Options

Options

Once a weed problem is identified:

  • what are the options to deal with it, and
  • what are the outcomes?

There are a number of strategies for aquatic weed control. Each lake or waterbody differs in the type and extent of weed growths and their interaction with human uses. Different levels of control range from a "do nothing" (leave-it-alone) strategy through to a higher level of control. The outcomes sought can vary from localised reduction in weed abundance for a short time period to containment, control, or eradication.

Do nothing

This approach advocates no intervention. There is some evidence that growth of troublesome weeds is often most pronounced within the first few years of their introduction and that natural abatement or subsidence follows. For example this was reported for Elodea canadensis in the Nelson Lakes. Regular control of weed growth or even regular browsing by swans may have the effect of rejuvenating growth, thereby prolonging the period for which control of nuisance growth is necessary.

Find out more about Elodea canadensis

Pros & cons of "Do nothing"

Pros

  • No intervention is the cheapest option in the short term and possibly in the long term.

  • Problem plant communities may decline in abundance naturally, but may not in the long term if management intervention occurs.

  • No environmental, wildlife and fisheries disturbance from control measures.

Cons

  • Recreational inconvenience, including entanglement and possible drowning hazard.

  • Need to endure full extent of the weed problem for unknown period of time.

  • Negative publicity may have undesirable effect on tourism.

  • Intermittent costs for removal of weed drift accumulations, especially following storms.

  • Unpleasant smells, flies, etc., associated with decomposing drift if not removed.

  • Large uncontrolled weed beds can lead to reduced habitat diversity, deoxygenation and environmental perturbations.

  • Introduction or spread of new weed species would not be checked or prevented.

For example, lakes that do not require any weed control at present include Rotomahana (essentially native vegetation and will not require any control while it remains in that state) and Whangape (minimal public or recreational usage and weeds support abundant wildlife).

Containment

Containment is a strategy to halt expansion of an invasive weed species that threatens to spread within a waterbody or beyond. Any containment strategy requires preventative measures to limit transfer of fragments to uninfected areas (both within and between waterways), and to detect early infestations at vulnerable introduction sites in the event that transfer does occur.

Pros & cons of containment

Pros

  • Avoidance of major impact on lake vegetation.

  • Problematic growth contained within manageable proportions.

  • Prevention of escalation in public inconvenience resulting from new invasive species.

Cons

  • High costs for both containment measures and for preventative surveillance.

  • Risk of a containment strategy bein unachievable and costs escalating while containment policy is still pursued.

  • Possible localised environmental disturbance and access restrictions. For example, it may be necessary to regularly remove all vegetation within a limited area in order to control or prevent the spread of a targeted species.

Containment measures are only appropriate for waterbodies that would be severely impacted by the uncontrolled growth of a weed species, or when nearby valued areas are at risk of invasion. Hydrilla in the Hawke's Bay is an example in New Zealand where this approach has been adopted.

Find out more about Hydrilla

Hydrilla in the Hawke's Bay

Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) is an invasive aquatic macrophyte, which has earned worldwide recognition as one of the worst weeds among submerged plant species. Hydrilla was introduced to New Zealand and first positively identified and recorded in Hawke's Bay lakes in the 1960s. Currently its distribution is limited to four lakes in the Hawke's Bay region.

Aside from the legislation, and the geographical isolation of the infested lakes, the confinement of hydrilla to the Hawke's Bay region has no doubt also been facilitated by the prohibition of motorised boats on Lakes Tutira and Waikapiro, the most publicly accessible of the hydrilla-infested lakes. Further containment measures have included the use of signage beside lakes with hydrilla to ensure public awareness of the plant. Weed mat has also been used in selected areas of public access sites to minimise the likelihood of hydrilla transfer (for example, Lake Opouahi).

A containment strategy may not be possible for some potential nuisance species. For example, Hydrodictyon is an alga with cells that are too small to be seen and it is likely to be spread by wildlife and possibly even large insects.

Hydrodictyon

Hydrodictyon reticulatum (water net) is a green filamentous alga. It is distinctive is appearance, for its individual cells are joined to form a six-sided mesh which makes up colonies. Water net was first reported in New Zealand in 1986 near Tauranga. By February 1989 water net had spread from the initial infestation site to Lake Rotorua and Lake Rotoiti, with its range continuing to expand through the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato region over the next few years.

from: Wells et al. (1999). Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31: 49–54.

Control

This is a strategy that seeks to reduce abundance of specific weed species in targeted areas and prevent identified weed problems from developing. Minimal control measures may be designed to provide a low level of relief to identified problems such as a reduction in height of the weed bed for boat access. A higher level of control may be required in targeted areas to avoid more extensive problems than are readily visible such as around swimming beaches, boat ramps or near water intakes. In these cases measures are anticipatory with the one objective being to avoid surface-reaching weed growths or remove sufficient weed biomass to minimise stranding in sensitive or selected areas frequented by the public. Alternatively a high level of control may also be required where no amount of aquatic vegetation is tolerated, such as in some drainage channels prior to winter.

Pros & cons of control

Pros

  • Water users are satisfied as the problem has been addressed and a desired outcome achieved.

  • Problematic growths are contained within manageable proportions and the future costs and area of weed to be controlled may be reduced.

  • Selective control of nuisance weed species may enhance desirable native plants.

  • Future costs and area of weed to be controlled may be reduced.

Cons

  • In a multi-use waterbody there are often conflicting public demains, and not all users are satisfied. For example, ecologically sensitive areas may be impaired by weed removal.

  • Unlikely to prevent or reduce quantities of weed drift accumulated on shores following storms.

  • Costs may be excessive or inappropriate compared to the level of control achieved, and ongoing commitment may be required if initial investment is to be preserved.

  • Requires a high degree of familiarity and routine surveillance in order to anticipate and prevent problems from developing.

Eradication

The objective of eradication is elimination of the species from the target area.

Pros & cons of eradication

Pros

  • Elimination of a pest species.

  • May allow restoration (or protection) of original vegetation.

  • Significantly reduces the need for further expenditure on weed control, unless the weed species is reintroduced.

Cons

  • Difficult to achieve.

  • High costs are typical and success is not guaranteed. The last 1% may cost the most to remove and may prove too difficult.

  • May require removal of all vegetation, including non-problematic desirable plant species, with consequential effects on fisheries and wildlife. However, native species may re-establish from seed and, in such cases, the long-term benefits must be balanced against the short-term impacts.

Eradication was the aim of weed management objectives directed at Lagarosiphon in the 1960s, but experience has shown this to be rarely obtainable for submerged weeds, particularly in large waterbodies.

For chemical or physical eradication to succeed, weeds must be readily visible, such as with surface floating plants. A newly invasive weed species must be identified at an early stage of infestation with initial colonisation and spread restricted by natural means (such as by steep littoral gradient or enclosed bay). For example, eradication has been achieved for a limited number of potentially troublesome weed species on the Rotorua Lakes (e.g., water hyacinth has been eliminated from the surface of Lake Rotorua).

Grass carp (Ctenopharygodon idella) have been used to eradicate Egeria densa in Parkinson’s Lake in South Auckland, but not Hydrilla verticillata in Lake Elands (see below).

Lake Parkinson

Lake Parkinson is a small (1.9 ha) dune lake near Waiuku, South Auckland, which during the 1970s suffered from declining water quality, the introduction of rudd and the development of weed problems that lead to a down-graded trout fishery. Egeria densa had become the dominant submerged vegetation, forming dense beds over 55% of the lake area deeper than 1m, which often reached the water surface.

Incremental stocking of 60 grass carp in the lake in 1976 and 1977 led to the apparent eradication of egeria, and a >99% reduction in the cover and biomass of other macrophytes in the lake after the summer of 1977/1978. Two years after grass carp stocking the only species recorded in the lake were occasional growth of Glossostigma elatinoides and Myriophyllum propinquum. Nine years after egeria was last recorded in the lake and five years after removal of grass carp from the lake, the submerged vegetation was dominated by tall growths of the native species Potamogeton ochreatus and Nitella hookeri.

Although eradication of adventive submerged macrophytes from lakes is rarely feasible by physical or chemical means once invasion is well established, Lake Parkinson has demonstrated that temporary heavy stocking of grass carp can achieve eradication of species dependent on vegetative reproduction from stem fragments.

from: Tanner et al. (1990). NZ Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24: 181–186.

Hydrilla and grass carp

In an effort to determine whether hydrilla could be eradicated, Lake Eland, which is situated on private farm land, became the site of a grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) trial in 1988.

In 1988 there was 1ha of hydrilla covering the 1.5m–4.5m water depth zone. At this time 400 triploid grass carp were released. By April 1990, 99% of hydrilla biomass was gone, with only remnant stands at the south end of the lake. Two and a half years after the original release of the grass carp (April 1991) there was no trace of hydrilla weed beds in the lake. But in November of the same year, there was occasional spring growth from turions, tubers and stem fragments. More importantly, a newly formed tuber was discovered on a small plant in Lake Eland in April 1996, which indicates that eradication of hydrilla from Lake Eland and therefore  from New Zealand is a long term endeavour. In subsequent years (1997–2001) remnant hydrilla plants have still been located and viable tubers found in sieved lake sediment during annual lake surveys.

Although the idea of using grass carp for the control of hydrilla is not new, some of the results obtained from the field trial to date are, and have important implications for their continued use. Specifically, the continued presence of remnant hydrilla plants and tubers in Lake Eland and the production of new tubers by some of these small plants demonstrate the difficulties of eradicating hydrilla from a lake using grass carp alone. Nevertheless, the high level of control achieved has significant implications for future applications in minimising the risk of spread of the geographically isolated hydrilla throughout New Zealand. However, the potential to use grass carp in other hydrilla-infested water bodies to obtain such a high level of hydrilla control could be limited – by unfavourable public perception by and the problems associated with this approach, such as lack of selective plant control.

Revised October 2002

Lake Opouahi. (Photo: P. Champion)
Water net (Hydrodictyon). [NIWA]
Lake covered with water net. [NIWA]
Common method of submerged weed control. Trailing hoses are used to apply herbicide directly to the weed beds. (Photo: Paul Champion)
Lake Eland (Photo: J. Clayton)

Archived

This page has been marked as archived, and is here for historical reference only.

Information provided may be out of date, and you are advised to check for newer sources in this section.

This content may be removed at a later date.