 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ipomoea aquatica (vine, climber) |
|
|
Management Information
Preventative measures: Sale and distribution of I. aquatica is prohibited in Florida, however, the plant is still repeatedly introduced there.
Chemical: According to Schardt & Schmitz (1990, in Fears, UNDATED), aquatic herbicides have been used to control the plant but the results were only temporary. 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (DCMU / Diuron) provided acceptable control in dry ditches but also controlled most other adjacent plants, which is unacceptable in areas of high conservation value. 1-1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridylium dichloride (paraquat) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) have both been shown to have an impact on plant growth (Ninomiya, Oogami, Kino-Oka, Taya, 2003). However as with DCMU, paraquat is a broad spectrum herbicide and would, in many cases, likely impact surrounding vegetation to an unacceptable level. N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glysophate) would probably be effective but again is a broad spectrum herbicide. More research needs to be undertaken on the effectiveness of 2,4 D which is a far more selective herbicide.
Biological: It would appear that biological control has not been attempted in its non-native habitats (Williams, A.E., pers.comm., 2004).
Management Resources/Links
2. Ninomiya K., Oogami Y., Kino-Oka M., Taya M. (2003). Assessment of herbicidal toxicity based on non-destructive measurement of local chlorophyll content in photoautotrophic hairy roots. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 95, 3, 264-270. Summary: Investigates the response of chlorophyll in the hairy roots of I. aquatica to various herbicide applications. Results Page: 1
|
|
|
|
 |
|