review, Resources, & References
1. PHYSICAL METHODS EMPLOY SIMPLE TOOLS
Most of the physical methods used today are based on simple techniques established for early agricultural practices and employ tools and equipment that are typically easy to acquire and simple to use.
2. PHYSICAL METHODS SUPPRESS AND PROMOTE PLANT POPULATIONS
Physical methods can affect plant species directly by physically damaging or injuring plants, and indirectly by altering conditions so that they are less favorable for plant survival and growth. While the effects of physical injury and stress may be lethal to some plants, many plants have characteristics that allow them to persist in the plant community.
3. MANY FACTORS INFLUENCE A PLANT’S RESPONSE TO PHYSICAL METHODS
Plant traits, mechanisms for survival and other factors determine the availability and vulnerability of carbohydrate reserves and viable growing points and propagules required for plants to withstand or recover from physical stress and injury. These traits, mechanisms, and factors include: life history strategy, life cycle stage, growth form, growth status, reproductive mechanisms, adaptations to disturbance, and ecological interactions before and after injury.
4. PRINCIPLES FOR USING PHYSICAL METHODS
Selecting and applying physical methods that achieve management outcomes while promoting and maintaining desired vegetation requires a thorough understanding of how invasive and desirable plant populations within a particular ecosystem will respond to the type of injury and stress a particular physical method inflicts.
5. PHYSICAL METHODS EMPLOY A WIDE RANGE OF TACTICS
Many physical methods are available to manage invasive plants, each requiring different application tactics. In general, controlling invasive plant populations successfully with physical methods depends on selecting a method that is compatible with the target species and the management area, then applying the method at the optimal time and intensity to achieve desired outcomes.
6. SELECTIVE AND NONSELECTIVE PHYSICAL METHODS
Selective physical methods can be quite labor intensive, but typically have low environmental impact and are therefore appropriate for small, localized infestations or infestations that occur in ecologically or socially sensitive areas. Nonselective physical methods can be applied more easily over larger areas, but may have more significant nontarget effects.
7. TIMING CAN IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS AND MINIMIZE IMPACTS
Because the susceptibility of a plant varies according to its growth stage and seasonal status, timing is important in applying a physical method.
8. TACTICS CAN CONTROL INTENSITY
Tactics for controlling intensity of physical methods—such as manipulating the duration, frequency, location, and depth of treatment—vary among the range of physical methods. Understanding how a method impacts the affected species and environment is necessary to effectively manipulate the intensity of a physical method.
9. MONITORING PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACTS
Monitoring activities should determine whether the physical methods are being applied as planned, are having desired effects on target plants and other ecosystem components, and are meeting invasive plant management objectives. When using physical methods, it is especially important to monitor for regrowth, reestablishment, and dispersal of invasive plants and propagules.
10. PHYSICAL METHODS ARE TYPICALLY INTEGRATED WITH OTHER METHODS
Used alone, physical methods are sometimes too labor intensive and expensive to justify the level of invasive plant control achieved, particularly when applied to well-established or large-scale infestations. Therefore, physical methods are typically applied to complement other methods as part of an integrated strategy to manage invasive plants.
The Nature Conservancy - Weed Control Methods Handbook
The Watershed Project and California Invasive Plant Council - The Weed Workers’ Handbook
Global Invasive Species Programme - Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices
AERF. 2005. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. Aquatic Plant Management. Marietta (GA): AERF. 78 p.
Bell GP. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in southern California. In: Brock JH, Wade M, Pysek P, and Green D, editors. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers. p 103-113.
Bond W, Grundy AC. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41:383-405.
Bronick CJ, Lal R. 2004. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124:3-22.
Campbell E, Taylor CA. 2006. Targeted grazing to manage weedy brush and trees. In: Launchbaugh KL, Walker JW, Daines R, editors. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Centennial (CO): American Sheep Industry Association. p 78-88. <http://www.sheepusa.org/targetedgrazing>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Chen H, Qualls R, Blank R. 2005. Effect of soil flooding on photosynthesis, carbohydrate partitioning and nutrient uptake in the invasive exotic Lepidium latifolium. Aquatic Botany 82:250-268.
DiTomaso JM. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Science 48:255-265.
Dudley TL. 2003. Noxious wildland weeds of California: Arundo donax. <http://ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/arundo_ww.html>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Eckardt N. 1987. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract for Pastinaca sativa, Wild Parsnip. <http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/pastsati.html>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Hatcher PE, Melander B. 2003. Combining physical, cultural, and biological methods: prospects for integrating non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research 43:303-322.
Hatfield P, Goosey H, Lenssen A, Blodgett. 2006. Incorporating targeted grazing into farming systems. In: Launchbaugh KL, Walker JW, Daines R, editors. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Centennial (CO): American Sheep Industry Association. p 130-142. <http://www.sheepusa.org/targetedgrazing>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Holloran P, Mackenzie A, Farrell S, Johnson D. 2004. The Weed Workers’ Handbook. Berkeley (CA): The Watershed Project and California Invasive Plant Council. 128 p. <http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/wwh/index.php>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Lym RG, Messersmith CG. 1993. Fall cultivation and fertilization to reduce winterhardiness of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Science 41:441-446.
Major WW, Grue CE, Grassley JM, Conquest LL. 2003. Mechanical and chemical control of smooth cordgrass in Willapa Bay, Washington. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41(1):6-12.
Marks M, Lapin B, Randall J. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Phragmites australis, Common Reed. The Nature Conservancy. <http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/phraaust.html>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
McPherson GR, DeStefano S. 2003. Applied Ecology and Natural Resource Management. New York: Cambridge University Press. 165 p.
Myers JH, Bazely DR. 2003. Ecology and Control of Introduced Plants. New York: Cambridge University Press. 313 p.
Paveglio FL, Kilbride KM. 2000. Response of vegetation to control of reed canarygrass in seasonally managed wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(3):730-740.
Paynter Q, Flanagan GJ. 2004. Integrating herbicide and mechanical control treatments with fire and biological control to manage an invasive wetland shrub, Mimosa pigra. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:615-629.
Radosevich, S, Holt, J, Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. Second edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 589 p.
Rees M, Hill R. 2001. Large scale disturbances, biological control and the dynamics of gorse populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:364-377.
Shafroth PB, Cleverly JR, Dudley TL, Taylor JP, Van Riper CV, Weeks EP, Stuart JN. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management 35(3): 231-246.
Sharrow S. 2006. Applying targeted grazing to coniferous forest management in western North America. In: Launchbaugh KL, Walker JW, Daines R, editors. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Centennial (CO): American Sheep Industry Association. p 90-99. <http://www.sheepusa.org/targetedgrazing>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Sheley R, Goodwin K, Rinella M. 2001. Mowing to manage noxious weeds. Montguide MT200104 AG 8/2001. Bozeman (MT): Montana State University. 2 p.
Sheley RL, Kedzie-Webb S, Maxwell B. 1999. Integrated weed management on rangeland. In: Sheley, RL, Petroff JK, editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University Press. p 57-68.
Sprenger MD, Smith JM, Taylor JP. 2001. Testing control of saltcedar seedlings using fall flooding. Wetlands 21(3):437-441.
Stapleton JJ, Elmore CL, DeVay JE. 2000. Solarization and biofumigation help disinfest soil. California Agriculture 54(6):42-45.
Taylor JP, McDaniel KC. 1998. Restoration of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)-infested floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology 12:345-352.
Teasdale JR, Mohler CL. 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and physical properties of mulches. Weed Science 48:385-392.
Tu M, Hurd C, Randall JM. 2001. The Nature Conservancy Weed Control Methods Handbook. <http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html>. Accessed 2008 Jan 10.
Venner M. 2006. Control of Invasive Species: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 363. Washington (DC): Transportation Research Board. 116 p.
Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE, Asteraki EJ, Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Brown VK. 2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38(3):647-664.
Vickery PD, Herkert JR, Knopf FL, Ruth J, Keller CE. 2000. Grassland Birds: An Overview of Threats and Recommended Management Strategies. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pub. 15102. p 74-77.
Wiggers S, Pratt PD, Tonkel K. 2004. Integrating mechanical and biological control methods to suppress Melaleuca quinquenervia [abstract]. Florida Weed Society Proceedings. <http://arsserv0.tamu.edu/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=161430>. Accessed 2007 Jan 7.
Zimdahl RL. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. 556 p.