1. ERDC Knowledge Core
  2. Federally Sponsored Research Programs Reports
  3. Aquatic Plant Control Research Program (APCRP)
  4. Publication
  5. Technical Report
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/6301
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNetherland, Michael D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSisneros, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorFox, Alison M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHaller, William T.en_US
dc.creatorAquatic Plant Control Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.creatorU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stationen_US
dc.creatorUnited States. Bureau of Reclamationen_US
dc.creatorUniversity of Florida. Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plantsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-23T19:54:27Zen_US
dc.date.available2016-03-23T19:54:27Zen_US
dc.date.issued1998-06en_US
dc.identifier.govdocTechnical Report A-98-2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11681/6301en_US
dc.descriptionTechnical Reporten_US
dc.description.abstractField studies were conducted to evaluate three herbicide delivery system techniques. Metering pumps were used to apply low rates of endothall (0.4 mg/L) over a 72- to 96-hr period for control of sago pondweed in western irrigation canals. Treatments were evaluated for efficacy and feasibility to use under a variety of flow conditions. Treatments effectively controlled sago pondweed and the development of a prototype metering pump greatly improved the feasibility of conducting treatments in remote settings where flow rates often vary greatly within a 24-hr period. In addition to metering technology, a new granular supersorbent polymer formulation of endothall that contains 61 percent active ingredient was evaluated in Lake Weohyapapka, Florida. These evaluations were conducted to compare efficacy and applicator handling properties versus the conventional clay formulation (10.1-percent active ingredient). The new formulation required 85 percent less bulk material than the conventional clay and presented no problems with dust creation. Although no differences in efficacy on hydrilla were noted between the products, reduced applicator exposure through decreased product handling and the time required for herbicide application were all seen as significant benefits of the new formulation. Lastly, the slow-release pellet (SRP) of the herbicide fluridone was applied to research ponds near Gainesville, FL, to improve the understanding of the release properties of this product. Following application of rates calculated to achieve 150 μg/L, the liquid aqueous suspension (AS) and SRP showed distinct differences in residues and dissipation. Initial concentrations following SRP application were reduced fivefold compared with the AS, whereas, the half-life of the SRP was estimated to be fivefold greater than that of the AS. Maintaining low residues for an extended period of time provided a full year of hydrilla control with the SRP, whereas the loss of threshold residue levels due to increased degradation rates of the AS allowed recovery of the hydrilla from tubers within 1 year posttreatment.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipAquatic Plant Control Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States. Army. Corps of Engineersen_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1—Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2—Metered Application of Low-Dose Endothall for Controlling Sago Pondweed in High-Flow Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Background: Idaho Study1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Background: Idaho Study2 and Colorado Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3-MesocosmEvaluation of a New Endothll Granular Formulation for Submersed Plant Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Laboratory and Mesocosm Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Mesocosm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4-Evaluationof Endothall SPF and Aquathol in a Central Florida Lake . . . . 26 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Site selection and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Endothall distribution and correlation of residues to rhodamine WT . . . 28 Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Residue distribution and correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Residue dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..38 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5-Comparisonof Fluridone Degradation in Ponds Following Treatment with Liquid and Slow-Release Pellet Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Aqueous fluridone residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Comparison of HPLC and FasTEST analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Treatment efficacy and recovery potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Aqueous residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Comparison of HPLC and FasTEST analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Treatment efficacy and recovery potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 SF298en_US
dc.format.extent67 pages/3.18 MBen_US
dc.format.mediumPDFen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stationen_US
dc.relationhttp://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/search/asset/1003853en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesTechnical Report (Aquatic Plant Control Research Program (U.S.)) ; no.Technical Report A-98-2en_US
dc.rightsApproved for public release; distribution is unlimiteden_US
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created from scans of the Print Resourceen_US
dc.subjectAquatic herbicidesen_US
dc.subjectFluridoneen_US
dc.subjectChemical controlen_US
dc.subjectHydrilla verticillataen_US
dc.subjectHydrillaen_US
dc.subjectEndothallen_US
dc.subjectPotamogeton pectinatusen_US
dc.subjectSago pondweeden_US
dc.subjectAquatic plantsen_US
dc.subjectAquatic Plant Control Research Program (U.S.)en_US
dc.titleField evaluation of low-dose metering and polymer endothall applications and comparison of fluridone degradation from liquid and slow-release pellet applicationsen_US
dc.typeReporten_US
Appears in Collections:Technical Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
8745.pdfTechnical Report A-98-23.18 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record