inventories of plant diversity within untreated isolated colonies of
                   Phragpiites in a tidal wetland environment.
               C.  To measure the expansion rates of these isolated colonies of PhragMites at the tidal
                   wetland study sites.
               D.  To evaluate the factors which contribute to the establishment of Phragmites colonies.


               METHODS

               A. To continue post treatment inventories of plant and terrestrial invertebrate diversity
                   in previously treated nontidal wetlands study sites.
               Specific details of quadrat description, inventory techniques, Rodeo application rates, and
               treatment protocols are provided in the 1988, year one, summary report.
               In brief, all plants falling within the previously established juadrats at the two, nontidal
               wetlands study sites (designated " W.    and "W) were identified and counted in the late
               Summer or Fall of 1987,1988,1989,1990, and 1991. This information was used to calculate
               Simpson's Index of Species Diversity and to monitor changes in the vegetative community
               before and for four succeeding years after Phragmites control methods were effected.
               Two soil samples were taken near each quadrat in the previously established nontidal
               wetland sites 'W" and 'T" during October of 1987,       1988,1989,1990, and 1991. Samples
               were obtained with a coring device measuring 6 cm in diameter and 12 cm in hei@ht. The
               volume of each sample was approximately 340 cubic cm. Total volume sampled in each
               year was approximately 20 liters for the "V" site and 21 liters for the "W" site.
               Of the two samples, one was reserved for later seed bank determinations and the other was
               used to identif3i and enumerate the soil fauna. Organisms were extracted from samples
               using Tullgren funnels with 40 watt light bulbs operated continuously for four days.
               Extracted invertebrates were preserved in 95% alcohol and later identified using a
               stereomicroscope.
                                                                                                                   3







              B. To establish inventories of plant diversity within untreated isolated colonies of
                 Phra&Mites in a tidal wetland environment.
              Two well established Phragmites colonies were selected at the Green's Island/Fishing
                                   remefit Complex in Dorchester County, Maryland. These are
              Creek Wildlife Manag
              subsequently referenced as colony ""A"" and colony "B". Two belt transects, one oriented in
              an east-west and the other a north-south direction, were established through the
              approximate center of each colony.
              In colony A, the north-south (NS) transect consists of 24, linear (rectangular, 1 x 10 sides),
              1 M2 quadrats (24 M2 ) running a total length of approximately 75.84 m. The east-west (EW)
              transect in colony "A" contains 16 similar quadrats (16 rn@) with a total length of
              approximately 50.50 m.
              In colony B, the NS transect consists of 12 quadrats (as above - 12 rn@) running a total length
              of approximately 37.92 m. The east-west (EW) transect in colony "A" contains 15 similar
              quadrats with an approximate length of 47.40 m.
              All plants falling within the quadrats of each belt transect of colonies A and B were
              identified and counted durtg the grov@ing @;easqns.of 1989, 1990, and 1991. This
              information was used to Cal  aate species diversity indices for both sites.


              C. To measure the expansion rates of these isolated colonies of Phragmites at the tidal
                 wetland study sites.
              In Phragmites colonies expand peripherally by horizontal, typically subterranean, rhizome
                   th The upright, aeriil stems, which f6rm the obvious manifestation of the presence of
              grow] -
              the.plant, serve mainly for photosynthesis and seed formation. These aerial stems are
              denved from buds on7the rhizomi which are probably formed during a previous year's
              growth. At the end of each growing season all the aerial stems die and are replaced in the
              following year by the development of the pre-existing rhizome buds.
              It follows then that during a given season, two distinct but related growth activities are
              occurring simultaneously:
              1) the growth of aerial stems from buds of the previous year(s); and
              2) horizontal rhizome growth for peripheral expansion of the colony margin.
              Conseque@tly, it is   sible to estimate one year's expansion growth, alon& a given radius,
              by measuring the stance from the previous years outermost aerial stem, identified by the
              outermost dead aerial stem on that radius, and the current years outermost stem, identified
              by the outermost living stem on the same radius.
              Selected measurements were taken on the periphery of colonies "A" and "B" to determine
              the distances from the last, aerial, Phramnites growth of the pyevious year, identified by the
              outermost dead stem on a given radius-line, and the current limit of aerial vowth,
              identified by the outermost living stem on the same radius. The purpose of these
              measurements was to estimate the rate of colony expansion.
              Measurements were made along the four radii created by the two transects in each colony.
              Also, measurements were made along at least two additional radii selected between each of
              the four transect radii for each colony. Criteria for selection of the interpolated radii were
              the presence of clearly identifiable outermost living stems of the current year at subjectively
              estimated even spacing units between the transect radii. In the case of the transect radii,
              the closest living stem on the outermost periphery was chosen to establish the radius line
              for measurement.
                                                                                                          4







              D. To evaluate the factors which contribute to the establishment of Phragmites colonies.
              Contrary, to popular belief, Phraen-dtes is a native species. The misconception that
              Phragmites is a-lien :)robably m- es from the listing in Gray's Manual of 'Botany (Fernald,
              1970T, which gives &e distribution of Phragmites as: '@-Eurasia, and with its varieties,
              nearly cosmopolitan". This means that thimain (post ice age) center of distribution for the
              plant was Eurasia, but that it is now found nearly 91 over the world. It has been in North
              America since before the earliest human inhabitants. Berlandier, who died in 1855, is given
              credit for the discovery of the North American variety, which was named (var. Berlandieri)
              in his honor. Since Berlandier discovered the plant and brought it to the attention of the
              botanical world in his life time (1805-1855), it seems probable that it was not nearly as
              abundant then as it is now. It would otherwise have been discovered much earlier, given
              the ample botanical explorations of eastern North America in the eighteenth century.
              Accurate records verifying patterns of change in Phragmites )opulations in North America
              are unavailable. However, sufficient evidence from S6uth        ica (Weisser and Parsons,
              1981) and anecdotal verification from numerous senior wetlands managers supports the
              Foncept that rapid increases in Phragmites populations have and are occurring. These
              increases correlate well with increasin human manipulation of wetland ecosystems.
              Understanding how marsh m i ula on may ac erate e colonization o wet ands by
              Phragmites mav 1provide alterna. ves w        will r uce the cost of PhragMites control bDK
              Rodeo, limit the aq antities of herbicide needed to control PhragMites and provide insig    ts
              on Phra     tes control in areas for which herbicide treatments are unpractical.
              Transplant experiments and greenhouse studies have proven to be a valuable tool for
              developing predictive models of the way species may behave in natural environments. To
              evaluate the factors which contribute to the establishment of Phragmites colonies, the three
              naturally produced propagules Phraemites seeds, rooted shoots, and rhizome
              fragments, were cultivated in high and low marsh environments under three conditions
              normall              with wetland habitats. These are: 1) naturally vegetated areas; 2)
              areas w@errsee =atce vegetation has been burned as a part of normal marsh mana$ement
              programs; and 3) in bare soil which is a common result of many construction activities
              occurring in wetlands. In addition, similar propagules were cultivated in greenhouse flats.
              For traru;plant studies, two locations in the Green's Island Wildlife Management Area
              which differed in elevation, extant plant species, and soil hydration were selected. One,
              representing a high marsh environment, supported Panicurn virgraturn and Hibiscus
              valustris. as the dominant cover species. The other, representing a low marsh environment,
              was dominated by Spartina Ratens, Distichlis st)icata and Tuncus roemerianus. At each site,
              9,1 m 2 quadrats were established. Three were left naturally vegetated, and three were
              burned to remove above ground biomass. The remaining three quadrats were excavated to
              a depth which exposed the mineral soils.
              Ten rhizome fragments, each approximately 10 cm in length, each containing a si le,
              unexpanded bud, were dropped on the surface of one quadrat of each experiment
              condition at each location. Also, ten rooted shoots and 0.5 g of seeds were planted, each
              respectively, in one uadrat of each       rimental condition at each location. To eliminate
              predation and the U*uence of seaso=weather patterns, 9, 1 m2 quadrats were
              established in large planting flats (1 m X 1 m X 0.2 m) under greenhouse conditions. These
              flats were filled with commercial potting soil (ProMix). To replicate the burned and
              unburned marsh habitat, six flats were planted with a complete cover of a 1 to 1 mixture of
              K-31 (tall fescue) and annual rye six weeks prior to inoculation with PhragMites
              propagules. Three were left intact and three were burned prior, to planting. The remaining
              three flats, containing only potting soil, were used to simulate bare soil conditions.
              Survival and growth of these propagules were evaluated, bi-weekly for 12 weeks, for all
              treatments in all locations.


                                                                                                              5







              RESULTS

              EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVE A.- To continue post treatment inventories of plant and
              terrestrial invertebrate diversity in previously treated nontidal wetlands study sites.


              Objective A-1. Plant Data
              In our previous re    ts we established four critical parameters which chart the course of
              recovery for the   and V test sites at the Stemmers Run study area. These are: 1)
              Simpson's index of diversity; 2) total number of Phragmites stems; 3) the total number of
              individuals, including PhragMites; and 4) the total n6mber of species present.


              Parameter 1: SimRson's Diversity Index
              Table 1 shows the change in the Simpson's Diversity Index calculated for the pre-treatment
              and four post-treatmentflant communities of both test sites A graphic analysis of these
              data is shown in Figure .
                  [
                   Table 1. - Change in the Simpson!s Diversity Index for both sampling sites
                             (see text).


                   YEAR                               1987       1988      1989      1990      1991



                   W SITE       UNBURNED               152       3.48       5.01      8.52     6.91



                   V SITE       BURNED                 1.57      454        4.26      2.48     3.76



              Figure 1. Change in the Simpson's Diversity Index for both sampling sites (see text).


                S    9
                1    8
                M
                P    7
                S    6
                0
                N    5
                Is   4

                1    3
                N
                D    2         dr., .A
                E
                X
                  @abe
                       1 1"



                      AR



                   W  SrrE



                   V SITE


















                     01         4.              +            +
                   YEAR       1087             1988          1989          1990        1991          1992


                                         + - V Site (burned)      0   W Site (unburned)

                                                                                                           6








              The initial difference between these two curves in the first post-treatment year is probably
              due the presence of the thick layer of dead Phra   Res stems, or 'thatch, built up over
              years of growth and death cycles, which was le unburned in the W site but which was
              mostly burned off in the V site.
              At site W, the large quantities of persistent 'thatch', es ially in the drier areas of the site,
                                                                    peci
              create a shade effect which has, apparently, significantly retarded new growth. New
              species none-the-less continue to be recruited (see beloiO. The most abundant spe@ies at
              site W were initially only several hundred individuals strong. About half the species were
              represented by only a few individuals. Under these statistical circumstances, the Simpson's
              Iridex tends to be high, being limited practically by the number of different species which
              can be recruited.

              At site V, on the other hand, the relative lack of thatch (some isolated dumps of thatch
              were missed by the 1987 burning of site V due to small differences in elevation, and these
              areas remain relatively barren) has encouraged ra "d * Rial establishment and growth in
              some species which undoubtedly contributed to Niel h=igher initial diversity index at V site
              (burned).
              In the 1990 enumeration, one species, Panicurn verrucosum (warty anic grass), which was
              either first identified or newly recruited in 1990, had nearly 2000 insividuals which fell into
              established quadrats. The presence of a few relatively high numbers, in a set for calculation
              of the Stepson's Index, has a profound depressing effect on the index value. In the 1991
              census,     number of indivicruals of P. verrucosum increased only slightly (to nearly 2500)
              and so the depressing effect of this species did not continue. With the addition of some
              new  species and an overall evening bf the numbers, the Simpson's Index at V site has
              begun to rise appreciably.
              At W site, in 1991, Panicurn verrucos     as well asanother (unidentified) grass and two
              species of Polveonurn (smartweed), were present in quadrats in high numbers. The overall
              et    was to eatly lower the diversity *index. The     site (unburned) diversity index
              remains high      an that of the V site (burned), however, due to the more even balance of
              numbers.

              Table 2, which lists the total number of individuals for the nine most abundant species at
              the Stemmer's Run study site, as enumerated in the Fall of 1991, will give a better insight
              into the dynamics of diversity differences between the two sites.


              Parameter 2: Total PhragMites
              Table 3 shows the change in the total number of Phragmites calculated for the pre-
              treatment and four post-treatment plant communities of both test sites. Each number is
              ranked in terms of the abundance position of Phraemites among the species at the given
              site and time. When graphed, the total Phragmites data produce Figure 2, modified from
              our previous reports.
              The two curves are uite similar and may be statistically indistinguishable. The average,
              over time, of all the V site values is 328; that for the V site is approximately 348. If
              unchecked, PhragMites abundance will likely show steady increases in the future until pre-
              treatment numbers are reached.









                       Table 2. - The nine most abundant species at the Stemmer's Run study site in the
                                     fall of 1991 (see text).


                                  W Site (unburned)                                                          V Site (burned)

                                Simpson's Index = 6.91                                      Simpson's Index = 3.76

                       Species                               Number                        Species                               Number

                       	Panicum verrucosum                      1858                   	Panicum verrucosum                       2469

				Unidentified grass (1)			    1062				Polygonum sp.                             580
				
				Polygonum punctatum			     777				Phragmites australis				275                       

				Polygonum sagittatum			     766				Erechtites hieracifolia				189

				Phragmites australis			     331				Polygonum punctatum				169	

				Erechtites hieracifolia			     250				Scirpus cyperinus					158	

				Unidentified grass (2)			     236				Acer rubrum						154

				Impatiens capensis			     127				Rubus sp.						150

				Leerzia oryzoides 			     127				Setaria sp.						118											

                                                                  





                          Table 3. - Change in total Phragmites for both sampling sites. Each number is
                                        ranked in terms of the abundance postion of Phragmites among the
                                        species at the given site and time (see text).

                          YEAR                                             1987            1988       1989          1990           1991


                          W SITE              UNBURNED                      691		  114		 158		   381	      552		
												   (1st)		(2nd)		 (2nd)        (1st)		(5th)	
																		
                          V SITE              BURNED                        878             312          85           189           275
                                                                           (1st)            (1st)       (6th)         (2nd           (3rd)






                                                                                                                                                  8







                            Figure 2. Change in total P&agmites for both sites (see text).
                   T  goo
                   0
                   T  800
                   A  700
                   L  600
                   P  500
                   H  400
                   R
                   A  300
                   G  200
                   M
                   I  loo
                   T
                   E       01        4@                   +               +               +                +
                   S   YEAR         1087                1988              1989            1990           1991             1992

                                                  + - V Site (burned)           m - W Site (unburned)



                   Parameter 3: Total Number of Individuals

                   Table 4 shows the change in the total number of individuals of all species for the pre-
                   treatment and four Mt-treatment plant communities of both test sites. When graphed, the
                   total number of individuals data produce Figure 3, modified from our previous reports.
                    [
                       Table 4.. - Change in total number of individuals of all species for both
                                   sampling sites (see text).

                       YEAR                                       1987        1988        1989        1990         1991



                       W SITE          UNBURNED                   &58         506         777         1569         6624



                       V SITE          BURNED                     1109        1574        1991        2754         5025





                   The initial depression of the total number of individuals seen in the W site data is a result,
                   we believe, of the shading effect of the unburned Phragmites thatch. The two curves are
                   otherwise q   *te similar. The average of all W site valu@s, over time, is approximately 2067;
                               u'
                   that for Vsite is 2491. The percent difference between the two sites is nearly the same at
                   the beginnin,%lof the observationseriod ('87) and at the end ('91) except that the site with
                                                         u,
                   egeate,st a undance of indivi uals; is reversed. In 1987, V site had 29% more
                           u s
                           I


                      @abe 4. -
                           EAR



                       W   SITE



                       V SITE










                           d a falling within established quadrats than W site. In 1991, V site had 24% fewer
                   than W site. The most significant aspect of these data is that the number of individuals
                   falling within established quadrats has increased dramatically since 1987. For the W site
                   the increase is approximately sevenfold (6.72). The V site increase is approaching fourfold
                   (3-53).

                                                                                                                                 9







               Figure 3. Change in total number of individuals of all species for both sampling sites
               (see text).
               N 7000
               U
               M 6500                                                                 IP
               B 6000
               E
               R 5500
                 5000
               0
               F 4500
                 4000
               N 350(
               D 300C
               I 250C
               V
               1 200(
               D 150(
               U
               A 1000
               L
               S 500

                  YEAR       1987             1988         1989         1990         1991          1992

                                         + - V Site (burned)     0 - W Site (unburned)


               Parameter 4: Number of 5RggLes
               Table 5 shows the change in the number of species for the pre-treatment and three post-
               treatment plant communities of both test sites. When grap@ed, the total number of
               individuals. data produce Figure 4, modified from our previous reports.




                  Table 5. - Change in number of species for both sampling sites (see text).


                  YEAR                               1987      1988      1989     1990      1991



                  W SITE        UNBURNED              19        26        28       41        45



                  V SITE        BURNED                23        27       24        34        44
                 F
                     able 5. -
                 @YEAR



                                                                                                        10






          N    Figure 4. Changes in number of species for both sample sites (see text).
          U50
          M45
          B
          E40
          R35
          030
          F25
          S20
          P15
          E
          C10
          1  5                 +                +         +
          E YEAR   1087       1988     1989     1990    1991     1992
          S
                          + - V Site (burned) 0 - W Site (unburned)

          The two curves shown above are statisticall identical, and, if unchecked, will likely show
                                    u
          steady increases in the near future until sug time as Phraemites or some other species
          begins to dominate the communities to the point of species- exclusion. An increase in
          number of species, with a concomitant increase in diversity (parameter 1), may be generally
          interpreted as positive che.a natural environment, and is the probable pal of
          Phragmites control in nonti al wetlands (barring the need for near 100% replacement with
          a sinile, more desirable species).


          Objective A-H. Invertebrate Data
          Table 6 shows the changes in the Simpson's Index of Diversity for both sites over the five
          sampling efforts. The same data are graphically represented in Figure 5. Essentially, the
          diversity (at the ordinal level) increases ifter treatment and returns to the baseline figure at
          both sites. The changes are as likely to be the results of physical changes which accompany
          the reduction in biomass, as they are to be directly related to Phraemites presence or
          absence or the presence or absence of any other vegetation. There'is no indication that the
          Rodeo application itself has mi any way caused changes in the soil macroinveretebrates.
          This is supported by Figures 6 and 7, which illustrate the relative lack of any directional
          change in any of the major ordinal taxa which comprise the soil fauna.
           F
             Table 6. - Simpson!s Index for soil macroinvertebrates at both sampling sites
                   (see text).


             YEAR                   1987  1988   1989   1990   1991


             W SITE  UNBURNED       182   2.01   2.66    2.50  1.94
            Fabe 6-
             vV AU







             V SITE, BURNED         137   1.75   1.70    1.61  1.41












                Figure 5. -Simpson's Diversity Index for soil macroinvertebrates at both sampling sites
                      (see text).

                S
                1 3
                M
                P
                s 2
                0
                N
                'S


                I
                N 0          J_              +           J_          J_            +
                D YEAR      1987            1988        1989        1990         1991         1992
                E
                X                   + - V Site (burned)    0 - W Site (unburned)







                Figure 6. A graph of the changes in the total number of individuals of the five most
                       dominant t
                                 ,3Tes of soil macroinvertebrates sampled at the entire W
                       (unburned) site.
             T
             0  10000
             T
             A
             L  1000         M                           M                       _M
             I                                                                     S
             N    100
             D                f
             I
             V
             1    10
             D
             U
             A      0        J_              +           +                         +
             L    YEAR      1987            1988        1989        1990         1991         1992
             S
                                      Nfites = m-m            Springtails = s--s
                                      Ants  = a-a              Beetles    = b--b
                                                    Flies = f-f





                                                                                                   12







              Figure 7. A graph of the changes in the total number of individuals of the five most
                       dommant types of soil macroinvertebrates sampled at the entire V (burned)
                       site.

              T
              0 10000
              T
              A
              L  1000
              I                                                                      br S
              N
              D   100
              I
              V     10
              I
              D
              U
              A      0        +               +            +            +             +
              L   YEAR       1987            1988         1989         1990          1991         1992
              S
                              --       Mites = m-m               Springtails = s-s
                                       Ants   = a-a              Beetles      = b---b
                                                       Flies = f-f



              We continue to maintain that, in light of the poorly understood nature of the soil
              community, and within the ability that we have to identify the major (mainly ordinal)
              categ@ries of soil macroinvertebrates, there has been no significant effect on ihe soil
              organisms as a result of the treatment protocol and the changes in the community from
              year to year are entirely within the e)q5ected variation for such data.
              EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVE B: To establish inventories of plant diversity within
              untreated isolated colonies of PhragMites in a tidal wetland environment.
              The two untreated, isolated Phragmites colonies (A and B) at the Greens Island/Fishing
              Creek Wildlife Management Coifiplex in Dorchester County were inventoried in three
              successive growing seasons (1989,1990, and 1991). Table 7 compares the Simpson's Index
              of Diversity for the two colonies. Figure 8 gives the same data in graphic form.



                             Table 7. - Comparison of Simpson's Index of Diversity for
                                      Colony A and Colony B (see text).

                                         YEAR                  1989      1990     1991


                                       Colony A                2.66      2-50      1.94


                                       Colony B                1.70      1.61      1.41


                                                                                                       13









              Figure 8. Comparison of change in the Simpson's Index of Diversity for Colony A and
                        Colony B (see text).

                            S   3.5
                            1
                            M   3.0
                            P   2.5
                            S
                            0   2.0
                            N   1.5
                            is  1.0
                            1   0.5
                            N
                            D    01                                       +
                            E   YEAR       1ï¿½89             1990         1991         1992
                            X
                                     + - Colony A (dry)       m - Colony B (wet)




              The most significant features of these data are: 1) that Colony B exhibits consistently
              higher diversity than Colony A, and 2) the diversity in Colony B a ears to be increasing.
                                                                                  n
              Whether this is real or an artifact of repeated inventory (and henceppamiliarity with the site
              flora) can only be determined by future repeated observations.
              Unfortunately, Colony A was burned between the'90 and'91 inventories. The burning
              which reduces Phragmites competitive height advantage over other species may be
              responsible for the rise in diversity during this period.
              The abundance of the three dominant species in each of the two colonies is listed in
              Table 8 for the three observation periods.
              =
                    e e     n in numbers observed in 1990 was concomitant with exceptionally heavy
                    1 r sgeoSpring. Otherwise, whether the differences are indicative of trends in th@se
                   a fin
              colonies, or if the numbers will vary in some predictable way in the future, can only be
              determined with more inventories. At the moment we have no opinion about what may be
              causing the apparent fluctuation in numbers.
              Spartina and Distichlis numbers are vjxj difficult to ascertain with         L the Colony
                                                                                precision iri
              A site. They are often so numerous wi hin the quadrats that they would be uncountable
              without excavation and consequent destruction of the plants, which would not be desirable
              since it would greatly influence future numbers. In the 1989 count, estimates were made
              on the basis of destruction of nearby areas measured to quadrat size and apparently
              equivalent in plant density. In 1991, estimates for those quadrats which were in the too-
              numerous-to-count category were made by doubling the number of the highest individual
              count.

              The other numbers (Phrag!nites for Colony A and all numbers for Colony B) are deemed
              reliable.




                                                                                                         14











                               Table 8. - The abundan& of the dominant species in
                                          Colony A and B (see text).

                               YEAR                                 1989       1990       1991



                               Colony A (dry site)

                               Phragplites australis                  2683        1407      2219


                               Spartina patens                        29848       3300     32201


                               Distichlis sl2icata                    10172       6343      8990


                               Colony B (wet site)

                               PhragMites australis                   2221         823      1659


                               Juncus roernerianus                    1824         862      1424


                               Distichlis spicata                     3353         862      1225






                EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVE Q To measure the expansion rates of these isolated
                colonies of J!hragMites at the tidal wetland study sites.
                The two untreated, isolated Phragmites colonies (A and B) at the Green's Island/Fishing
                Creek Wildlife Manageme:@t Com-p!ex in Dorchester County were measured for radial
                expansion in three successive growing seasons (1989,1990, and 1991).
                Average radial expansion in both colonies was greater in 1991 than 1990 and greater in
                1990 than in 1989. Table 9 shows the changes in radial expansion over the three successive
                observations.








                                                                                                                  15








                         Table 9. - Changes in the average radial expansion of Colony A and
                                    B (see text).

                                            Number of                       Average Increase
                         Colony             Measurements                      in Radius W


                                                               Year:      1989     1990     1991


                         Colony A (dry)            15                     0.604     0.704   2.037

                         Colony B (wet)            12                     0.525     0.792    1.050



               Average colony expansion in diameter was just slightly more than 1 m in 1989, while it was
               nearly 1.5 m in 1990. In 1991 this figure doubled to over 3 m.
               To better appreciate the meaning of this expansion in terms of area, the approximate areas
               of the two colonies were estimated by taking the two initial belt transects to be
               representative diameters of each of the two colonies which, for the purposes of calculation
               and estimation, were assumed to be circular. An area was then cal@ulated and compared to
               @he yearl increases for each colony. Results indicate that during the three years, Colony A
               increase in area by a total of approximately 680 square meters, an approximate 22%
               increase. Colony B increased a total of approximately 318 square meters which represents a
               23% increase.


               EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTIVE D: To evaluate the factors which contribute to the
               establishment of Phragmites colonies.


               Phragmites australis can be propagated in nature by three structures: seeds, rooted shoots,
               and rhizome fragments. Survivorship of these structures varies according to the
               environmental conditions in which they are placed.

               Plants were established from seed and survived for twelve weeks on bare soil in the
               greenhouse and in a high marsh (Table 10). The dramatic difference in survivorship is a
               result of competition. When seeds were placed in greenhouse soils where plant cover had
               been reduced by burning, seeds sprouted within 1 week, however, by the 6th week no
               seedlings remained. This decline corresponded to the regrowth from the burned
               vegetation which smothered the young seedlings. This observation also provides an
               explanation for the failure to establish seeds in the vegetated and burned sites in the high
               and low marshes. No explanation is readily apparent for the failure of seeds to become
               established in the bare areas of the low marsh.


               Small rooted shoots were also successfully established in bare soil in the greenhouse and
               the high marsh. Competition was again a factor in survival as can be seen from the data
               presented in Table 11. It is important to note that while establishment under natural

                                                                                                             16







              conditions may be lowthe survival of a single shoot is sufficient to establish a new colony.
              Once the colony is established, expansion may occur at rates measured in the previous
              section.


              Plants with rhizomes are frequently propagated using fragments of the rhizome. The data
              in Table 12 suggests establishment of Phragmites by rhizome fragments is less efficient
              than establishment by seeds or rooted shoots when placed on the surface of bare, burned,
              or vegetates soils. Under these conditions the small rhizome fragments are prone to
              desiccation especially when they are exposed to high temperatures and low soil moisture
              content. These conditions are characteristics of the summer months when this study was
              conducted. To better assess the survivorship of rhizome fragments, 10 rhizome fragments
              were buried 1/2 inch deep in both bare greenhouse soils and three treatment conditions in
              the high and low marsh study sites. In the greenhouse, survival was 100% and in 12 weeks
              the number of plants had more than doubled. In the field studies, plants became
              established in the bare soil of the low marsh and under all treatment conditions of the high
              marsh. Thus, a way for plant establishment of PhragMites by rhizome fragments is burial
              of the rhizomes. This "planting" of rhizomes is likely to occur during many types of
              construction activities.








































                                                                                                         17







                            Table 10. - Seed establishment and survival in high marsh, low marsh and
                                             greenhouse soils which were bare, vegetated, or treated to
                                             remove standing biomass by burning (see text).

                            Bare Soil                            Number of seeds established and surviving.

                            WeekNumber                         2           4             6           8                     10       12

                                                                                                       ..........          .......
                                                                 ...........                           ..........

                                                                 ............ ...                                                   ..........
                                                                           ........  ....
                                                               .............                                                        . . ...........
                            Low Marsh                            ..................
                                                                                                                           .......  . ...........

                                                      .. .. .. .... .      ... ....                              ........
                            High Marsh                         0           0             0           0                     1        3


                                                                                                                           ............
                                                                                         ...+
                            Greenhouse
                                                          ....... .            ........  ......




                            Vegetated                            Number of seeds established and surviving.

                            Week Number                        2           4             6           8                     10       12

                                                                                                               .....       .. ...... .......

                                                                                                                                    . ..........
                                                                                                                           ...........
                            Low Marsh

                                                                                         ..........
                            High Marsh                         0           0             0           0                     0        0

                                                                                                                           ... ............. ........
                            Greenhouse
                                                               .....       .. ...
                                                                                                                                    ...........



                            Burned                               Number of seeds established and surviving.

                            Week Number                        2           4             6           8                     10       12

                                                                           . .....                                          ....

                                                                 .................
                                                               . ......................
                                                               .....................
                                                                                                       ............
                                                               ......................
                            Low Marsh                          .....................
                                                               .......... ...........  ......
                                                               ................ ... :-:
                                                               . ......................
                                                               ..................... .
                                                                               .......           .......... ..
                                                         .....................................
                                                               . ......................... ...............
                                                               Y..............- .............. ................................... ....... ....
                            High Marsh                         0           0             0           0                     0        0


                                                                                   ......................... ........... ..
                            Greenhouse
                                                      ........... ..
                                                                                                                           ..........
                                                                                         . ..........  ......
                                                                                                         .............
                                                                                                                                    .........




                            Survival after 12 weeks.


                            Seeds                              Low Marsh                 High Marsh                        Greenhouse

                                                                                                                . . . . . .. . .... . ... .....
                                                                                                                           . . . ...... .-
                                                                                ...                            . . .....
                            Bare Soil
                                                                                         ........                          ...
                                                                                               1. .. ....  ...... .. .... I
                                                       MEW                                      . ... I... I   I . ....
                                                                    ...... ...... .            I .... I   ..... ... .
                                                                           ..... .             11 . 11 .... I ..... . . . ....
                                                                                               .............................-.. ..... ..... . ...
                            Vegetated Soil                          0                          0                           0

                                                                                                       . ............
                                                                               .......... ..
                                                                                 ... ...........................           .......... ..........I........
                                                                           ............. ............................... .... ...
                                                                           ........... .. .. .................... ..A
                                                                                     ....................      ......       ...
                                                                           ............ .........................          ............. ...... ..................
                            Burned Soil                                    .............
                                                                           ...... ......   ......... ....
                                                                                                                 - .. :    :. X..
                                                                                      ....................     . .. . .
                                                                           ........ ... ........................  ......
                                                                                   ........................
                                                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . ..........
                                                                                   ....................                             .................


                                   +    Estimtes of abundance. Individual counts would have destroyed the seedlings.                              18








                                Table 11. - Rooted shoot establishment and survival in high marsh, low
                                                 marsh and green house soils which were bare, vegetated, or
                                                 treated to remove standing biomass by burning (see text).

                                Bare Soil                             Number of shoots established and surviving.

                                Week Number                       2                4             6                8          10              12

                                                                                                                  . .......  .......... .....................


                                                                                                                  ...............
                                Low Marsh
                                                                                                                  ... ...... .... . .
                                                                                                                    ............................... .....
                                Fligh Marsh                       0                0             0                0          1               3

                                                                                       ......................... ..............
                                                                                       . .. . .............. ......
                                                                                       ... .     ..... . ..... . .......                         ....-
                                                                          ..........
                                                                                                 .. ..                                       .62
                                                                                         ...... .. . ...          ..
                                                                                         ....... . . . ... . .
                                                                                                   . . .......                                 ......
                                Greenhouse                                   ... I ............  4... I I. I .....
                                                                        . ....... ...
                                                            ................ . ..........
                                                                        . ..........




                                Vegetated                              Number of shoots established and surviving.

                                Week Number                       2                4             6                8          10              12


                                                                                   ......... ...........
                                                                                                                                    ................ W.
                                                                                                                             0'
                                                              ..........                                                                         ......
                                                                                                      .................. ...........
                                Low Marsh
                                                                                                      ............
                                                                  .... ..... ...                   . ..........   .........I............
                                High Marsh                        0                1             1                0          0               0

                                                                                         .............
                                                                                                                                         ..........

                                                                                                                                    ........... I....
                                                                                        ....                                    ......
                                Greenhouse                                                                        ...... . .....................
                                                                                                                                     ......................
                                                                             .. . . . ..
                                                                                   9. . .... ....... -                             ....................................
                                                                                                                  ............... ..  ....... .........................
                                                                                                                  ................... ........ .......



                                Burned                                 Number of shoots established and surviving.

                                Week Number                       2                4             6                8          10              12


                                Low Marsh
                                                                       ....................... .
                                                                                                                           ... ............
                                                                                                                                    ..........
                                High Marsh                        0                0             0                0          0               0

                                                                                   ......... ..         ........ .....

                                                                                     ......................  .....
                                                                                                                                             43- .....
                                Greenhouse
                                                                                          ..........              ... ...
                                                                                         .............  ......
                                                                                                                                  .............. ... .... ......
                                                                                                                  ........ .... .... ............ .
                                                                                                                             ................ .................
                                                                                                                  .................




                                Survival after 12 weeks.


                                Rooted Shoots                     Low Marsh                      High Marsh                  Greenhouse

                                                                                                      .........................................
                                                                                                                                             ...........I
                                Bare Soil
                                                             ...............
                                                             ................
                             F
                                 able    11*





                                   I
                             FBae
                                   r Soil


                                WeekNii





























































                                                             ... . . . ......
                                Vegetated Soil                           0                             0                             0

                                                             ..............   ......                                                             ......
                                                                      . ........
                                Burned Soil                             .. .. ........
                                                            ....... ..... I
                                                                                           .. .........
                                                                                                                                                              19








                                                                                            Table 12. - Rhizome establishment and survival in high marsh, low marsh
                                                                                                                                                  and greenhouse soils which were bare, vegetated or treated to
                                                                                                                                                  remove standing biomass by burning (see text).

                                                                                            Bare Soil                                                                                                               Number of rhizomes established and surviving.

                                                                                            Week Number                                                                                              2                                          4                                                     6                                               8                                         10                                12

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ...... .... ..................                                         .......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ................                     i.. . .................... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ......................................... ...                -I....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   . ... ...                    .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .......... ..                      . .. ...
                                                                                                                                                                                  :X X.                                                                                                                                                               .. .............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0                                                                                          ........
                                                                                            Low Marsh

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .............               .... .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..........
                                                                                            High Marsh                                                                                               0                                          0                                                     0                                               0                                         0                                   0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ............ ... .......... ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ................            . ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .....                                           ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .....................               ........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ....                                                                              . . .........

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .............
                                                                                            Greenhouse                                                                           :; **'* , "                                                                                                          0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .... ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .................... ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .....          i.........    ...........    .........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . ...............................                                                .... ...... .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .. .......... ........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .......................          .......



                                                                                            Vegetated                                                                                                               Number of rhizomes established and surviving.

                                                                                            Week Number                                                                                              2                                          4                                                     6                                               8                                         10                                12

                                                                                                                                                                                                     ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ...................         ........      -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .......................................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .....................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ... .........                ...........
                                                                                            Low Marsh                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ............                .........     a"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .......................
                                                                                                                                                                                                     . . ................                                                                                                  ..........                 .........................                 .........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ...................... .              ...     *..........                                                                                                                                                     . . ............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . .......               . .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . .... .. .                                   ....... .
                                                                                                                                                                                     .........                      ........................... :-.:@ .........................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ....                                                                                                                                                          ...............              .......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      :::::::                                         .............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . ..... . .. .                                                                    .........           .........................
                                                                                            Fligh Marsh                                                                                              0                                          0                                                     0                                               0                                         0                                   0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ...............................

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..........
                                                                                            Greenhouse
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  X       . . . . . . . . . . . . .   X            . . .. . .. . . . . . ..                        . . . . ..     . . . .       . . . .



                                                                                            Burned                                                                                                                  Number of rhizomes established and surviving.

                                                                                            Week Number                                                                                              2                                          4                                                     6                                               8                                         10                                12


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ... . . . . . . ...
                                                                                            Low                     Marsh
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . . . . . . .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               X                      X            ............ .:. .....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ...........            ..........   ......         - .... .............
                                                                                            High Marsh                                                                                               0                                          0                                                     0                                               0                                         0                                   0


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..........                                                                   ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ...........
                                                                                            Greenhouse                                                                                                                                                                                                ...                                             ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     ...............





                                                                                            Survival after 12 weeks.


                                                                                            Rhizome                                                                                                  Low Marsh                                                                                        High Marsh                                                                                Greenhouse

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  X.: X
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . . .......                             . ........
                                                                                            Bare Soil
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .. . . . . . . . .                                                                  . ....... . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . .


                                                                                            Vegetated Soil                                                                                                               0                                                                                         0                                                                                           2

                                                                                                                                                                                            . . . . . . . . . .......                                                                                 . .. . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . .                                                 . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ...................
                                                                                            Burned
                                                                                                                                Soil                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ... .                                     .........

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        20









               DISCUSSION


               There are two significant aspects to the managment of Phrggmites in wetland habitats: A)
               The control of existing populations and; B) The development of strategies which reduce
               the spread of Phragplites

               A. The control of existing Phramites populations

               A major component of the management of Phragmites; in wetland habitats is the decision to
               control existing populations. Since Phragmites provides many of the same environmental
               benefits associated with most other wetland vegetation, i.e., soil stabilization, nutrient
               removal and cover, the decision for control is dependent upon two factors. These are: 1)
               The existence of an effective control protocol and 2) the likelihood that the treated area will
               be rapidly colonized by desirable vegetation.

               1) Control Protocol

               The only practical method of controlling Phragmites involves the use of the herbicide
               Rodeo. Non-herbiddal control methods which have been evaluated include excavation,
               flooding, repeat harvesting, and the use of black plastic mulches. These methods of control
               are either ineffective or alter the hydrologic features of the site to a degree which precludes
               the reestablishment of a habitat similar to the one displaced by PhragMites colonization
               (See Appendix A).

               Several techniques can be used to apply Rodeo to Phragplites. The selection of a particular
               application technique is dependent upon the size, location, and density of the colony, land
               use features (which may preclude some application options), and the need to restrict
               herbicide application solely to the target species.

               For treatment of large populations occurring in areas where the selection of application
               technique is unrestricted, aerial application of the herbicide such as that used in this study
               at the Stemmer's Run sites provides an excellent cost effective control procedure. Initial
               reductions in PhragMites numbers are high and re-vegetation by other species is rapid.
               Burning PhragMites following treatment encourages recruitment with little apparent affect
               on wetland function during the initial transition from a wetland donimated by Phraginites.

               Burning does affect cover by reducing the density of above ground biomass, however, this
               loss of cover occurs at a time when cover of the type provided by Phragplites is least
               important to wildlife. In contrast, feeding opportunities which are minimal in standing
               Phragmites populations are improved by burning, which provides greater surface feeding
               opportunities for birds and small mammals.

               A second method of treating large populations is land application by a vehicle capable of
               accessing wetland environments. Excellent results have been achieved when the herbicide
               was applied to a 30 acre site using bombadeer tractor with a 6 psi footprint and a radiarc
               sprayer. (See Appendix B). Initial site control with this procedure was very high; however,

                                                                                                                21








               control was restricted to areas outside of the vehicle's footprint. The poor control in the
               track lines observed was a result of 2 factors: 1) reduced herbicide contact (spray is directed
               from the rear of the tractor to reduce driver exposure in this system); and 2) the breakage of
               rhizomes which prevents translocation. of the herbicide from the foliage to the perennating
               buds (Stout, 1992). A following treatment in the second year using the same application
               system but new track lines yielded virtually total control.

               Hand held application equipment provides excellent control for small populations. The
               two types of applicators suitable for this purpose are backpack sprayers and wick
               applicators. The former is best suited for general application to pure Phragmites
               populations, the latter to treat isolated stems invading areas previously uncolonized. These
               applications may also be used for spot treatment of problem areas following initial large
               scale herbicide applications.

               Regardless of the technique used for applying the herbicide, satisfactory long term control
               is not achieved by a single application. This is evident by the initial reduction and
               subsequent increase in Phragmites observed at both Sternmers Run sites following a single
               aerial treatment. At other comparable sites, a three year program, which included 2
               successive whole site treatments followed by spot treatment in the 3rd year, provided total
               control of existing PhragMites. This series of treatments is recommended for all control
               programs.

               2) Site Revegetation

               The second primary factor which influences management decisions in the control of
               existing Phragmites, populations is the rate at which the treated Phragmites colony will be
               recolonized by desirable vegetation. An initial concern was that wetlands function would
               be reduced during the transition phase. The rapid recolonization by diverse species at the
               Stemmer's Run sites suggests that the soil seed bank is sufficient to mitegate any effect of
               control procedures. Little effect on soil n-dcroinvertabrates was observed during the four
               year study, probably because of the rapid regrowth of other wetland plant species. A
               different situation exists when Phragmites appears in high energy environments along
               shorelines. Under these conditions recruitment, usually by a combination of Spartina
               alterniflora and S. patens, is slow and thus the treated area is subject to erosion. A
               satisfactory method of avoiding this problem is to couple herbicidal control with plantings
               of Spartina after the first herbicide application. This technique works especially well if
               PhragMites stems can be removed to increase sunlight exposure to the plantings (Ailstock,
               Personal Observations). Care must be taken in the 2 subsequent herbicide treatments to
               avoid pesticide contact with the planted Spartina This can be achieved by the use of wick
               applicators or by a carefully directed spray from backpack applicators operated at lower
               pressure.

               B. The development of strategies which reduce the spread of Phragmites

               A second important aspect of PhragMites management is the development of strategies
               which reduce the spread of PhragMites. PhragMites can be established by three
               reproductive structures; rooted shoots, rhizome fragments, and seeds. These structures can
               be dispersed by both artificial and natural vectors.                                             22








                Rooted shoots, rhizome fragments, and seeds may be present in soils excavated from areas
                supporting Phragmites populations. These soils, which are common at many state highway
                construction areas, are a source of preplanted Phragmites when they are removed off site.
                Measures must be taken to treat these spoil materials subsequent to removal either by
                herbicide treatment or composting (Ailstock, 1990). Soils containing Phragmites
                propagules; may also be transported in the tracks of construction machinery. In one count,
                60 rhizomes fragments were observed in the treads of a bulldozer used to excavate soil
                from a PhragMites colony at Kent Island, Maryland. It is thus advisable to clean machinery
                prior to moving equipment to new construction sites capable of supporting Phragmites.

                Propagules, may also be dispersed by natural means. Wind dispersal of seeds can be
                readily observed on windy days in the late fall and winter. The small tufted seeds may also
                adhere to animals and waterfowl. It is likely that Phragmites appearing in isolated
                marginal habitats along migratory routes are distributed in this manner. Long distance
                spread of rooted shoots and rhizome fragments by animals is unlikely, however short
                distance transport is possible. Long distance 'transport by water of shoots and rhizome
                fragments has been frequently observed in areas where PhragMites occurs along erodible
                shorelines in fresh to brackish water (Ailstock, Personal Observation). Plant parts break by
                the erosive forces and are distributed by currents. No comparable information is available
                on the water transport of seeds.

                Little can be done to reduce the spread of PhragMites by natural vectors other than
                reducing the number and size of existing populations. However, artificial transport can be
                addressed. It is recommended that provisions be made to reduce dispersal during
                construction activities by imposing some minimal requirements. For state projects
                occurring in wetlands supporting Phragmites, procedures for treating spoil materials and
                machinery should be incorporated as a part of the planning process. In preliminary
                discussions, the State Highway Administration has been receptive to such a requirement
                and has expressed interest in developing a punch sheet for activities to address PhragMites
                issues on construction projects. The development of such a list is made difficult by the
                great variation encountered in the federal, state, and county regulations governing
                wetlands.


                The regulations governing activities in Phragp]ites dominated wetlands is unclear. It is
                essential that these regulations be clarified for all levels of government. For example, the
                conversion of a Phragmites dominated wetland to a more diverse wetland has been
                accepted as a mitigation for wetlands destruction at the federal level. This acceptance is
                contrary to a policy which emphasizes no net loss of wetlands and sets a dangerous
                precedent for future mitigation requirements. At the state level the role of the nontidal
                wetlands program is unclear. This group specifically regulates the destruction of vegetation
                in nontidal wetlands occurring outside of the critical areas, yet they have not required
                permits for PhragMites control in some instances. The appearance of Phragmites in both
                The National List of Plant Spgdes That Occur in Wetlands and Vascular Plant Species
                Occurring in Mgi7land Wetlands would seem to require a review of Phragmitei control
                projectT-6y the No- ntidal Wetlands Program. County regulations are even more variable.
                A strong recommendation is made for Tidewater Administration to resolve these issues by
                establishing a coordinated policy among the various regulatory agencies involved in
                Phragmites management issues.                                                                  23







               Appendix A
                     REGULATION, METHODS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE
                      CONTROL OF PHRAGMITESAUSTRALIS IN MARYLAND NONTIDAL
                                                       WETLANDS.'

                                                   M. Stephen Ailstock2

                                                        ABSTRACT

                      Phraernites australis common reed, is classified in the National List of Plant 5-12ecies
               that Occur in Wetlands as a facultative, wetland perennial, emergent grass. This
               designation and Phragmites frequent appearance in Maryland wetlands makes control
               projects subject to review by numerous local, state and federal regulatory agencies. In an
               effort to accommodate the concerns of these groups, several methods for contro      .n
               Phragmites have been examined. These methods include excavation, flooding, a
               plastic, repeat harvesting and herbicides, Herbicides provide the best control of hragmites
               populations and cause minimal alteration of the wetland habitat. None of the co trol-
               techniques are completely effective as a single treatment and some are restricted by
               constraints of property ownership and topogra                *fi applications. Thus,
                                                               'p@y to sped c
               Phraunites control in wetlands requires a carenil assessment of site conditions and the
               development of comprehensive management plans which must conform to existing
               regulations governing activities occurring in these habitats.

                                                        Introduction

                      Phragmites australis (common reed) is a large 1.5-4.0 m, coarse perennial    grass
               commonly foun in brackish and freshwater wetlands (Brown and Brown, 1984;-Fernald,
               1970). Phragmites;      s profusely and spreads vegetatively by a vigorous system of
               rhizorneg an- d stnl s- Once established, the plant forms dense stands which may invade
               adjacent areas, thereby crowding out more &sirable wetland species (Galinato and van der
               Valk, 1986; Szczepanska and Szczepanski, 1982; Weisser and Ward, 1982; Woodhouse and
               Knutson, 1982).

                                              roductive potential, ra i i growth rate, and preference for
                      The large size, high rep,                        1C
                wetland habitats by Phragnmtes are the underlying    gasis for the.differences of opinions
                held by many biologists and resource managers with respect to its ecological value,
                F
                 otential usefulness for environmental enhancement, and the need for control programs
                %derson and Ohmart, 1985; Kruczynski, 1983; Bibby, 1982; Eleuterius, 1974). Phragmites
                reduces natural plant diversity and it is not considered to be an important wildlife f&d or
                cover plant. However, Phragmites, can be an important soil stabilizer and may have an
                application as a nutrient sink for treating both surface and wastewater (Brix, 1987;
                Giirsberg et al., 1986; Kamio, 1985; Bonham, 1983). These positive attributes have led to
                several efforts for developing prop
                                                   ,:agation and field establishment protocols (Stout, 1977;
                Eleuterius, 1974). Unfortunately,    cause PhragMites; produces an abundance of
               propagules which can be dispersed by wind, water, animal vectors and machinery,
               programs for control and use are largely incompatible.
                      In the summer of 1987, aerial and ground reconnaissance of areas identified by the
               Maryland Department of Natural Resources as Phragmites problem sites were conducted
               to better evaluate the nature of Phragmites, growth in the state's n ntidal wetlands. A
               number of observations were made relevant to the establishment of an interim statewide
                                                                                                 Ili
                                                                                                 bl
                                                                                                  P
                                                                                                  n





























               Phragmites management policy.

               'In: R.R. Bellinder (Editor), Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Society
               Supplement, In Press.

               2Assoc. Prof., Environmental Center, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD 21012.
                                                                                                               24







                      Most noteworthy were: 1) practices which cause soil disturbance promote
               Phragmites colonization; 2) Phrakmites in undisturbed environments often appear as more
               or less circular colonies which sugg@sts establishment can occur from a single propagule; 3)
                                                                ,e of Phragmites
               Maryland generally lacks the extensive acreag                      common in other coastal
               states, instead, monotypic stands occur in isolated wetlands or along stream borders; 4)
               Phraemites may provide some positive benefits through soil stabilization, nutrient removal
               and -water filtration in both natural and created wetlands and; 5) monotvpic Phragmites
               stands support fewer animal s           th n more diverse stands of wetlaAd ve@g__etafion
               Occupying similar habitats. Suirse;uenat to this assessment, Maryland adopted a policy
               deterring the use of PhragMites in all wetland plantings.
                      Efforts were then placed on the development of management criteria for establishing
               a limited Phraemites control program to reduce the number 6f existing populations.
               Studies were devised to classify populations according to size, ecol - cal role and
               characteristics affecting control options, to evaluate methods-applic.Zle for the control of
               these populations, and to develop management criteria for the implementation of control
               projects in M@uyland. Concomitant with these studies, state legislation was enacted which
               provides additional protection to both tidal and non-tidal wetlands. This paper outlines the
               management recommendations made as a result of these studies and the current
               regulations governing the control of Phragmites in jurisdictional non-tidal wetlands.
                                                          Regulations
                      The designation of Phragmites australis in the National List of Plant pecies That
               Occur in Wetlands as a facultative, wetland perennial, native emergent grass coupled with
               the frequent appearance of PhragMites in Maryland nontidal wetlands makes control
               projects subject to review by numerous local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. In
               1984, the state's Critical Areas Act re
                                                       quired county governments to devise re@ulations
               governing all land use activities within 1000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
               tributaries. The purpose of this legislation was in part to preserve wetland buffers
               occurring within these boundaries by restricting actions which would diminish their
               quality or quantity. No distinctions were made concerning the desirability of one wetland
               type over another. As a result, each couny has devised unique regulations concerning
               Phraemites control in wetland habitats. These regulations are quite variable. When land
               useti@e_rs were           *ed    their counties Phr                                    "no
                                    guen on                        amnites control DOliCV one had
               con *tions,--never heard of it" and another res@ 6nd @ up untilno we haven't. required
                      ng
                  y        In contrast, St Mary's County requires a Critical Area Environmental Permit.
                 pp icants must appear in person for a "rough filing pe       it" d irovide a property deed
               Oro er proof of ownership. An accurate site plan is reqruliriurd innaddition to all other
               applicable state or federal permits. The most exacting requirements for Phraernites control
               grojects are found in Anne Arundel County. Here, applicants must submit a-Buffer
                  ana                                   i tin     ditions, the plan of action and a 40 scale site
                     .gement Plan which describes exis        co
               plan. I-Toposed project sites are inspected gy conunty planners who may require replanting
               of the site with other wetland plant species if Phrag!nites plants are removed. The posting
               of bonds until project sites are revegetated may also be required f             t issuance. The
               r
                    aining counti                                                    or =treme than these
                em i i            es have regulatory programs which are similar but
               examples.
                       In 1987, the state enacted a burden sharing program with the Army Corps of
               Engineers for regulating activities in all nontidal wetlands not protected through the
               Critical Areas legislation by establishing the Maryland Department of Natural -Resources
               Nontidal Wetlands Program. Thisyrograrn extends wetland rotection beyond that
               provided under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. S            c y regulated, via permit, are
               activities which destroy or remove vegetation in non i al wetlands. In projects where
                   thi
                    I
                    th












               removal or destruction of wetlands vegetation also require federal approval, permits are
               automa@ically linked to a second state regulatory program, The Maryland Department of
               the Environment Standards and Certification Division which issues a water quality

                                                                                                                   25







                certification permit. Projects which emplOY the use of herbicides to control Phragmites
                engthen the review and permit process. Herbicide application must be approved by the
                  aryland pepartment of the Environment Hazardous and Solid Waste Administration
                  dustrial Point Source Waste Division. Prior to permit issuance, this application must be
                reviewed by the state's Fisheries Administration and the Department of Realth and Mental
                Hygiene and may be reviewed by other state agencies at the request of -Ty of the
                particgiating arties. Fortunately, the state's lengthy review process is efficient. Permits are
                often o tMV within 10-14 days of the date of application.
                                                         Control Options
                       The diverse interests represented in the regulatory process have provided
                numerous suggestions for controlling Phragmites in wedands. In evaluating these
                recommendations three criteria must be considered in developing control procedures:
                1) the treatment must be effective for reducing Phragmites numbers; 2) it must encourage
                non-PhragMites plant recruitment and; 3) it must have minimal negative effects on the
                beneficial attributes of a wetland during the transition from a PhragMites dominated
                habitat to one supporting a variety of vegetative types.
                       The methods of control most frequently discussed during the various permit
                processes include excavation, floodin& repeat harvesting, black plastic mulch, and
                herbicides. The first four techniques are often recommended because they are perceived to
                be safe alternatives to the use of pesticides in the sensitive environment of wetlands.
                Contrary to this po
                                    .pular belief these "biological" controls are often ineffective for control
                and may be more damaging to wetlands than measures employing herbicides.
                       Excavating or flooding Phragmites wetlands as control measures are expensive and
                destroy the :hldroloy which existc;d- prior to Phragmites colonization. By another name,
                these are dr ge an fill operations. They are pr          i by the various regulatory
                agencies; however, they frequently find their wa i to iscussions on Phraernites control
                for large projects in wetlands. Their applications are li i        For excavation to be effective
                soil must De removed to a depth greater than maximum rhizome penetration. In many
                wetland soils, rhizomes penetrate to depths of 60 cm. Excavation to this depth in hydric
                soils frequently results in the creation of shallow water habitats which cannot be restored
                as the diverse emergent wetland which existed prior to Phragmites colonization. Similarly,
                flooding, which requires the creation of impoundments, also significantly alters site
                conditions. Berms, which are used for containment, must be constructed outside the
                     hery of the Phraemites colonv in areas of adiacent wetlands. Not only is thefilling of
                      wetlands undQrable, the fl6oding of the inipoundment alone is only mar all
                                                                                                       gin. y
                effective as a control measure for well established w1onies. For flooding to be effective as a
                control measure consistent water levels must be maintained for long periods and the
                Phragmites vlants, must be cut vrior to floodin& to disrupt the aerenchyma channels which
                provide oxygen to the rhizospliere. These requirements are inconsistent with the goal of
                rapidly rest6ring natural wetland plant diversity.
                       The use of black plastic mulch has been routinely su 2sted as a viable alternative
                for controlling              po                                 T901
                                Phraernites pulations. This technique is la r intensive and expensive.
                Harvest of the stems prior to installation of  Ithe mulch and subsequent installation is
                genfrally done by hait        ause of the small areas involved or because ty * al             tural
                                                                                                .Pic        cul
                equipment used for mulch installation is unsuited to the softer marsh soils. Bla plastic-
                mulches are also ineffective for controlling Phragmites. First, regrowth of Phragmites from
                rhizomes easily penetrates 10 mil thick plastic mulches. Second, the mulch prov- ides habitat
                for small animals, which attract foxes and raccoons. These large animals destroy the
                integrity of the mulching materials while in search of their smaller prey. Mulches which
                1
                M
                In









































                have been tested have lasted for as little as 48 hours and as much as 4 weeks depending
                upon mulch thickness. Neither of these times are adequate for control.

                                                                                                                      26








                     A final alternative to herbicides is repeat harvesting which starves the perennating
              buds of Phragmites. Harvesting, of the photosynthetic stems to ground level must be
              consistent foF a   i0d of years de   ding upon the age and density of the phragmites
              colony. This regetitive cutting of large populations prolongs the transition period for
                              i
              wetland reesta lishment. Selective cuttinky of Phragmites bv hand can stimulate control
              through competition with emer   .n understory w&land s@oecies which are favored by this
              approach. Such selective cutting@iss towever limited to very small populations or thoge
              initially encroaching on new areas.
                     The most effective and least damaging methods of controlling Phramnites, is the use
              of herbicides. In Maryland, The only approv@-d herbicide for Phragmites control is Rodeo,
              (Monsanto Inc., St. Uwis, Mo.) active ingredient isoFrppylamine ialt of g;lyhosate, ((N-
              phTphonomethyl) glycine). Rodeo is a water so       e liquid which is mix with a non-
              ionic surfactant and applied as a foliar spray (OSullivan et al., 1981). It is translocated from
              th     * t of foliar contact into the rhizome where it interferes with hormone metabolism
              (Fe poin
                eatke, 1982; Moreland et al., 1981). Rodeo may be applied with any appropriate spray
              equipment or placed directly on plants with wick applicators (Monsanto Prboduct Ubel).
                     Selectivity can be achieved by the choice of applicator and by restricting applications
              to the fall (Prasad, 1984; Buhler and Burnside, 1983).

                     Optimal selectivity in Maryland is obtained when application is made between
              October 1 and 15. At this time PhragMites tends to lodge but remain in a state of active
              growth. The dense canopy of Phraggpjtes prevents spray from reaching desirable
              understory vegetation. Deciduous perennials which frequently form borders around
              Phragmites colonies are generally inactive at this time and thus are protected from the
              effects oft-he herbicide. In one study Simpson's Index of diversity increased form 1.52 to
              3.48 in one year followm*g a single aerial application (Ailstock, et al., 1989). During this
              period Phragmites was decreased by 84% while other wetland plants increased by 135%. In
              a similar study where the aerial application was followed by removal of the standing
              biomass through burning, P amnites eclined by 64% over the post treatment surveys
              while other species =rose         Simpson's Index increased from 1.57 to 4.54 during the
              same period.-These geeneriga ends have been observed at both sites for 3 years. Thus,
              herbicidal control best meets the conditions for Phragmites control programs; red i
                                                                                              'ucln
              Phragmites po ula ons while stimulating recruitmenit of diverse wetlahd vertation. In
              the p@ist year    method of control has been routinely accepted by most parfic pating
              regulatory agencies, providing the herbicide is used as a part of a comprehensive
              management plan.

                                                        Projects
                     Phragmites control projects in Maryland can be divided into four categories based
              upon the siie of the Phraernites colo@ony, its distribution with respe@t to property boundaries
              and current land use Thacp cate&ones are: 1) small colonies occurring on a single r e
                                                                                                 . p
              2) large colonies occurring on a single property; 3) colonies which extend over m 1 le
              properties and; 4) those populations existing in areas where preferred control meth s are
              difficult to implement.
                     Small colonies of Phragmites occurring con a single property may be controlled in a
              number of ways depending dni the size and density ?f the population. At densities of less
              than 10-15 stems/m2, where understory vegetation is present, satisfactory control can be
              achieved through repeat harvesting of the standing crop. The availability @f sunlight to the
                                          hr
                                         446
                                          tr














                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                Z'





              understory plants encourages their growth and thus there is no loss of environmental
              function. At higher plant densities, but where some understory vegetation * present,
                                                                                        is
              chemical treatment coupled with a reduction in standing crop is needed. Rodeo can be
              applied as a spray with hand-held equipment or wiped directly on the plant with a contact
              applicator. Eit-her of these methods protects understory vegetation from herbicide contact.

                                                                                                          27








                 Removing the PhragMites standing crop by burning or cutting stimulates the growth of
                 non-Phrakmites plants.
                        The most difficult situation involving small populations on a single proffr is
                 when the stand density is such that understory vegetition is lacking and the P a               *tes is
                 providing a valuable environmental benefit. This is a common occurrence on wat6rfront
                 properties where PhragMites serves to stabilize shorelines but restricts waterviews. Control
                 !nay be obtained by any of the described treatments; however, control will result in
                 increased erosion if the protective function is not replaced. In the brackish environments,
                 common in Maryland, replacement with 5@partina patens and S. alterniflora. is advisable to
                 negate this impact.
                        Large colonies existing on a single property where no restrictions are placed on the
                 methods of control are perhaps the easiest to manage. These populations are frequent on
                 state lands and large farms located on the Eastern Shore of Mar@land where they exist
                 along stream borders, in semi-isolated nontidal wetlands or as individual colonies within
                 natural marshes ad   .acent to tidal tributaries. Control under these conditions is best
                 achieved by two successive, yearly, aen'aliT lic ons of Rodeo followed by spot
                 treatments with hand-held equipment. W               . treatment, recovery of the wetland is
                 rapid with minimal loss of fuhcRon during the transition period. Burning, which
                 accelerates the recruitment of other species, is feasible at these sites and is often included
                 after the first herbicide application.
                        Population of Phragmites extending over several properties are present in many
                 urban areas. These colontie-s may be as large as 10-30 acres or quite small, less than 1/4 acre.
                 Under these conditions effective control is difficult and a sensitive issue unless agreements
                 can be reached between property owners. Agreements, which are necessary because of the
                 invasive nature of PhragbAtes are seldom reached as a result of concern over control
                 procedures and the perception that Phrag!gites is valuable wetlands species. Without these
                 agreements single pro          control beco mes an annual preventive maintenance program
                 which is only marg'n=effective and expensive. Cases of this type are currently being
                                              I
                                      ici     stem. Until these ownership issues are resolved in this forum,
                 explored in the ju icial SYY
                 concurrent control for populations on multiple properties remains problematic.
                        Phragmites may so occur in environments where the implementation of preferred
                 control methodolo     .es are difficult for reasons of topography, location or existing land use.
                 For example, the I nited Sta       N      I in the process of restoring 30 acres of PhragMites
                 marsh at its Transmi       Facility in      e Arundel County, Maryland. This facility provides
                 communication to submarines worldwide th ough a complex array of elevated and
                 subsurface antennas. Aerial application is thus precluded as is the use of applicators
                 capable of compacting the hydhc soils which would damage the under ound antenna
                                                                                                 gr
                 complex. Restrictions on control may result from              resence of endanger species. The
                 beachfront of the Columbia Liquid Natural Gas comp ex in Calvert County, Maryland,
                 supportsyopulations of the endangered tiger            fle, Cicindela domalk- Phra    -   -tp-q, which
                            e                                                                             0
                 has mva ed the property, colonizes the sand heach habitat required by --- --%I- ---- Tn this
                 instance, protection of the beetles is dependent upon eradication of @e R-agmites
                 Obtaining the necessary permits to apply.herbicides under these          co ditjI was a fong and
                 arduous process. Thes6 projects are described in more detail in a subsequent paper.
                                                          Management Plans
                        Despite theprocedural variations between the regulatory agencies governing
                 Phiragmites. controlprograms in Maryland the components of successful manayement
                 pli-i s @are remarkably consistent. Management plans must rovide a rationale for
                 controlling Phragmites, evaluate existing site conditions w@@* ch may affect control, describe
                 the procedures t6 be used for control and to identify all jurisdictional requirements.

                                                                                                                          28








               Management plans should:
                1. Identify the management objectives of the site to be treated.
                2. Determine wheth4ir site characteristics and adjacent land use are compatible with the
                   management objectives.
                3. Evaluate the site for potential recruitment by Phragmites following treatment.
                4. Evaluate the site to determine if Phragmites conii6_1 by it-self is adequate to achieve the
                   desired management objectives.
                5. Determine whether site characteristics and adjacent land use are compatible with the
                   treatment protocols necessary for control.
                6. Conduct an on site evaluation of resident biota and identify ecological function of the
                   Wetland.
                7. Identify all permits and reviews which must be obtained for treatment of the site.
                8. Define all activities needed to meet project objective.
                9. Establish a time line for all activities necessary for site development
               10. Secure all funding, permits and cooperative agreements necessary for complete project
                   implementation.
                      Projects which have adhered to these guidelines have provided an acceptable
               method for controlling Phragmites while restoring diversity in wetland environments. The
               net affect in Maryland has been to improve the quality of wetlands in a manner consistent
               with regulations governing wetland xhodifications.


                                                     Acknowledgements
                      This work was supported by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
               Tidewater Administration, Annapolis Maryland, through a grant provided by the Coastal
               Zone Management Act, 1972, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the Maryland State
               Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; and the Columbia Liquid Natural Gas
               Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware.

                                                       Literature Cited

               Ailstock, M.S., Suman, W.S., Williams, D.H., 1989. Environrnental impacts, treatment
               method I *es and management criteria for establishment of a statewide polic
                       0 ogi                                                                     _y for the
               control of the marsh plant Phraernites - Year One. Prepared for Department of Natural
               Resources, Tidewater AdniUTsiiation, Annapolis, Maryland. Contract No. C114-89-031.
               Anderson, Bertin W. and Ohmart, Robert D., 1985. Habitat use by Clapper Rails in the
               lower Colorado River valley. The Condor, 87:116-126.
               Bibb Colin J. and Lunn, J., 1982. Conservation of reed beds and their avifauna in England
               a Ind Z@ales. Biological Conservation, 23:167-186.
               Bonham, A.J., 1983. The management of wave-spending vegetation as bank protection
               against boat wash. Landscape Planning, 10(l): 15-30.
               Brix, Hans, 1987. Treatment of wastewater in the rhizosrhere of wetland plants - the root-
               zone method. Water Science Technology, 19 (1-2):107. 18.
               Brown, Melvin L. and Brown, Russell G., 1984. Herbaceous Plants of Maryland. Port City
               Press, Baltimore, p. 180.
               Buhler, D.D. and Burnside, O.C., 1983. Effects of spray components on glyphosate to)dcity
               to annual grasses. Weed Science, 31(l):124-130.
                                                                                                                 29








              Chesapeake Ba Critical Area Commission, December 1986.1984 Law, Amendments to law
              as passed in 19Q Criteria as passed in 1986. Authority: Natural Resources Article 8-
              1808(d), Annotated Code of Maryland.
              Eleuterius, L.N., 1974. A study of plant establishment on spoil areas in Mississippi Sound.
              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Field Report DA (NOl-72-C-001).
              Fedtke, Carl, 1982. Biochemistry and Physiology of Herbicide Action. Sprunger-Verlag,
              New York, 202 pp-
              Fernald, Merritt Lyndon, 1970 corrected printing. Gray's Manual of Botany - Eighth
              Edition. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, p. 131-132.
              Galinato, M.I. and van der Valk, A.G., 1986. Seed germination traits of annuals and
              emergents recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic
              Botany, 26:89-102
              Gersberg, R.M., Elkins, B.V., Lyon, S.R. and Goldman, C.R., 1986. Role of aquatic plants in
              wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Research, 20(3): 363-368.
              Kamio, Akira, 1985. Studies of the drying of marshy and heavy day soil ground by means
              of vegetations - Changes in soil water caused by evapotranspiration of Phraernites
              communis. J. Yamagata Agric. For. Soc., 42: 53-60.

              Krucznski, W.L., 1983. Salt marshes of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: Creation and
              Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities, R.R. Lewis III (Editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

              Moreland, Donald E., St. John, Judith B. and Hess, F. Dana, (Editors), 1981. Biochemical
              Responses Induced by Herbicides. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 274 pp.
              USullivan, P.A., CYDonovan, J.T. and Hamman, W.M., 1981. Influence of nonionic
              surfactants, ammonium sulfate, wat     uality and spray volume on the phyto toxicity of
              glyphosate. Canadian journal of Plant cience, 61(2Y.- 391-400.
              Prasad, R., 1984. Impact of glyphosate on macrophytes. Plant Physiology, 75( Suppl. 1): 139.
              Reed, Porter B., 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northeast
              (Region 1). Prepared for National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
              Washington, D.C.
              Stout, J.P., 1977. Evaluation of plants as medium for dredges material dewatering. Report
              to U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Mobile District. Contract No. DAC-WOl-76-070.
              Szczepanska, Wanda and Szczpanski, A., 1982. Interactions between Phraunites australis
              (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. and Typha latifolia L. Ekologia Polska (Polish journal of Ecology),
              30(1-2):165-186.

              Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. and Knutson, P.L., 1982. Atlantic Coastal marshes. 1n:R.R. Lewis III
              (Editor), Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
              Fla.

              Weisser, P.J. and Ward, Cj-, 1982. Destruction of the Phoenix/Hibiscus and Barrinptonia
              racemosa Communities at Richards Bay, Natal, South Africa, 14(l):123-125.



                                                                                                         30








              Appendix B



               ALTERNATIVES TO AERIAL HERBICIDE APPLICATION FOR THE CONTROL OF
                            PH GMITES AUSTRALIS IN NONTIDAL WETLANDS.'

                                                M. Stephen Ailstock2

                                                    ABSTRACT

                    Aerial a lication of the herbicide Rodeo is a preferred method of controlling large
                         so
              population:  If%  agmites; australis, common reed, in both tidal and nontidal wetlands. In
              Maryland, populations of common reed frcxluently exist which cannot be treated in this
              manner. This paper examines two case studies where Rodeo has been applied to both large
              and small Phraglhites populations by methods other than aerial application.
                    The first study was conducted at the U.S. Naval Transmitter Station, Annapolis,
              Maryland. This facility provides a complex array of elevated and subsurface antennas.
              The antenna system precludes use of aerial applications or land applicators capable of
              compa ng e          ic soils  i suDvort Phramnites an covers 40 acres o the comp ex.
              A radiarc sprayer lalled by a diesel @owered B6m-badeer tractor having a 6 lb/s in
              foo rint was us to deliver herbicide. This system provided excellent delive ; however,
              control was limit to those areas outside of the vehicle tracks. Presumably, d age to the
              plants.prevented translocation of Rodeo to the perennatin8tids of the trea  P1 ts. A
              second study was undertaken along the beachfront of the olombia Liquid N       al Gas
              Complex in Calvert County, Maryland. At this site, Phragmites; has invaded one mile of
              sand-beach habitat req@dred by the endangered tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis. Following a
              length regulatory review process, back pack spray units and wick applicators were used
              to apprly herbicide in an effort to contain -Phragplites expansion.










              'In: R.R. Bellinder (Editor), Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Society
              Supplement, In Press.

              2Assoc. Prof, Enviromnental Center, Anne Arundel Conununity College, Arnold, MD 21012.







                                                                                                        31








               REFERENCES

               Ailstock, M.S., 1992. Alternatives to aerial herbicide application for control of Phragmites
               australis in nontidal wetlands. In: R.R. Bellinder (Editor), Proceedings of the Forty-sixth
               Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society Supplement. Boston,
               Massachusetts.

               Ailstock, M.S., 1992. Regulation, methods and management strategies for the control of
               Phragmites australis; in Maryland nontidal wetlands. In: R.R. Bellinder (Editor),
               Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society
               Supplement. Boston, Massachusetts.
               Ailstock, M.S., T.W. Suman, and D.H. Williams. 1988. Environmental impacts, treatment
               methodologies and management criteria for the establishment of a statewide policy for the
               control of the marsh plant Phraemites. Year One. Prepared for the Department of Natural
               Resources, Tidewater' Adn@m@isfration, Annapolis, Maryland. Contract No. C114-89--031.
               Ailstock, M.S., T.W. Suman, and D.H. Williams. 1989. Environmental impacts, treatment
               methodologies and management criteria for the establishment of a statewide policy for the
               control of the marsh plant Phramnites. Year Two. Prepared for the De artment of Natural
               Resources, Tidewater AdrilUs-iriation, Annapolis, Maryland. Contract o.C114-89-031.
               Fernald, M.L. 1970. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth edition, corrected printing. D. Van
               Nostrand Company, New York. PP. 131-132.

               Stout, S.L., 1992. Herbicide effects in a study of management strategies in Allegheny
               hardwoods. In: R.R. Bellinder, editor. Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of -
               the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Boston, Massachusetts.
               Weisser, P.J. and R.J. Parsons. 1981. Monitoring Phragmites australis increases from 1937
               to 1976 in Siyai Lagoon (Natal, South Africa) by means of photo interpretation. Bothalia 13
               (3-4):553-446.























                                                                                                               32








                          i
                          INNINIMM
                           3 6668 14103 5370









                                      I






















































                                       .4.


                                       .I