Vegetation Response to Treating Willows (Salix caroliniana) Invading Marshes at

Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Wildlife and Environmental Area and

National Audubon Society’s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary

2015-2016

Jean McCollom1, Kathleen Smith2, and Michael Duever1

1 Natural Ecosystems

2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

November 2017

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 25 Mechanical Treatment vs. Aerial Spraying of Herbicides .............................................. 25 Glyphosate Only vs. Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes and Recovery Over Time ........ 29 Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates ............................................................ 32 Comparison of Dry Season vs. Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix ................................................................................... 35 Imazamox Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 35 Follow-up vs. No Follow-up after Mechanical Treatments ........................................... 38 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... 42 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix A. Transect Monitoring Field Comments ................................................................. 47 Appendix B. Sample Summary Data ................................................................................................ 50

3

Appendix C. Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects: Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments and Untreated Areas ........................ 52 Appendix D. Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect ....................... 61

List of Figures

Figure 1. A conceptual fire transition model of major South Florida plant communities occurring on organic soils ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the vicinity of the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in May 1955 ........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from about 25 feet up on the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in March 2015 ................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. CSS North Marsh in December 1974 showing predominantly herbaceous marsh vegetation beyond the open water of the ditch along Washout Road at Seven Culverts ........................................................................ 9 Figure 5. CSS North Marsh in June 2006 taken from about 25 feet up on an observation platform overlooking the area shown in Figure 4 ................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 6. CSS and CREW share a marsh system that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on CREW property south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp in Collier and Lee Counties, Florida ............. 10 Figure 7. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8. CSS’s North Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects .................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 9. Rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head mulching willow at CSS ...................................................................................................... 16

4

Figure 10. Comparison of Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 11. Comparison of Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to Glyphosate Only and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 12. Comparison of Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 14. Comparison of Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with Imazamox Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups..................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 15. Comparison of Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment with No Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments Mean Coverage Indices for willow and cattail ............................. 41

List of Tables

Table 1. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh Herbicide Treatment Summary ................................ 12 Table 2. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary’s Herbicide and Mechanical Treatment Summary ............................................................................................................. 15 Table 3. Information collected for each sample ......................................................................... 17 Table 4. Cover classes for herbaceous and woody vegetation percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole ......................................................... 19 Table 5. Species considered woody for percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole ................................................................................................ 20

5

Table 6. Tabulation of areas treated or untreated, sample years, and sample treatment types ...................................................................................................................... 20 Table 7. Designations for species found as recorded on the Atlas of Florida Plants ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 8. Plant Type designations for plant species sampled and which types were included as Herbaceous or Woody in whole transect percent cover estimates ..................................................................................................... 23 Table 9. Conversion factors for converting qualitative cover data to a quantitative Coverage Index ............................................................................................. 23

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Transect Monitoring Field Comments ................................................................. 47 Appendix B. Sample Summary Data ................................................................................................ 50 Appendix C. Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects: Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas ....................... 52 Appendix D. Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect ....................... 61

6

Introduction

Florida freshwater marshes are wetlands dominated by herbaceous vegetation in basins with predominantly organic soils (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990, 2010). These marshes are usually inundated around six to ten months a year. Fire maintains an open herbaceous community by restricting invasion by woody plants (Frost 1995). The normal interval between fires is one to ten years (Duever and Roberts 2013, FNAI 1990) with strictly herbaceous marshes burning about every one to three years (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990). Duever and Roberts (2013) compiled successional and transitional models describing the effects of fire on marsh communities in South Florida based on information provided by natural area fire managers (Figure 1); without fire for more than roughly eighteen years, marshes generally succeed to shrub wetlands, and without fire for roughly longer than 40 years, these sites become cypress (Taxodium distichum) or mixed cypress-hardwood forests.

Throughout the state, wetlands that were marshes have been succeeding from herbaceous vegetation to willows (Salix caroliniana) and other woody shrubs and trees (Hall et al. 2017). An example of this is the Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the tower along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (CSS); historic photos show an herbaceous marsh as late as the early 1980s, but willow have since then formed a thick canopy with scattered maple (Acer rubrum) and cypress (Figures 2 & 3). Photos of the CSS North Marsh from 1974 show predominantly herbaceous vegetation but much of the area is now occupied by large willow, Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and cattail (Typha spp.), which is at least partially due to additional flow from a canal to the north that has seriously affected the ability to burn this area (Figures 4 & 5).

CSS (owned by National Audubon Society) and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) (owned by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)) share a marsh system in Southwest Florida’s Collier and Lee counties that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on the CREW Management Area south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp and the Flint Pen areas (Figure 6). This marsh system has willow encroachment throughout, usually starting from the marsh perimeter and moving toward the center of the marsh, so larger trees toward the edge grade to smaller trees toward the interior.

In 2007, the SFWMD treated willow in the northwest portion of Corkscrew Marsh using basal/foliar application of glyphosate (Figure 7, Table 1); this was the only extensive ground herbicide treatment done. From 2008 – 2011, additional acreage in the northern portion of Corkscrew Marsh were sprayed with one or more treatments of glyphosate from a helicopter. In 2014-15, Florida Fish and Wildlife

7

Figure 1. A conceptual fire transition model of major South Florida plant communities occurring on organic soils. The transitions include fire regimes that would maintain an existing community or allow it to shift to an earlier or later successional stage. Numbers indicate fire return interval in years (Duever and Roberts 2013).

8

Figure 2. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the vicinity of the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in May 1955; the marsh was composed of herbaceous vegetation at this time.

Figure 3. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from about 25 feet up on the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in March 2015 showing a thick canopy of willow with scattered maple and cypress.

9

Figure 4. CSS North Marsh in December 1974 showing predominantly herbaceous marsh vegetation beyond the open water of the ditch along Washout Road at Seven Culverts. Note tree line in this and following photo. This photo was taken about 0.1 mile south of Figure 5.

Figure 5. CSS North Marsh in June 2006 taken from about 25 feet up on an observation platform overlooking the area shown in Figure 4. The marsh is now occupied by large willow, Peruvian primrose willow, and cattail, which is at least partially due to additional flow from a canal to the north that has seriously affected the ability to burn. The photo inset was taken at ground level in the same area in 1992.

10

Figure 6. CSS and CREW share a marsh system that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on CREW property south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp in Collier and Lee Counties, Florida.

11

Figure 7. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects.

12 Table 1. CREW

’s Corkscrew M

arsh Herbicide Treatm

ent Summ

ary. See Figure 7 for sam

pling area locations.

SAMPLING AREA NAME

YEARS SAMPLED

SPECIES DENSITY TREATMENT MONTH

TREATMENT YEAR

MAP COLOR ACRES TREATMENT RATE (ac-oz)

CHEMICAL APPLICATOR COMMENTS

2008, 2009, 2011 2015, 2016

TYPHA AND LUDWIGIA

SPP.MEDIUM/

LOW September 2015 BLACK STIPPLE 716 AERIAL 32-16IMAZAMOX/

MSO Coastal Air ServicesFWC AHREs funds paid for treatment

2015 Spring 96:16 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. MEDIUM May 2015 BLUE / WEST 292 AERIAL 96-16

IMAZAPYR/GLYPHO Coastal Air Services

FWC AHREs funds paid for treatment

[not sampled] -- SALIX SPP. MEDIUM May 2015 BLUE / EAST 28 AERIAL 96-16IMAZAPYR/G

LYPHO Coastal Air ServicesFWC AHREs funds paid for treatment

2014 Hot 120:64 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. HIGH September 2014 DARK GREEN 125 AERIAL 120-64IMAZAPYR/G

LYPHO Heli Applicators IncSFWMD contracted and paid for treatment = $15,000

2014 Medium 80:24 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. HIGH August 2014 PURPLE 727 AERIAL 80-24

IMAZAPYR/GLYPHO Coastal Air Services

FWC AHREs funds paid for treatment

2014 Light 96:16 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. HIGH August 2014 YELLOW 377 AERIAL 96-16IMAZAPYR/G

LYPHO Coastal Air ServicesFWC AHREs funds paid for treatment

2008 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. MEDIUM 6-Mar 2011 ORANGE / HATCH 326 AERIAL 120 GLYPHO Heli Applicators Inc

DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES (WO 132) PROVIDED VIA FTP SITE 04/13/11

2011 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. MEDIUM 16-Jun 2011 WHITE / HATCH 324 AERIAL 120 GLYPHO Heli Applicators Inc

DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES (WO 143) PROVIDED VIA FTP SITE 07/25/11

2009 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. MEDIUM 17-Jun 2011 PINK / HATCH 248 AERIAL 120 GLYPHO Heli Applicators Inc

DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES (WO 132R) PROVIDED VIA FTP SITE 07/12/11

2009 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. MEDIUM August 2009 PINK 248 AERIAL 120 GLYPHO Heli Applicators Inc

DERIVED FROM DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BYJ.GOODWIN - INITIAL TREATMENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE MARSH - NEED WO# (TBD) FOR CONFIRMATION - NO ATTRIBUTES PROVIDED

2008 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. HIGH 15-Sep 2008 ORANGE 326 AERIAL 120 GLYPHO Heli Applicators Inc

INITIAL TREATMENT - CORKSCREW SWAMP - DERIVED FROM AGNAV SHAPE FILES PROVIDED BY T. BENNETT (FOR J. GOODWIN) - 10/01/08

2007 N 2015, 2016 SALIX SPP. HIGH July 2007 GREEN NORTH 114 BASAL/FOLIAR 36 GLYPHO Applied Aquatics

INITIAL TREATMENT - CORKSCREW SWAMP - DERIVED FROM HARD COPY MAP PROVIDED BY J. GOODWIN - 11/20/07

[not sampled] [not sampled] SALIX SPP. HIGH August 2007 GREEN SOUTH 56 BASAL/FOLIAR 36 GLYPHO Applied Aquatics

INITIAL TREATMENT - CORKSCREW SWAMP - DERIVED FROM HARD COPY MAP PROVIDED BY J. GOODWIN - 11/20/07

Control A 2015, 2016 CONTROL A N/A August 2014 GREEN / CROSSHATCH 101 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/AControl B 2016 CONTROL B N/A August 2014 GREEN / CROSSHATCH 98 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/AControl C 2015, 2016 CONTROL C N/A August 2014 GREEN / CROSSHATCH 100 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/A

13

(FWC) and the SFWMD conducted aerial broadcast herbicide treatments via helicopter south of the above treatment areas with three different mixes of glyphosate and imazapyr. For comparison, three control areas were set aside adjacent to the treatment plots. In Fall 2015, the areas sprayed with glyphosate from 2008-2011 were sprayed with imazamox by FWC and the SFWMD to reduce cattails.

At CSS in 2008, an aerial spraying of glyphosate and diquat was done in the North Marsh (Figure 8, Table 2). In 2014 additional acres around the original 2008 site were aerial sprayed with a mix of glyphosate and imazapyr at the same concentration as the hottest mix on CREW, 120 oz glyphosate/64 oz imazapyr per acre. Also in the North Marsh, CSS conducted mechanical treatments of willow at different sites every year since 2013. Willow and other vegetation were shredded using a rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head which was light enough to access the areas (John Jones, 2016) (Figure 9).

Methods Monitoring of vegetation response to willow treatments was conducted almost exclusively during the months of October - December in 2015 and 2016 (Table 3).

Sampling generally followed the relevé method with some modifications (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2013, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974).

The majority of the samples were collected along an approximately 0.2 mile transect; actual lengths are listed in Table 3 and discussed in Appendix A. Since vegetation within the treatments was very heterogeneous, additional sample area beyond the recommended 1076 to 4306 square feet (100 to 400 square meters) was appropriate. Assuming at least 5 feet were included in the sample on each side, 0.2 mile transects included 10,559 square feet (981 square meters); therefore, minimum sample area is more than adequate to include most species regularly distributed through the treatment (Chytry and Otypkova 2003, Peet 1998).

At the beginning and end of each transect, water depth, organic soil depth, latitude, longitude, and time were recorded and three photos were taken looking into the transect to the left, center, and right (Table 3). On some CREW transects, videos were also recorded along the transect. The CREW samples were collected from an airboat or Marsh Master (tracked terrestrial and aquatic vehicle) moving slowly along the transect with at least 2 observers, one on each side, noting all species of vascular plants. The vehicle was stopped to check the identity of plants. Some plants were collected to verify identifications. At CSS, all transects were done on foot using the same methods.

14 

Figure8.CSS’sNorthMarshwillowtreatmentareasandsamplingtransects.

15 Table 2. Corkscrew

Swam

p Sanctuary’s Herbicide and M

echanical Treatment

Summ

ary. See Figure 8 for sampling area locations.

Sampling Area Name Treatment Type Treatment Month Treatment Year

Years sampled

Application Equipment

Herbicide Acres Treated

2008 Aerial Glyphosate Aerial herbicide application October 2008 2015, 2016 Helicopter glyphosate & diquat 4.32014 CSS N Hot 120:64 Aerial herbicide application June 2014 2015, 2016 Helicopter glyphosate & imazapyr 39.12014 CSS S Hot 120:64 Aerial herbicide application June 2014 2016 Helicopter glyphosate & imazapyr 13.92013 Eagle Island Curve Mechanical (mulching) May 2013 2016 Gyrotrack -- 3.02013 N of Fishfarm Mechanical (mulching) May 2013 2016 Gyrotrack -- 3.02013 W of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2013 2016 Gyrotrack -- 1.32014 W of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2014 2016 Gyrotrack -- 1.12015 E of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2015 2015, 2016 Gyrotrack -- 5.52016 S-Central Area E of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2016 2016 Gyrotrack -- 2.9Control E of Washout Rd Untreated -- Untreated 2016 Untreated -- --Control W of Washout Rd Untreated -- Untreated 2016 Untreated -- --Control N of Fishfarm Untreated -- Untreated 2016 Untreated -- --Control Central Marsh Untreated -- Untreated 2016 Untreated -- --2013 Half Moon Lake Mechanical (mulching) Spring 2013 -- Gyrotrack -- 1.42014 NE of Eagle Island Mechanical (mulching) Spring 2014 -- Gyrotrack -- 1.92016 N Area E of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2016 -- Gyrotrack -- 1.12016 N-Central Area E of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2016 -- Gyrotrack -- 2.82016 S Area E of Washout Rd Mechanical (mulching) May 2016 -- Gyrotrack -- 0.12016 Pine W of Fishfarm Rd* Mechanical (mulching) May 2016 -- Gyrotrack -- 5.4

* not shown on Figure 8

16

Figure 9. Rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head mulching willow at CSS.

17

Table 3. Information collected for each sample. Percent cover for herbaceous and woody vegetation was only collected in 2016.

Samp- ling Year Sampling Transect

Date Sampled

Minutes spent on

surveyLength (miles)

Start Water Depth

(ft)

End Water Depth

(ft)

Start Organic

depth (ft)

End Organic depth

(ft)% Cover

Herb% Cover Woody Vehicle

Vid- eo #

2015 2007 N 10/19/15 40 0.22 0.2 1.1 0.6 1.3 -- -- Airboat2015 2008 11/04/15 36 0.25 1.5 1.5 5 + 5 + -- -- Airboat2015 2009 11/04/15 5 0.01 -- -- Airboat2015 2011 10/19/15 29 0.20 1.4 4.3 + -- -- Airboat2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 11/04/15 39 0.21 1.0 5 + -- -- Airboat 1,22015 2014 Medium 80:24 11/04/15 20 0.27 0.9 1.3 3.3 3.9 -- -- Airboat 72015 2014 Light 96:16 11/04/15 41 0.20 2.3 1.6 4.0 3.6 -- -- Airboat2015 2015 Spring 96:16 11/04/15 7 0.25 1.5 1.3 2.7 3.4 -- -- Airboat 9,112015 Control A 11/04/15 32 0.27 0.9 0.8 4.3 2.9 -- -- Airboat2015 Control C 11/04/15 26 0.19 1.3 1.0 3.9 2.0 -- -- Airboat2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 05/15/15 20 0.01 -- -- On foot2015 2014 Aerial N 10/04/15 210 0.29 -- -- On foot2015 2015 E of Washout Rd 10/04/15 180 0.56 -- -- On foot2016 2007 N 10/14/16 99 0.29 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 75-95% 1-5% Airboat 122016 2007 N #2 12/08/16 20 0.22 1.4 1.3 4.1 5.5 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 302016 2008 10/14/16 64 0.21 2.0 2.0 4.6+ 4.6+ 50-75% 5-25% Airboat 132016 2008 #2 12/08/16 22 0.20 1.1 1.0 4.3 5.2 75-95% 25-50% Marshmaster 272016 2009 11/09/16 54 0.20 1.3 0.8 4.4+ 4.6+ 75-95% <1% Marshmaster 232016 2009 #2 12/08/16 36 0.20 1.2 1.0 5.0 3.4 50-75% <1% Marshmaster 262016 2011 10/28/16 64 0.22 0.8 1.5 3.7+ 4.1+ 75-95% 1-5% Airboat 152016 2011 #2 12/08/16 28 0.22 1.4 1.5 6.4+ 5.8 50-75% 5-25% Marshmaster 282016 2014 Hot 120:64 10/28/16 29 0.22 1.7 1.4 3.9+ 4.1+ 25-50% 1-5% Airboat 142016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 11/09/16 26 0.21 1.0 1.1 5.0+ 5.0+ 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 222016 2014 Medium 80:24 11/09/16 38 0.01 1.1 1.1 5.0+ 4.8+ 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 212016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 12/08/16 0.03 1.1 5.4+ 75-95% <1% Marshmaster 292016 2014 Light 96:16 10/30/16 30 0.24 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.8+ 50-75% 5-25% Airboat 162016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 11/04/16 78 0.24 1.9 1.5 3.6+ 3.6+ 75-95% 5-25% Airboat 192016 2015 Spring 96:16 10/30/16 50 0.25 1.6 1.6 3.3 4.6+ 50-75% <1% Airboat 172016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 10/30/16 44 0.20 2.0 2.0 4.3+ 4.3+ 25-50% <1% Airboat 312016 Control A 11/09/16 53 0.21 1.3 1.0 4.9+ 5.1 75-95% 25-50% Marshmaster 242016 Control B 11/09/16 23 0.22 1.1 1.1 4.9+ 5.0+ 25-50% 75-95% Marshmaster 252016 Control C 10/30/16 39 0.24 2.3 1.1 3.3 2.0 75-95% 25-50% Airboat 182016 Control C #2 11/04/16 80 0.22 1.4 1.4 3.7 3.7 75-95% 5-25% Airboat 202016 2008 Aerial 12/29/16 22 0.00 50-75% 75-95% On foot2016 2014 Aerial N 11/21/16 113 0.23 0.5 1.0 4.9 3.3 75-95% <1% On foot2016 2014 Aerial S 12/28/16 68 0.18 0.0 0.5 2.6 2.0 95-100% <1% On foot2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 12/04/16 65 0.53 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 75-95% 1-5% On foot2016 2013 North of Fishfarm 12/04/16 101 0.38 0.0 0.8 3.0 0.5 75-95% <1% On foot2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 107 0.19 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 95-100% 5-25% On foot2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 58 0.13 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.5 75-95% 1-5% On foot2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 11/21/16 81 0.56 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 75-95% <1% On foot2016 2016 S-Central Area 12/04/16 83 0.41 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 25-50% <1% On foot2016 Control W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 49 0.17 0.0 below ground 1.8 1.3 5-25% 75-95% On foot2016 Control N of Fishfarm 12/13/16 76 0.23 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 50-75% 50-75% On foot2016 Control Central Marsh 12/23/17 87 0.17 0.7 0.7 6.0+ 6.0+ 75-95% 75-95% On foot2016 Control E of Washout Rd 12/28/16 68 0.18 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 25-50% 75-95% On foot

Mean 56 0.22 1.1 3.4 50-75% 5-25%

Red are CREW WEA Minimun 5 0.00 0.0 0.5 5-25% <1%

Soil depth + is the extent we could measure Maximium 210 0.56 5.4 6.4 95-100% 75-95%

Blue are Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary

18

Table 3 continued. Information collected for each sample.

Samp- ling Year Sampling Transect

Start Lat:

Start Long:

End Lat:

End Long: Observers:

2015 2007 N 26.4839 -81.528 26.4828 -81.531 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith

2015 2008 26.4826 -81.521 26.4819 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo

2015 2009 26.4844 -81.522 -- -- Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo

2015 2011 26.4792 -81.525 26.479 -81.522 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith

2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 26.4764 -81.521 26.4764 -81.524 Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo

2015 2014 Medium 80:24 26.466 -81.525 26.4631 -81.257 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith

2015 2014 Light 96:16 26.4398 -81.532 26.4376 -81.533 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo

2015 2015 Spring 96:16 26.4554 -81.536 26.4528 -81.534 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith

2015 Control A 26.4653 -81.528 26.4659 -81.525 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith

2015 Control C 26.433 -81.540 26.430 -81.542 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo

2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 26.424 -81.579 26.424 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever, Jason Lauritsen, Jim Burch

2015 2014 Aerial N 26.428 -81.579 26.427 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever

2015 2015 E of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.582 26.411 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever

2016 2007 N 26.484 -81.528 26.483 -81.531 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 2007 N #2 26.483 -81.527 26.482 -81.530 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2008 26.483 -81.521 26.482 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 2008 #2 26.484 -81.507 26.482 -81.510 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2009 26.486 -81.521 26.487 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2009 #2 26.487 -81.515 26.487 -81.512 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2011 26.478 -81.528 26.479 -81.525 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Jessi Drummond

2016 2011 #2 26.479 -81.511 26.478 -81.514 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2014 Hot 120:64 26.721 -81.886 26.468 -81.527 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Jessi Drummond

2016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 26.473 -81.523 26.476 -81.522 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2014 Medium 80:24 26.465 -81.521 26.465 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 26.476 -81.509 -- -- Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 2014 Light 96:16 26.438 -81.533 26.441 -81.532 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 26.426 -81.543 26.428 -81.541 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Stephanie Burkhardt

2016 2015 Spring96:16 26.455 -81.536 26.453 -81.534 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 26.446 -81.540 26.449 -81.538 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 Control A 26.466 -81.526 26.468 -81.524 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 Control B 26.460 -81.525 26.457 -81.526 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster)

2016 Control C 26.433 -81.540 26.430 -81.542 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever

2016 Control C #2 26.427 -81.547 26.425 -81.549 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Stephanie Burkhardt

2016 2008 Aerial 26.423 -81.579 26.423 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2014 Aerial N 26.428 -81.579 26.427 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2014 Aerial S 26.421 -81.579 26.422 -81.580 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 26.397 -81.596 26.396 -81.598 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2013 North of Fishfarm 26.405 -81.581 26.405 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.411 -81.584 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.412 -81.584 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 2016 S-Central Area 26.405 -81.582 26.407 81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 Control W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.412 -81.583 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 Control N of Fishfarm 26.404 -81.581 26.404 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

2016 Control Central Marsh 26.372 -81.615 26.371 -81.616 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever, w ith George Wilder

2016 Control E of Washout Rd 26.404 -81.581 26.427 -81.577 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever

Red are CREW WEA

loop back to start

Blue are Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary

19

Each new plant species was recorded as it was seen, and it was pointed out to the other observers so all were aware of its presence and appearance. Observers noted abundance of each species while traveling along the transect. Abundance categories were labeled as “Abundant”, “Common”, “Occasional”, and “Rare”. No time limit was imposed since stops were necessary. At the end of the transect, observers reported their observations of abundance for each species. If abundance categories were different between observers, the observers discussed the species and came to a consensus on abundance.

In 2016 overall percent cover of live woody vegetation and live herbaceous vegetation for the entire transect were also reported and discussed to reach a consensus (Table 3), using the cover classes shown in (Daubenmire 1959) Table 4; only trees and large shrubs were included in the woody cover group for the whole transect (Table 5). In some cases, notes were recorded (Appendix A).

Table 4. Cover classes for herbaceous and woody vegetation percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole. Cover classes are from Daubenmire (1959) with the addition of a <1% class.

On CREW, eight areas that had received different treatments were sampled; three untreated control areas were also sampled (Table 6). On CSS, eight different treated areas were sampled; four untreated control areas were also sampled. These areas are named in Table 3 and Appendix B. Within these 16 treated and seven untreated areas, data were collected along transects, usually in different locations within the areas (Figure 7 and 8), although a few transects were sampled at the same locations in both years.

Cover Classes Class # Median

0 1 0<1% 2 0.51-5% 3 2.5

5-25% 4 14.525-50% 5 3750-75% 6 6275-95% 7 87

95-100% 8 97

20

Table 5. Species considered woody for percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole.

Table 6. Tabulation of areas treated or untreated, sample years, and sample treatment types. See Figures 7 and 8 for locations.

Species Common nameAcer rubrum red mapleAnnona glabra pond appleDiospyros virginiana persimmonFraxinus caroliniana pop ashPersea palustris swamp bayQuercus laurifolia laurel oakSabal palmetto cabbage palmSalix caroliniana carolina willowSyzygium cumini Java plumTaxodium ascendens pond cypress

All CREW CSSTreated Areas 16 8 8

Untreated Areas 7 3 4Total 23 11 12

All CREW CSSSamples collected 2015 13 10 3Samples collected 2016 33 20 13

Total 46 30 16

All CREW CSSAerial Herbicide Treatment Samples 26 21 5

Mechanical Treatment Samples 7 7Ground Herbicide Treatment Samples 3 3

Untreated Control Samples 10 6 4Total 46 30 16

21

A total of 46 samples were collected, 13 in 2015 and 33 in 2016, 30 on CREW and 16 on CSS. Twenty-six of the samples were taken in areas aerially treated with herbicide; twenty-one of these were from CREW and five were from CSS (Table 6). Seven samples were taken in areas treated mechanically; all were on CSS. Three samples were taken in an area treated with herbicide on the ground on CREW. There are 10 samples from untreated areas, six from CREW and four from CSS.

The three 2007 CREW ground herbicide treatment samples were not included in any of the analyses since they represent the only example of ground treatment and it is not clear if part of the original transect was included in the treatment due to lower technological precision in 2007. Also, portions of the 2007 north unit could have been sprayed during the 2008 -2011 glyphosate treatments.

Analysis Due to the difficulty of getting to and maneuvering within sites, the gradients from large to small willows within treatments, and the differences in time since treatment, we chose sites that covered a wide range of conditions rather than homogeneous plots that could be analyzed statistically. None of the differences are

statistically significant, but they do represent the treatments over a broad range of conditions.

Five transects were sampled at the same locations in 2015 and 2016 and these transects are overlaid on Figures 7 and 8, and indicated in Appendix B. Three transects were on CREW and two on CSS. On these five transects, only the 2016 data are included except for the imazamox (Clearcast) before vs. after analysis.

All data were entered twice and checked. The following were documented for each plant species: 1) Family, 2) nativity (native or not native), 3) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Code (Obligate, Facultative etc.), 4) Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council Rank (Category 1 or 2), and 5) Endemic, Threatened or Endangered status (Atlas of Florida Plants 2017, Florida Administrative Code 1993 & 2015, Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council 2017) (Table 7, Appendix D).

Five species of particular importance in defining the health of a marsh were analyzed individually: willow, cattail, Peruvian primrose willow, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). Native grasses and sedges were grouped for analysis since they are important in supporting fire in marshes (Anderson 1982). Plants were also characterized as either “Desirable” or “Undesirable” marsh species for analysis. Undesirable species include all non-native

22

Table 7. Designations for species found as recorded on the Atlas of Florida Plants (http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/) (Atlas of Florida Plants 2017).

23

plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh, including shrubs, trees, and vines. Desirable species include all other herbaceous marsh plants. Species were also assigned a Plant Type such as Fern, Grass/Sedge, or Tree (Table 8, Appendix D).

Table 8. Plant Type designations for plant species sampled and which types were included as Herbaceous or Woody in whole transect percent cover estimates.

The relative cover data for individual species (Abundant, Common, Occasional, Rare) along each transect were quantified using the conversion factors shown in Table 9 and called the Coverage Index to emphasize that the numbers are not percent cover). Conversion values were assigned based on discussions in the field and after gaining consensus among observers.

Table 9. Conversion factors for converting qualitative cover data to a quantitative Coverage Index.

Plant typeNumber Species found

Desirability Group

Whole Transect Percent Cover Class

fern 9 Desirable Herbaceousfloating/submerged 17 Desirable Herbaceousgrass/sedge 48 Desirable Herbaceousherb 32 Desirable Herbaceousherb? 1 Desirable Herbaceouslarge emergent herbs 7 Desirable Herbaceouslow herb 23 Desirable Herbaceousshrub 7 Undesirable Herbaceoustree 10 Undesirable Woodyvine 10 Undesirable Herbaceous

Qualitative Class used in the field

Coverage Index used for analysis

Abundant 100Common 31

Occasional 10Rare 2

24

When the individual species comparisons were analyzed, the Coverage Index values for a species were averaged for all the transects represented in each treatment involved in the comparison.

Mean Coverage Index = Sum(Coverage Index for the species) Number of transects The Mean Coverage Index values for the individual species comparisons can range from 0-100.

When treatments (e.g. Herbicided, Mechanical, Untreated, etc.) involving a group of species (e.g. desirable species, undesirable species, grasses and sedges,) were compared, first the Coverage Index values for all species within the group were summed for each transect. Then the summed transect values were averaged for all transects in each treatment involved in the comparison.

Mean Coverage Index = Sum(Coverage Index for all species in the group for all transects in the treatment) number of transects in the treatment

Since each species involved could have a Coverage Index from 0-100, and multiple species are summed, this can result in Mean Coverage Index values that are greater than 100. The Mean Coverage Index is dependent on the number of species in the group and their abundance, the more species and the greater abundance, the higher the Mean Coverage Index value.

Treatment comparisons included:

• All Herbicided vs. All Mechanical vs. Untreated • Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes vs. Glyphosate Only vs. Untreated • Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates vs. Untreated • Before Imazamox Treatment vs. One Growing Season after Treatment • Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment vs.

No Follow-up • Standing Water vs. Dry Ground at time of treatment

Bar graphs were created for each comparison; the graphs are all in the same format. The treatments are listed along the x-axis. The Mean Coverage Index is shown on the y-axis of the graph. In graphs for individual species, the y-axis range is between 0 and 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. In both cases, the taller the bars, the more area was covered by this species or group of species. Number of transects sampled were not equal between treatments; number of transects sampled for each treatment category were shown on the graphs as “n=(number of transects sampled)” and which transects were included was listed in the “Comparisons” columns in Appendix B.

25

Results and Discussion Our objectives were to determine if treatments were shifting vegetation closer to a desirable marsh community and to compare the success of different treatment methods. We also wanted to look at plots with longer time since treatment to see how they have progressed toward a natural marsh community. Since fire is the primary mechanism that has maintained these marshes in the past, another objective was to determine if post-treatment vegetation provided sufficient fuel to burn with enough frequency to keep woody species from returning to dominate the community (Lugo 1995, Wade et al. 1980).

Mechanical Treatment vs. Aerial Spraying of Herbicides

Untreated areas still retained a fair amount of Desirable vegetation such as pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and sawgrass (Figure 10a, Appendices B, C, and D). This is encouraging since we still have a seed source and root stock present to repopulate the areas if we decide to treat them in the future. Mechanical treatment areas had more than twice the cover of Desirable species than herbicided areas and have approximately one third more than the untreated areas. Undesirable species cover was highest in the aerially herbicided areas, slightly more than in the untreated areas (Figure 10b, Appendices B, C, and D). Undesirable cover was lowest in the mechanically treated areas. Climbing hemp (Mikania scandens) had more cover in both treated areas than in the untreated areas (Appendix D).

Willow cover was high in the untreated areas (Figure 10c). It was reduced by about half in the aerially herbicided plots, but in the mechanically treated areas results were even better where willow cover was reduced to only about one eighth of the untreated areas.

Cattail, usually found in sunny locations, were not common in the untreated plots, probably due to the shading of the willow canopy (Figure 10d). Both treatments show more cattail cover, three times more in the mechanically treated areas and seven times more in the aerially herbicided areas. Dense cattail forming thick often impenetrable cover with virtually no other plants present is worse than willow. Untreated willow has layered vegetation with desirable species still present and is still accessible to wildlife for movement and foraging on the ground and through gaps in the willow canopy.

Peruvian primrose willow is also a problem in post-treatment areas. This species was not common in the untreated plots (Figure 10e). Mechanically treated areas

26

Figure 10. Comparison of Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups. In graphs for individual species, Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

27

Figure 10 continued. Comparison of Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups.

28

had about the same cover of Peruvian primrose willow as the untreated areas, but this species more than tripled its cover in the herbicided areas.

Grasses and sedges are excellent fuels that will carry fire through the marsh (Lee et al 2005, Wade 1980). Though other herbaceous plants like arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) and pickerelweed will burn, they require drier conditions even later in the dry season when Florida Forest Service is more likely to prohibit burning, and burning organic soils later in the dry season risks creating a muck fire. Without the grass and sedge component, it is much more difficult to reach a balance between being dry enough to burn these plants yet not so dry that the organic substrate will burn. The best way we have to control willow once we restore the marshes is with fire, so fuels are critical to the long-term success of restoring marshes. If we cannot burn them, natural succession without fire will return them to woody plants, or worse, dense cattails.

Here we find the biggest problem with herbicide treatments is that they are eliminating most of the grasses and sedges (Figure 10f). Mechanical treatments are promoting more grasses and sedges, which is what we need. Sawgrass, actually a sedge, and the grass maidencane are the two most common species and both are excellent fuels for burning. Herbicide treatment areas have virtually no sawgrass (Figure 10g). Mechanically treated areas also have less sawgrass cover than the untreated areas, but still had some. Maidencane is a sun-loving grass, so it is not very common in the untreated areas, but we would expect it to increase if we remove the willow canopy. Again, this species has increased in mechanically treated areas but decreased in herbicided areas (Figure 10h).

The mechanical treatments used at CSS involved shredding woody vegetation with a gyrotrack mulching head using a rubber track skidsteer. This technique is more expensive and more time-consuming than aerial herbicide treatments. This method is also dependent on dry ground so equipment will not sink or rut organic soils that usually do not dry down until late in the dry season, and in some years, do not dry down at all. It is also critical that wet season water levels rise soon enough after the treatment and remain high enough to drown resprouting from the willow bases. With these restrictions at both ends of the treatment, there is a short window of time to get the work done. Therefore, the amount of area that can be treated is dependent on the number and size of machines available to do the work. Compared to mechanical treatment, helicopter aerial spraying of herbicides to remove willow is cheaper, quicker, can be done most seasons, and can cover large areas easily.

Mechanical treatments seem to be much better at restoring desirable marsh vegetation, which is our goal. However, it would be difficult to keep ahead of willow encroachment with this method given the available funding and the constraints on doing the work.

29

Glyphosate Only vs. Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes and Recovery Over Time

The older treatments at CSS and CREW were done from 2008-2011 and used only glyphosate except for the CSS 2008 treatment which also included diquat. Although we did not observe the results immediately after treatment, we can use these plots to determine the long-term effects (> 5 years) of glyphosate on the areas. More recent treatments both at CSS and CREW and around the state have used a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide with the active ingredient imazapyr. These treatments were done in 2014 and 2015 on both CSS and CREW.

On CREW, the location of older glyphosate only treatments were at the north end of Corkscrew Marsh; willow density at the time of initial treatment was high in the 2008 treatment area and medium in the 2009 and 2011 treatment areas (Figure 7, Table 1). The more recent glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas were farther south in the marsh where prior to the herbicide treatment willow density was high in all treatment areas except the Spring 2015 area; vegetation in the untreated controls was similar to the adjacent 2014 treatment areas. CSS glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas are above and below the 2008 glyphosate only treatment and are located at the north end of the sanctuary where willows were large at time of treatment (Figures 5 and 8).

The older treatments have a lower cover of desirable species (Figure 11a). This could be because glyphosate alone initially eliminated more desirable species, or the undesirable species are outcompeting the desirable species over time, or the recent imazamox treatment could have reduced the cover of desirable species (Figure 11a). Cover of undesirable species in untreated and aerially sprayed areas are about the same, so no progress has been made at eliminating undesirable species with either glyphosate only or glyphosate/imazapyr chemical treatment (Figure 11b).

There were fewer willow in the recent glyphosate/imazapyr areas when compared with the older glyphosate only areas (Figure 11c); this result could be a function of time, with willow resprouting or reseeding, or it could be the type of herbicide that was used. Both areas have less willow cover than the untreated areas. In the more recently treated plots, most of the large willow appear to have been killed, but there are small willows present, either root sprouts off the old trees or new plants.

There are more cattails in the recently sprayed areas treated with the glyphosate/imazapyr mixes (Figure 11d). The older glyphosate only areas also have more cattail than the untreated areas. Since cattails are now well established in the surrounding areas on both CSS and CREW, proximity of a seed source could have contributed to the increased dominance in the more recently treated plots.

30

Figure 11. Comparison of Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to Glyphosate Only and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups. In graphs for individual species, Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

31

Figure 11 continued. Comparison of Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to Glyphosate Only and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups.

32

There is substantially more cover of Peruvian primrose willow in the glyphosate only areas and only slightly more cover in the glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas compared to the untreated areas (Figure 11e). As with cattail, Peruvian primrose willow are now well established in the surrounding area, and proximity of a seed source could partly explain the increased dominance in the more recent plots. It also may be that Peruvian primrose willow is aggressive enough to pose an increasing problem over time in any areas disturbed by treatment.

Similarly, grasses and sedges have been largely reduced with both types of herbicide treatment, regardless of time since treatment, compared to the untreated areas (Figure 11f). Sawgrass is absent in all the glyphosate/imazapyr treatment samples, which is a problem for the long-term maintenance of these areas with fire even if we can get the willow and cattail under control (Figure 11g). Maidencane has not increased in either treatment (Figure 11h).

So, we are maintaining desirable herbaceous vegetation using the glyphosate/imazapyr treatments, with the most common species cover from pickerelweed, arrowhead, and string lily (Crinum americanum) (Appendix D). Unfortunately, the cover of grasses and sedges is low, none of which is sawgrass, and there is no increase in maidencane over what was present in the untreated areas.

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates

In the 2014-15 treatments, three different combinations of concentrations of glyphosate and imazapyr were used to determine which combination was most effective at reaching the goal of restoring desirable marsh vegetation. The mixes included a “hot” mix with the strongest amounts of both chemicals, 120 oz/acre glyphosate and 64 oz/acre imazapyr which was used in 2014 on CREW and also on CSS. At CREW in 2014, another mix of 80 oz glyphosate and 24 oz imazapyr per acre, referred to as the ‘medium” mix (medium amount of imazapyr), and a mix of 96 oz glyphosate and 16 oz. imazapyr per acre, referred to as the “light” mix, were also used. It should be noted that the “medium” mix has the least glyphosate, while the “light” mix has the medium amount glyphosate, so the “medium” and “light” names follow imazapyr amounts, but not glyphosate amounts. In Spring 2015, additional areas were treated with the “light” mix on CREW.

The stronger the mix, the less desirable cover was present, which might be expected due to the strengths of the mixes, i.e. the stronger the mix, the more cover could be killed (Figure 12a). But when we look at the undesirable cover, the stronger the mix, the more undesirable cover was present, which is not intuitive (Figure 12b). Therefore, the “light” mix met our objective best in this comparison, retaining the

33

Figure 12. Comparison of Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups. In graphs for individual species, Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

34

Figure 12 continued. Comparison of Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups.

35

most desirable cover and the least undesirable cover. The “light” mix also had the least willow, cattail, and Peruvian primrose willow cover (Figure 12c- e). So, the least imazapyr, the “light” mix, worked best at retaining desirable marsh vegetation and removing undesirable cover.

Despite the retention of desirable vegetation cover and reduction in undesirable cover in the “light” area, the treatment did not retain the needed grasses and sedges to carry fire. Here the mix with the least glyphosate, the Medium mix, had the most grasses and sedges and the most maidencane cover (Figure 12f and h), but this mix didn’t kill the undesirable species (Figure 12b, c, and d.). None of the mixes left any sawgrass (Figure 12g). So, though we are refining our ability to kill willow and retain desirable species, we are still not getting the fuels we need in the form of grasses and sedges to perpetuate the marsh over time.

Comparison of Dry Season vs. Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix

CREW used the “light” mix in both the wet (August 2014) and dry seasons (May 2015) to compare the effect of standing water on the treatment. There are only two samples of treatments with this chemical concentration in late summer with standing water and two at the end of the dry season with dry ground. Treatment over dry ground contained more desirable and less undesirable cover, including willow and cattail (Figure 13a-e). The wet and dry ground treatments had similarly low cover of grasses and sedges, including no sawgrass and very small amounts of maidencane (Figure 13f-h). There was some overspray during the dry ground treatment that resulted in substantial sawgrass mortality. We thought that possibly treating when the ground is dry could cause more mortality from chemical activity in the soil and also harm the desirable seedbank. Therefore, treating over standing water might be preferable since willow seed does not have a dormant stage and does not enter the seedbank (Quintana-Ascencio and Fauth 2011, Castro-Morales et al. 2014). But the treatment over dry ground had better results in these few samples. However, the small sample size and the fact that a team of different observers sampled one of the plots treated Spring 2015 make drawing conclusions from these data inappropriate.

Imazamox Treatment

In Fall 2015, CREW treated the older glyphosate areas to the north with Clearcast, an herbicide with the active ingredient imazamox, at the lowest rate recommended

36

Figure 13. Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups. In graphs for individual species, Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

37

Figure 13 continued. Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups.

38

for cattails, 32 oz imazamox and 16 oz MSO per acre. Since imazamox is somewhat selective, we were interested in what effect it had on other species.

Though there were only three pre-treatment and six post-treatment samples, we found more desirable cover and somewhat less undesirable cover in the 2016 samples one growing season after treatment (Figure 14a-b). Clearcast is labeled for treating cattail, and there was substantially lower cattail cover in 2016 (Figure 14d). Though this product is not labelled for willow, it was encouraging to find that there was also less willow cover (Figure 14c). However, Peruvian primrose willow cover did increase after treatment (Figure 14e). A very encouraging result was a slight increase in the cover of grasses and sedges, instead of the sharp decrease we saw in all the previously described herbicide treatments (Figure 14f). There was no sawgrass and too little maidencane to draw conclusions (Figure 14g-h). So possibly imazamox may not negatively affect grasses and sedges, and we recommend further testing of this hypotheses in future treatments.

Based on these data and a report from St. John’s Water Management District (Hall et al. 2017) that reports treating willow two years in a row at a stronger imazamox rate of 48 oz/acre had good success with cattails and also killed willow in a small plot where water levels could be regulated, CREW has proposed to conduct two treatments of imazamox on the original 2008 glyphosate area in Fall of 2017 and 2018. If possible, CREW may also do some ground selective spraying of willow and cattail.

Follow-up vs. No Follow-up after Mechanical Treatments

CSS meanwhile is concentrating on mechanical treatments. The cattail in the 2013 mechanical treatment area at the Eagle Island curve was spot treated with glyphosate using a backpack sprayer and any seed heads were bagged and removed, and danglepod (Sesbania herbacea) were pulled and piled before going to seed in spring 2015. In the 2015 mechanical treatment area, Corkscrew selectively treated any willow present after the first growing season with aquatic triclopyr using a swamp buggy. These secondary treatments should go a long way toward keeping cattail and willow from re-establishing. There only were two areas with follow-up selective treatments (one for only cattail and one for only willow) and six areas with no follow-up treatment, and there was no data from before the follow-up samples. Willow and cattail cover was slightly less in both follow-up treatment plots than in the six plots without follow-up treatment (Figure 15a and b). Because of the small sample sizes, these conclusions should be considered preliminary.

39

Figure 14. Comparison of Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with Imazamox Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups. In graphs for individual species, Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

40

Figure 14 continued. Comparison of Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with Imazamox Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups.

41

Figure 15. Comparison of Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment with No Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments Mean Coverage Indices for willow and cattail. There were only two areas with follow-up selective treatments; in one, only cattail was treated and in the other, only willow was treated. Mean Coverage Indices range from 0 to 100. n= the number of samples in each category.

42

Conclusions Mechanical treatment would be the method of choice when possible since it comes closest to returning willow infested areas to a marsh community dominated by desirable vegetation and increasing the grass and sedge cover, which could allow us to control willow with fire over time. Following up with selective spraying of willow and cattail after the first growing season appeared to slow the return of willow and cattail. However, due to the high cost and difficult logistics, mechanical treatment may not be practical for large areas or sites with more than shallow organic soils. The area mechanically treated at CSS after 4 years totals 24.1 acres.

Herbicide treatments with mixes of glyphosate and imazapyr severely reduce the cover of grasses and sedges to a level that, at least after two growing seasons, will not support fire.

A mix of 96 oz of imazapyr and 16 oz of glyphosate (the “light” mix) left the most desirable marsh vegetation cover and least undesirable cover, including willow and cattail, but this mix, at least two growing seasons after treatment, does not have enough grasses and sedges to support prescribed fire. Fire of sufficient intensity is needed to kill the willow that is coming back in the plots before it gets above four feet tall, which is too big to be killed by fire (Quintana-Ascencio and Fauth 2011).

Imazamox (Clearcast) at a low concentration, increased desirable cover, reduced the cover of cattail and also willow, and, in sharp contrast to the other herbicides, slightly increased cover of grasses and sedges, though due to the small sample size, these conclusions should be considered preliminary.

Fire is still our best tool for retaining our current marshes and not letting willow-invaded areas get worse. Fire has the greatest likelihood of retaining desirable marsh vegetation and slowing woody species encroachment. Every effort to burn marshes in good condition and those under stress from willow and cattail should be implemented to avoid further degradation.

Acknowledgments Both CREW and CSS should be proud for tackling this difficult restoration effort. They have sought funding and pursued the problem with enthusiasm. A lot has been learned and with current and future efforts we will get closer to understanding the problem and finding the most practical solutions.

Joe Bozzo, and Maco Touchett from South Florida Water Management District, Jessi Drummond with the CREW Land and Water Trust, Jessica Griffith, Stephanie Burkhardt, Molly Duvall, and Tiffany Thornhill from Florida Fish and Wildlife

43

Conservation Commission, Jim Burch with National Park Service, retired, and Jason Lauritsen with National Audubon Society all participated in the monitoring; we appreciate your help.

Thank you to FWC’s AHREs (Aquatic Habitat and Restoration) section, including Beacham Furse and Steve Gornak, for funding the CREW work.

The restoration work on CSS was funded by generous gifts from the Rathmann Family Foundation, Freed Foundation, Robinson Foundation, and Steve and Merrilee Nellis. Thank you for supporting this important work.

We are grateful to George Wilder, Botanist and Herbarium Curator, Naples Botanical Garden, for help with plant identification.

Bibliography Anderson, H. E., 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. National Coordinating Group, Boise, Idaho. General Technical Report INT-122. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf . Atlas of Florida Plants. 2017. Wunderlin, R. P., B. F. Hansen, A. R. Franck, and F. B. Essig. Institute for Systematic Botany. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), USF Water Institute]. Castor-Morales, L. M., P. F. Quintana-Ascencio, J. E. Fauth, K. J. Ponzio, and D. L. Hall. 2014. Environmental Factors Affecting Germination and Seedling Survival of Carolina Willow (Salix caroliniana). Wetlands 34:496-478. Chytry, M., and Z. Otypkova. 2003. Plot Sizes Used for Phytosociological Sampling of European Vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:563–570. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A Canopy-coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Duever, M. J., and R. E. Roberts. 2013. Successional and Transitional Models of Natural South Florida, USA, Plant Communities. Fire Ecology 9:1, 110-122. http://fireecologyjournal.org/docs/Journal/pdf/Volume09/Issue01/110.pdf . Florida Administrative Code 5B-40 Preservation of Native Flora of Florida. 2015. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=5B-40 .

44

Florida Administrative Code 62-340.450(3) Vegetative Index. 1993. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=DELINEATION OF THE LANDWARD EXTENT OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS&ID=62-340.450, 20pp. Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council. 2017. List of Invasive Plant Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Internet: http://bugwoodcloud.org/CDN/fleppc/plantlists/2017/2017FLEPPCLIST-TRIFOLD-FINALAPPROVEDBYKEN-SUBMITTEDTOALTA.pdf . Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. 1990. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. 116 pp. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf . Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida: 2010 edition. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 223pp. http://fnai.org/naturalcommguide.cfm . Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement Fire Regimes in Southeastern Marshes, Peatlands, and Swamps. Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. 22 pp. Hall, D. L., K. J. Ponzio, J. B. Miller, P. J. Bowen, and D. L. Curtis. 2017. Ecology and Management of Carolina Willow (Salix caroliniana): A Compendium of Knowledge. Technical Publication SJ2017-1. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. 108pp. http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/tpubs1.html . Jones, John. 2016. Blue Heron Environmental, Alva, Florida. personal communication. Lee, M. B., K. L. Snyder, P. Valentine-Darby, S. J. Miller, and K. J. Ponzio. 2005. Dormant Season Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool for the Control of Salix caroliniana Michx. in a Floodplain Marsh. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 479-487 Lugo, A. E. 1995. Fire and Wetland Management. in S. I. Cerulean and R. T. Engstrom, eds. Fire in Wetlands: a Management Perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 9 pp.

45

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2013. A Handbook for Collecting Vegetation Plot Data in Minnesota: the Relevé Method. 2nd Edition. Minnesota Biological Survey, Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, and Ecological Land Classification Program. Biological Report 92. St. Paul, MN. 56 pp. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/releve/releve_singlepage.pdf .

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 547 pp. Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A Flexible, Multipurpose Method for Recording Vegetation Composition and Structure. Castanea 63:262–274. Quintana-Ascencio, P., and J. E. Fauth. 2011. Ecological Studies of Willow (Salix caroliniana): Project Final Report. Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 91 pp. Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-17. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 125 pp.

46

Appendices

47

Appendix A

Transect Monitoring Field Comments

48

49

50

Appendix B

Sample Summary Data

Herb Mech Untreated

Imaz mix- Glyph Only-Untreated

Imax mix Hot Med Light Untre

Imaz mix Dry vs Wet

Clearcast Before Post

Mech Followup No Followup

Sampling Year

Sampling Transect

Desirable

Undesirable

Willow Cattail Peru vian prim rose Will ow

Grass/sedge

Sawgrass

Maidencane

Willow Cattail

Peruvian Primrose Willow

Climbing

Hemp vine

NN/ NN

Other

Shrub/Tree/Vine

B 2015 2008 157 410 100 100 0 57 0 10 100 100 0 100 24 86H O B 2015 2009 from edge 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0

2015 2011 Walk 335 22 10 10 0 137 100 31 10 10 0 0 0 2H O B 2015 2011 66 271 100 31 10 8 0 0 100 31 10 100 2 28H I H 2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 0 161 10 100 0 0 0 0 10 100 0 31 12 8H I M 2015 2014 Medium 80:24 426 137 100 0 0 114 0 100 100 0 0 0 2 35

2015 2014 Light 96:16 66 179 10 2 2 18 0 2 10 2 2 100 24 412015 2015 Spring 96:16 341 0 0 0 0 64 2 31 0 0 0 0 0 0

U U U 2015 Control A 257 116 100 0 0 104 100 2 100 0 0 0 2 14U U U 2015 Control C 218 53 31 2 0 53 31 10 31 2 0 2 0 18H O P 2016 2008 140 187 31 10 2 28 0 2 31 10 2 100 20 24H O P 2016 2008 #2 94 324 100 10 100 2 0 0 100 10 100 100 6 8H O P 2016 2009 186 59 2 31 0 33 0 0 2 31 0 10 12 4H O P 2016 2009 #2 91 329 2 10 100 26 0 2 2 10 100 100 41 76H O P 2016 2011 232 92 31 2 0 68 31 31 31 2 0 31 12 16H O P 2016 2011 #2 85 198 10 31 31 6 0 0 10 31 31 100 6 20H I H 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 357 67 31 10 0 31 0 31 31 10 0 10 2 14H I H 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 71 332 100 100 2 6 0 2 100 100 2 100 12 18H I M 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 97 346 100 100 2 14 0 10 100 100 2 100 24 20H I M 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 26 143 2 100 0 4 0 0 2 100 0 31 4 6H I L W 2016 2014 Light 96:16 179 113 31 10 0 6 0 0 31 10 0 31 31 10H I L W 2016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 293 138 10 10 0 35 0 2 10 10 0 100 12 6H I L D 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 366 6 2 2 0 20 0 10 2 2 0 0 0 2H I L D 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 389 6 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4U U U 2016 Control A 178 141 100 31 0 104 100 2 100 31 0 0 4 6U U U 2016 Control B 155 288 100 10 0 104 100 2 100 10 0 31 100 47U U U 2016 Control C 190 136 100 0 0 41 31 2 100 0 0 10 0 26U U U 2016 Control C #2 393 53 31 0 0 43 31 10 31 0 0 10 0 12H O 2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 0 214 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 2 0 12

2015 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 51 102 2 10 31 2 0 0 2 10 31 0 39 202015 2015 E of Washout Rd 703 50 2 2 0 228 31 10 2 2 0 2 22 22

M F 2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 292 111 10 10 10 165 0 100 10 10 10 31 26 24M N 2016 2013 Nof Fishfarm 319 112 10 31 10 238 10 100 10 31 10 31 14 16M N 2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 203 200 31 31 10 74 31 0 31 31 10 100 10 18H I H 2016 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 89 357 0 100 100 16 0 0 0 100 100 100 39 18M N 2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 429 55 10 10 0 111 31 0 10 10 0 31 0 4M F 2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 438 89 0 10 2 155 31 31 0 10 2 31 18 28M 2016 2016 S-Central Area 544 42 2 2 10 116 10 31 2 2 10 2 4 22U U U 2016 Control W of Washout Rd 95 134 100 2 0 43 31 10 100 2 0 10 14 8U U U 2016 Control N of Fishfarm 271 324 100 10 31 180 31 100 100 10 31 100 24 59U U U 2016 Control Central Marsh 286 135 100 0 0 102 100 2 100 0 0 2 0 33U U U 2016 Control E of Washout Rd 268 386 100 2 31 136 0 10 100 2 31 100 114 39H I H 2016 2014 CSS S Hot 120:64 229 371 10 100 10 28 0 10 10 100 10 100 133 18H O 2016 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 0 232 100 100 10 0 0 0 100 100 10 10 10 2

Not included since duplicate of 2016 transect (ie in same spot)

Undesirables broken downComparisonsCoverage Index for each Sample

51

Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated AreasImazapyr/Glyphosate Mixes, Glyphosate Only, and Untreated AreasThree Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates ( Hot 120:64 [glyphosate:imazapyr oz/acre], Medium 80:24, Light 96:16) and Untreated AreasDry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr "Light” mixBefore Treatment and One Growing Season Post-Treatment with Imazamox (Clearcast)Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment and No Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments

The names assigned to the transects are listed in blue for CSS (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary) and red for CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed WEA)

Desirable Species are all native herbaceous marsh plants including native ferns, floating plants, submerged plants, grasses, sedges, and low to large emergent herbs. Classification was assigned by the authors.Undesirable species include all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh including native trees, shrubs, and vines. Graphs in Figures 10-14 show a breakdown of Undesirable plants into the categories shown below in "Undesirables broken down".Only this single speciesOnly this single speciesOnly this single speciesAll native grasses and sedges (no native grasses or sedges are Nuisance Natives).Only this single speciesOnly this single species

Only this single speciesOnly this single speciesOnly this single species, Peruvian primrose willowOnly this single speciesAll other non-native or nuisance native speciesAll native trees, shrubs, and vines

Imaz mix Hot Med Light Untreated

Appendix B Metadata

Treatment Comparisons ColumnsThere is a column for each comparison of treatments shown in Figures 10-15 of the report. Letters in red in column header

Herb Mech UntreatedImaz mix Glyph Only

Untreated

Peruvian primrose willow

Imaz mix Dry vs WetClearcast Before Post

Mech Followup No Followup

Sampling Year

Sampling Transect

Coverage Index (single species) or Sum of Coverage Indices (multiple species) Data are a measure of cover; the higher the number the more cover. For analysis, qualitative cover categories were converted

Desirable

Undesirable

WillowCattail

Peruvian primrose willowClimbing Hempvine

NN/NN OtherShrub/Tree/vine

Grass/sedgeSawgrass

Maidencane

Undesirables Broken DownWillowCattail

52

Appendix C Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects:

Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments and Untreated Areas

CSS sampling transects are listed first followed by CREW sampling transects for each Treatment type (Herbicide Glyphosate Only, Herbicide Glyphosate/Imazapyr, Untreated, and Mechanical).

CSS CREW2008 Aerial Glyphosate (CSS '15) 2008 ('15)2008 Aerial Glyphosate (CSS '16) 2008 ('16)

2008 #2 ('16)2009 from edge ('15)2009 ('16)2009 #2 ('16)2011 ('15)2011 ('16)2011 #2 ('16)

2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 (CSS '15) 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only ('15)2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 (CSS '16) 2014 Hot 120:64 ('16)2014 CSS S Hot 120:64 (CSS '16) 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 ('16)

2014 Medium 80:24 ('15)2014 Medium 80:24 ('16)2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short ('16) 2014 Light 96:16 ('15)2014 Light 96:16 ('16)2014 Light 96:16 #2 ('16)2015 Spring 96:16 ('15) 2015 Spring 96:16 ('16)2015 Spring 96:16 #2 ('16)

Control Central Marsh ('16) Control A ('15)Control E of Washout Rd ('16) Control A ('16)Control N of Fishfarm ('16) Control B ('16)Control W of Washout Rd ('16) Control C ('15)

Control C ('16)Control C #2 ('16)

2013 Eagle Island Curve ('16)2013 N of Fishfarm ('16)2013 W of Washout Rd ('16)2014 W of Washout Rd ('16)2015 E of Washout Rd ('15)2015 E of Washout Rd ('16)2016 S-Central Area ('16)

Trea

tmen

t Typ

e

Herb

icid

e G

lyph

osat

e O

nly

Herb

icid

e G

lyph

osat

e/Im

azap

yrU

ntre

ated

Mec

hani

cal

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Appendix D

Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect

SpeciesCommon name

ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common

NameFEPPC

Status (Endemic T&E)

Desirable/ Undesirable

Plant type

AreaDate SampledYear Sampled

Sampling Transects

Either CSS (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary) or CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershead WE

The names assigned to the transects are listed in blue for CSS and red for CREW

Data are 4 qualitative cover categories: A (abundant), C (Common), O (Occasional), and R (Rare). For analysis, these qualitative categories were converted to a quantitative Coverage Index described in the Analysis section of the report. Conversion factors are as follows: Abundant = 100, Common=31, Occasional=10, Rare=2.

The top 4 rows describe the data

Scientific names to species where possible, otherwise to Genus or Family. If name is followed by If the plant was could not be identified to species, short descriptive information may be given.

Options are Native, Not Native, and ? when identification was not specific enough to determine Codes are OBL (obligate), FACW (facultative wet), FAC (facultative), and UP (upland, inferred if

When identification was not specific enough to determine family, the plant was listed as "?".

When identification was not specific enough to determine family, the plant was listed as "?".

Aggressive exotic plants listed by the Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council (2017) designations EPPC(I) State threatened and endangered species based on State thFlorida Administrative Code (2015).

When identification was not specific enough to determine status, the plant was listed as "?".Undesirable species include all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh including shrubs, trees, and vines. Categories are: fern, floating/submerged, grass/sedge, herb, large emergent herb, low herb, shrub, tree, vine. Classification was assigned by the authors.

Remaining Columns

The following 7 categories listed here in red follow information in the Atlas of Florida Plants (Wunderlin et al. 2017).

Appendix D MetadataA list of all plants observed during sampling.Undesirable species are in pink; included are all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not

Desirable Species are in white; included are all other herbaceous marsh plants.

Descriptive Columns

62

Desirable Species in white Blue is CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREWUndesirable Speces in pink Red is CREW Date Sampled 5/15/15 10/4/15 10/4/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 10/19/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15

Year Sampled 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Species Common name ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common Name

FEPPCStatus

(Endemic T&E)

Plant type

2008 Aerial

Glypho- sate

2014 CSS Hot 120:64

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2007 N 2008 2009 from edge

2011 Walk

2011 2014 Hot 120:64 along

edge only

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Light 96:16

2015 Spring 96:16

Control A Control C

Acer rubrum red maple Native FACW Sapindaceae soapberry -- -- tree R R R R R R RAcmella oppositifolia oppositeleaf spotflower Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- low herb R

Acrostichum danaeifolium giant leather fern Native OBL Pteridaceae brake fern -- -- fernAlternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed Not Native OBL Amaranthaceae amaranth EPPC(II) -- low herb R OAmaranthacae (family) amaranth ? ? Amaranthacae amaranth ? ? herbAmpelopsis arborea pepper vine Native U Vitaceae grape -- -- vine RAndropogon glomeratus bluestem, bushy Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedgeAndropogon glomeratus var. pumilus bluestem, hairy Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge R C RAnnona glabra pond apple N OBL Annonaceae custard apple -- -- treeAraceae (family) duckweed ? nc Araceae arum ? -- floating/submerged R CAsclepias lanceolata milkweed, fewflower Native OBL Apocynaceae dogbane -- -- herbAsteraceae composite, big head ? ? Asteraceae aster ? ? herb RAzolla filiculoides American waterfern Native nc Azollaceae mosquito fern -- -- floating/submerged R RBaccharis glomeruliflora silverling Native FAC Asteraceae aster -- -- shrub O RBaccharis halimifolia saltbush Native FAC Asteraceae aster -- -- shrub R R R R O RBacopa caroliniana lemon bacopa Native OBL Scrophulariaceae figwort -- -- floating/submerged R O R OBacopa monnieri herb-of-grace Native OBL Plantaginaceae Plantain -- -- low herbBidens laevis burrmarigold Native OBL Asteraceae aster -- -- herb R RBlechnum serrulatum swamp fern Native FACW Blechnaceae mid-sorus fern -- -- fern O R O OBoehmeria cylindrica false nettle, bog hemp native OBL Urticaceae nettle -- -- low herb C R O O R O R R RCarex verrucosa warty sedge Native FACW Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge RCassytha filiformis fine-stem lovevine Native nc Lauraceae laurel -- -- vine R OCentella asiatica spadeleaf Native FACW Apiaceae carrot -- -- low herb

Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Native OBL Rubiaceae madder -- -- shrub O O R C R R C C O R

Ceratophyllum demersum coontail Native OBL Ceratophyllaceae hornwort -- -- floating/submerged RCeratopteris pteridoides water horn fern Native OBL Pteridaceae brake fern -- -- fernCladium jamaicense sawgrass Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge C C A R A CCommelina diffusa dayflower Not Native FACW Commelinaceae spiderwort -- -- low herb RCrinum americanum seven-sisters, string-lily Native OBL Amaryllidaceae amaryllis -- -- large emergent herbs A C R C O O CCuscuta compacta dodder compact Native -- Convolvulaceae morning-glory -- -- vineCuscuta sp. dodder Native nc Convolvulaceae morning-glory -- -- vine O OCyperaceae sedge ? ? Cyperaceae sedge ? ? grass/sedge R

Cyperaceaesedge, medium size, like Rhynchospora tracyi ? ? Cyperaceae sedge ? ? grass/sedge

Cyperaceaesedge, large size, like Rhynchospora inundata ? ? Cyperaceae sedge ? ? grass/sedge

Cyperus distinctus swamp flatsedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge RCyperus esculentus yellow nutgrass Not Native FAC Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge RCyperus haspan haspan flatsedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge A RCyperus odoratus fragrant flatsedge Native FACW Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R

63

Desirable Species in white Blue is CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREWUndesirable Speces in pink Red is CREW Date Sampled 5/15/15 10/4/15 10/4/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 10/19/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15

Year Sampled 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Species Common name ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common Name

FEPPCStatus

(Endemic T&E)

Plant type

2008 Aerial

Glypho- sate

2014 CSS Hot 120:64

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2007 N 2008 2009 from edge

2011 Walk

2011 2014 Hot 120:64 along

edge only

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Light 96:16

2015 Spring 96:16

Control A Control C

Cyperus polystachyos manyspike flatsedge Native FACW Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R RDichanthelium dichotomum cypress witchgrass Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedgeDichanthelium ensifolium var. ensifolium cypress witchgrass Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedgeDiodia virginiana virginia buttonweed Native FACW Rubiaceae madder -- -- low herb RDiospyros virginiana persimmon Native FAC Ebenaceae ebony -- -- tree REchinochloa muricata rough barnyardgrass Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge R R R REchinochloa paludigena Florida cockspur Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedgeEchinochloa walteri coast cockspur Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge REclipta prostrata false daisy Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- low herbEleocharis cellulosa gulf coast spikerush Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedgeEleocharis flavescens yellow spkerush Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedgeEleocharis interstincta knotted spikerush Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedgeEleocharis sp. spikerush (super thin) ? ? Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge CEleocharis type, thick, medium size not interstincta

spikerush thick, medium size, not knotted ? ? ? ? ? ? grass/sedge

Eleocharis, poss. cellulosa or interstincta

poss. Gulf Coast spikerush or knotted spikerush native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R R R

Eupatorium capillifolium dog fennel Native FAC Asteraceae aster -- -- herb R R O R

Eupatorium mikanioidessemaphore thorough-wort Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- Endemic herb R

Fraxinus caroliniana pop ash Native OBL Oleaceae olive -- -- tree RFuirena breviseta saltmarsh umbrellasedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R RFuirena scirpoidea southern umbrellasedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge RFunastrum clausum white twinevine N FACW Apocynaceae dogbane -- -- vineGalium tinctorium bedstraw, stiff marsh Native FACW Rubiaceae madder -- -- low forbHelianthus agrestis southeastern sunflower Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herb RHibiscus coccineus scarlet rosemallow Native OBL Malvaceae mallow -- -- herbHibiscus grandiflorus swamp hibiscus Native OBL Malvaceae mallow -- -- herb C O R R R CHydrocotyle sp. marshpennywort Native ? Apiaceae carrot -- -- low herb

Hydrocotyle umbellatamanyflower marshpennywort Native FACW Apiaceae carrot -- -- low herb R

Hydrolea corymbosa skyflower Native OBL Hydroleaceae false fiddleleaf -- -- low herb C RHymenachne amplexicaulis West Indian marsh grass Not Native OBL Poaceae grass EPPC(I) -- grass/sedge RHypericum sp. St. John's-wort Native ? Clusiaceae mangosteen -- ? herb? RHyptis alata musky mint Native FACW Lamiaceae mint -- -- herb C OIpomoea alba moonflowers N -- Convolvulaceae morning-glory -- -- vineIpomoea sagittata Glades morning glory Native nc Convolvulaceae morning-glory -- -- vine O R R R R

Ipomoea sp.morning-glory (heart-shaped leaves) ? ? Convolvulaceae morning glory ? ? vine

Iris hexagona Dixie Iris (prairie Iris) Native OBL Iridaceae iris -- -- large emergent herbs R

64

Desirable Species in white Blue is CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREWUndesirable Speces in pink Red is CREW Date Sampled 5/15/15 10/4/15 10/4/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 10/19/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15

Year Sampled 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Species Common name ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common Name

FEPPCStatus

(Endemic T&E)

Plant type

2008 Aerial

Glypho- sate

2014 CSS Hot 120:64

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2007 N 2008 2009 from edge

2011 Walk

2011 2014 Hot 120:64 along

edge only

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Light 96:16

2015 Spring 96:16

Control A Control C

Justicia angusta pineland waterwillow Native OBL Acanthaceae acanthus -- -- low herbJusticia angusta? pineland waterwillow? Native OBL Acanthaceae acanthus -- -- low herb

Kosteletzkya pentacarpos Virginia saltmarsh mallow Native OBL Malvaceae mallow -- -- herbLeersia hexandra southern cutgrass Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge R R R R O OLeptochloa fusca ( subsp. fascicularis ? bearded spangletop Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge

Limnobium spongia American spongeplant, frog's-bit Native OBL Hydrocharitaceae frog's-bit -- -- floating/submerged

Ludwigia alata winged primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- herbLudwigia curtissii Curtiss' primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- low herb O

Ludwigia leptocarpaanglestem primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- herb

Ludwigia microcarpa smallfruit primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- low herbLudwigia octovalvis Mexican primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- herb R

Ludwigia peruviana Peruvian primrose willow Not Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose EPPC(I) -- herb A C O RLudwigia repens creeping primrosewillow Native OBL Onagraceae eveningprimrose -- -- low herb O C O OLudwigia sp. primrosewillow ? ? Onagraceae eveningprimrose ? ? herb O OLuziola fluitans southern watergrass Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge O R

Lygodium microphyllumsmall-leaf (old world) climbing fern Not Native nc Schizaeaceae curlygrass EPPC(I) -- fern R

Lythrum alatum var. lanceolatum winged loosestrife Native OBL Lythraceae loosestrife -- -- herb R R O RMelothria pendula creeping cucumber Native U Cucurbitaceae gourd -- -- vine RMikania scandens climbing hempvine Native nc Asteraceae aster -- -- herb R A+ R R A A C A RMyrica cerifera wax-myrtle Native FAC Myricaceae bayberry -- -- shrub R R O

Nitella sp. or Chara sp.nitella or musk grass (green algae) ? Characeae stonewort floating/submerged A

Nymphaea eleganstropical royalblue waterlily Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submerged

Nymphaea mexicana yellow waterlily Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submergedNymphaea odorata white waterlily Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submerged A O C C O C R O

Nymphaea sp.

water lily, 3 possible sp, none blooming on this transect Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submerged

Nymphaea sp. water lily Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submerged

Nymphaea, mixed sp.

white & yellow waterlily (almost no flowers so grouped; blooms of white in 3 spots & yellow in 1 spot) Native OBL Nymphaeaceae waterlily -- -- floating/submerged

Nymphaea/Nymphoides, small leaf water lily/floating heart ? OBL

Nymphaeaceae/ Menyanthaceae waterlily/bogbean ? ? low herb

Nymphoides aquatica floating heart Native OBL Gentianaceae gentian -- -- floating/submerged R

65

Desirable Species in white Blue is CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREWUndesirable Speces in pink Red is CREW Date Sampled 5/15/15 10/4/15 10/4/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 10/19/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15

Year Sampled 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Species Common name ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common Name

FEPPCStatus

(Endemic T&E)

Plant type

2008 Aerial

Glypho- sate

2014 CSS Hot 120:64

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2007 N 2008 2009 from edge

2011 Walk

2011 2014 Hot 120:64 along

edge only

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Light 96:16

2015 Spring 96:16

Control A Control C

Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis royal fern Native OBL Osmundaceae royal fern -- -- fern R R ROxycaryum cubense Cuban bulrush Not Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedgePanicum dichotomiflorum fall panicgrass Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge OPanicum hemitomon maidencane Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge O R O C A R C R O

Panicum repens torpedograss Not Native FACW Poaceae grass EPPC(1) -- grass/sedgePanicum rigidulum redtop panicum Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge OPaspalidium geminatum Egyptian paspalidium Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge RPaspalum monostachyum gulfdune paspalum Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge CPeltandra virginica green arrow arum Native OBL Araceae arum -- -- large emergent herbs R R R RPersea palustris swamp bay Native OBL Lauraceae laurel -- -- tree R RPersicaria glabra denseflower knotweed Native OBL Polygonaceae buckwheat -- -- herb OPersicaria hydropiperoides

mild waterpepper, swamp smartweed Native OBL Polygonaceae buckwheat -- -- herb R

Persicaria punctata dotted smartweed Native OBL Polygonaceae buckwheat -- -- herb A+ O O R O R O R OPhlebodium aureum golden polypody Native -- Polypodiaceae polypody -- -- fernPhragmites australis common reed Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedgePhyla nodiflora turkey tangle fogfruit Native FAC Verbenaceae vervain -- -- low herbPistia stratiotes water lettuce Not Native nc Araceae arum EPPC(I) -- floating/submerged R OPleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana resurrection fern Native FAC Polypodiaceae polypody -- -- fernPluchea baccharis rosy camphorweed Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herb RPluchea foetida stinking camphorweed Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herb RPluchea odorata sweetscent Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herbPontederia cordata pickerelweed Native OBL Pontederiaceae pickerelweed -- -- large emergent herbs R A O R O O A O A CPotamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed Native OBL Potamogetonaceae pondweed -- -- floating/submerged R OProserpinaca palustris marsh mermaidweed Native OBL Haloragaceae watermilfoil -- -- low herb R R O R C OProserpinaca sp. mermaidweed Native OBL Haloragaceae watermilfoil -- -- low herb RPsidium cattleianum strawberry guava Not Native FAC Myrtaceae myrtle EPPC(I) -- shrub RPtilimnium capillaceum mock bishopsweed Native FACW Apiaceae carrot -- -- low forbQuercus laurifolia laurel oak N FACW Fagaceae beech -- -- treeRhynchospora colorata starrush whitetop Native FACW Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedgeRhynchospora inundata inundated beaksedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge C O

Rhynchospora microcarpa southern beaksedge Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R

Rhynchospora nitensshortbeak beaksedge (baldrush) Native OBL Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R

Rhynchospora sp. beaksedge Native ? Cyperaceae sedge -- -- grass/sedge R O R RRiccia sp. riccia (floating liverwort) Ricciaceae floating/submerged R C OSabal palmetto cabbage palm Native FAC Arecaceae palm -- -- tree RSaccharum giganteum sugarcane plumegrass Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge R RSacciolepis striata American cupscale Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge R R R R R RSagittaria graminea grassy arrowhead Native OBL Alismataceae water plantain -- -- large emergent herbs R RSagittaria lancifolia arrowhead Native OBL Alismataceae water plantain -- -- large emergent herbs O C O A O O A O CSalix caroliniana carolina willow Native OBL Salicaceae willow -- -- tree A R R O A O A O A O A C

66

Desirable Species in white Blue is CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREWUndesirable Speces in pink Red is CREW Date Sampled 5/15/15 10/4/15 10/4/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 10/19/15 10/19/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15 11/4/15

Year Sampled 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Species Common name ExoticFL DEP Code

FamilyFamily Common Name

FEPPCStatus

(Endemic T&E)

Plant type

2008 Aerial

Glypho- sate

2014 CSS Hot 120:64

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2007 N 2008 2009 from edge

2011 Walk

2011 2014 Hot 120:64 along

edge only

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Light 96:16

2015 Spring 96:16

Control A Control C

Salvinia minima water spangles Not Native nc Salviniaceae floating fern EPPC(I) -- floating/submerged C O O R OSambucus nigra subsp. canadensis

American elder, elderberry Native FAC Adoxaceae elderberry -- -- herb

Schinus terebinthifolia Brazilian pepper E FAC Anacardiaceae cashew EPPC(1) -- shrubSenna pendula var. glabrata valamuerto E U Fagaceae pea EPPC(1) -- shrubSesbania herbacea danglepod Native FAC Fabaceae pea -- -- herb RSetaria magna giant bristlegrass Native OBL Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge RSolidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herbSolidago stricta wand goldenrod Native FACW Asteraceae aster -- -- herb RSpartina bakeri sand cordgrass Native FACW Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge

Symphyotrichum bahamense or expansum

bahaman or southwestern annual saltmarsh aster Native OBL Asteraceae aster -- -- low herb

Symphyotrichum carolinianum climbing aster Native OBL Asteraceae aster -- -- vine R C R OSymphyotrichum elliottii Elliott's aster Native OBL Asteraceae aster -- -- herbSymphyotrichum simmondsii Simmonds' aster Native FAC Asteraceae aster -- -- herbSyzygium cumini Java plum E U Myrtaceae myrtle EPPC(1) -- treeTaxodium ascendens pond cypress N OBL Cupressaceae cedar -- -- tree

Teucrium canadensewood sage, wood germander Native FACW Lamiaceae mint -- -- herb R O O R

Thalia geniculata alligatorflag (Fireflag) Native OBL Marantaceae arrowroot -- -- large emergent herbs RThelypteris dentata downy maiden fern Not Native FACW Thelypteridaceae maiden fern -- -- fern O RThelypteris interrupta hottentot fern Native FACW Thelypteridaceae maiden fern -- -- fern R O R CTiedemannia filiformis water cowband Native OBL Apiaceae carrot -- -- herb RTypha sp. cattail Native OBL Typhaceae cattail -- -- grass/sedge O R C A A O C A R RUrochloa arrecta tannergrass Not Native U Poaceae grass -- -- grass/sedge

Usnea sp.old man's beard (fruticose lichen) Native Parmeliaceae lichen

Utricularia foliosa leafy bladderwort Native OBL Lentibulariaceae bladderwort -- -- floating/submerged R O RUtricularia gibba humped bladderwort Native OBL Lentibulariaceae bladderwort -- -- floating/submerged

Utricularia purpureaeastern purple bladderwort Native OBL Lentibulariaceae bladderwort -- -- floating/submerged

Utricularia purpurea or resupinata

Eastern or small purple bladderwort Native OBL Lentibulariaceae bladderwort -- -- floating/submerged R

Utricularia sp. bladderwort Native OBL Lentibulariaceae bladderwort -- -- floating/submerged OVigna luteola hairypod cowpea Native FACW Fabaceae pea -- -- vine R RWoodwardia virginica Virginia chain fern Native FACW Blechnaceae mid-sorus fern -- -- fern O R

176 21 39 68 62 44 17 33 40 25 38 39 29 41 43

67

CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW12/4/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/4/16 12/13/16 12/13/16 12/23/16 12/28/16 12/28/16 12/29/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/30/16 11/4/16 10/30/16 10/30/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 10/30/16 11/4/162016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Species

2013 Nof Fishfarm

2013 W of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial Hot

120:64

2014 W of

Washout Rd

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2016 S-Central Area

Control W of

Washout Rd

Control N of

Fishfarm

Control Central Marsh

Control E of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial S

2008 Aerial

2007 N 2007 N #2

2008 2008 #2 2009 2009 #2 2011 2011 #2 2014 Hot 120:64

2014 Hot 120:64

#2

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Medium 80:24 #2

Very Short

2014 Light 96:16

2014 Light

96:16 #2

2015 Spring 96:16

2015 Spring

96:16 #2

Control A Control B Control C Control C #2

Acer rubrum R R R R C R R R R R R C RAcmella oppositifolia R

Acrostichum danaeifolium R R R R RAlternanthera philoxeroides O CAmaranthacae (family) RAmpelopsis arborea R R R RAndropogon glomeratus R R R RAndropogon glomeratus var. pumilus R O RAnnona glabra R R RAraceae (family) R R A R O C R C OAsclepias lanceolata RAsteraceaeAzolla filiculoides R R OBaccharis glomeruliflora R R R R RBaccharis halimifolia R R RBacopa caroliniana R R R R R R O O R R OBacopa monnieri R R RBidens laevis R R A R R O R R RBlechnum serrulatum O O R R R R RBoehmeria cylindrica R O R R R R R O R R R R R R RCarex verrucosa RCassytha filiformisCentella asiatica R R

Cephalanthus occidentalis R R O C R O C O O R R R O O O O R O R R R R O R O

Ceratophyllum demersum RCeratopteris pteridoidesCladium jamaicense O C C C O C C A A O C A A C CCommelina diffusa R R R R RCrinum americanum R O R C O C R A R C O C O C O O R C O O O O CCuscuta compacta R R R R R O C OCuscuta sp. O R RCyperaceae R

Cyperaceae R R R R R C O R

Cyperaceae R O R O R RCyperus distinctus R RCyperus esculentus RCyperus haspan R R R R O R R R RCyperus odoratus R R R R R

68

CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW12/4/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/4/16 12/13/16 12/13/16 12/23/16 12/28/16 12/28/16 12/29/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/30/16 11/4/16 10/30/16 10/30/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 10/30/16 11/4/162016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Species

2013 Nof Fishfarm

2013 W of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial Hot

120:64

2014 W of

Washout Rd

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2016 S-Central Area

Control W of

Washout Rd

Control N of

Fishfarm

Control Central Marsh

Control E of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial S

2008 Aerial

2007 N 2007 N #2

2008 2008 #2 2009 2009 #2 2011 2011 #2 2014 Hot 120:64

2014 Hot 120:64

#2

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Medium 80:24 #2

Very Short

2014 Light 96:16

2014 Light

96:16 #2

2015 Spring 96:16

2015 Spring

96:16 #2

Control A Control B Control C Control C #2

Cyperus polystachyosDichanthelium dichotomum R R RDichanthelium ensifolium var. ensifolium RDiodia virginiana O RDiospyros virginianaEchinochloa muricata Echinochloa paludigena R O O R R R R REchinochloa walteriEclipta prostrata REleocharis cellulosa OEleocharis flavescens REleocharis interstincta O C A R R REleocharis sp. REleocharis type, thick, medium size not interstincta R

Eleocharis, poss. cellulosa or interstinctaEupatorium capillifolium R R R

Eupatorium mikanioidesFraxinus caroliniana R R RFuirena brevisetaFuirena scirpoideaFunastrum clausum R RGalium tinctorium R R R R RHelianthus agrestisHibiscus coccineus CHibiscus grandiflorus R R R R O O O C C R C R R R O C RHydrocotyle sp. R

Hydrocotyle umbellata R R R R O O R RHydrolea corymbosa O O R R RHymenachne amplexicaulis RHypericum sp.Hyptis alata R R RIpomoea alba RIpomoea sagittata O R R O R R R R R C R R R R O R

Ipomoea sp. RIris hexagona

69

CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW12/4/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/4/16 12/13/16 12/13/16 12/23/16 12/28/16 12/28/16 12/29/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/30/16 11/4/16 10/30/16 10/30/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 10/30/16 11/4/162016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Species

2013 Nof Fishfarm

2013 W of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial Hot

120:64

2014 W of

Washout Rd

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2016 S-Central Area

Control W of

Washout Rd

Control N of

Fishfarm

Control Central Marsh

Control E of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial S

2008 Aerial

2007 N 2007 N #2

2008 2008 #2 2009 2009 #2 2011 2011 #2 2014 Hot 120:64

2014 Hot 120:64

#2

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Medium 80:24 #2

Very Short

2014 Light 96:16

2014 Light

96:16 #2

2015 Spring 96:16

2015 Spring

96:16 #2

Control A Control B Control C Control C #2

Justicia angusta RJusticia angusta? R

Kosteletzkya pentacarpos RLeersia hexandra R R R O R R O R R R O R R O R RLeptochloa fusca ( subsp. fascicularis ? R

Limnobium spongia R R OLudwigia alata O O O R R R R RLudwigia curtissii O

Ludwigia leptocarpa R C R RLudwigia microcarpa RLudwigia octovalvis R

Ludwigia peruviana O O A R O C C O O O C R A A C R RLudwigia repens O R O C A O C O O R R R R O R R RLudwigia sp. RLuziola fluitans R R

Lygodium microphyllum R R R RLythrum alatum var. lanceolatum R R R RMelothria pendulaMikania scandens C A A C C R O A R A A O C C A A O A C A O A A C C A C O OMyrica cerifera R R R R R R R R R O

Nitella sp. or Chara sp.

Nymphaea elegans O RNymphaea mexicana O C C R present) ONymphaea odorata O C (present)

Nymphaea sp. ONymphaea sp. R R O R

Nymphaea, mixed sp. ANymphaea/Nymphoides, small leaf RNymphoides aquatica

70

CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW12/4/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/4/16 12/13/16 12/13/16 12/23/16 12/28/16 12/28/16 12/29/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/30/16 11/4/16 10/30/16 10/30/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 10/30/16 11/4/162016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Species

2013 Nof Fishfarm

2013 W of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial Hot

120:64

2014 W of

Washout Rd

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2016 S-Central Area

Control W of

Washout Rd

Control N of

Fishfarm

Control Central Marsh

Control E of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial S

2008 Aerial

2007 N 2007 N #2

2008 2008 #2 2009 2009 #2 2011 2011 #2 2014 Hot 120:64

2014 Hot 120:64

#2

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Medium 80:24 #2

Very Short

2014 Light 96:16

2014 Light

96:16 #2

2015 Spring 96:16

2015 Spring

96:16 #2

Control A Control B Control C Control C #2

Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis R R R R R R R C ROxycaryum cubense A O RPanicum dichotomiflorum R OPanicum hemitomon A C C O A R O O R O R R C C R O R O R R R R O

Panicum repens RPanicum rigidulumPaspalidium geminatum A O O R R R R RPaspalum monostachyum RPeltandra virginica O O O O R R R R O R R CPersea palustris R R R RPersicaria glabra O R R O O O C O OPersicaria hydropiperoides O C O C C R O O C C O O R R C R R C C O C O O CPersicaria punctata C C O O O RPhlebodium aureum R RPhragmites australis O OPhyla nodiflora R R R RPistia stratiotes R R R R R R R O R O O R O R C OPleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana R RPluchea baccharisPluchea foetida RPluchea odorata RPontederia cordata O C R A A A R O O O C R R R R R C A O O A C A C O R C APotamogeton illinoensis O OProserpinaca palustris R R R R R RProserpinaca sp. O O R O RPsidium cattleianumPtilimnium capillaceum RQuercus laurifolia R RRhynchospora colorata RRhynchospora inundata C C O

Rhynchospora microcarpa R R R

Rhynchospora nitensRhynchospora sp.Riccia sp.Sabal palmetto R O RSaccharum giganteum R C C O R R R R RSacciolepis striata O R R R R R R R C RSagittaria graminea RSagittaria lancifolia O C A C A R R A R O O R R R C R A O R A A A O C ASalix caroliniana O C O R A A A A O A C A C A R R C O C A A R C O R A A A C

71

CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW CREW12/4/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/13/16 11/21/16 12/4/16 12/13/16 12/13/16 12/23/16 12/28/16 12/28/16 12/29/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 10/14/16 12/8/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 12/8/16 10/28/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 12/8/16 10/30/16 11/4/16 10/30/16 10/30/16 11/9/16 11/9/16 10/30/16 11/4/162016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Species

2013 Nof Fishfarm

2013 W of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial Hot

120:64

2014 W of

Washout Rd

2015 E of Washout

Rd

2016 S-Central Area

Control W of

Washout Rd

Control N of

Fishfarm

Control Central Marsh

Control E of

Washout Rd

2014 Aerial S

2008 Aerial

2007 N 2007 N #2

2008 2008 #2 2009 2009 #2 2011 2011 #2 2014 Hot 120:64

2014 Hot 120:64

#2

2014 Medium

80:24

2014 Medium 80:24 #2

Very Short

2014 Light 96:16

2014 Light

96:16 #2

2015 Spring 96:16

2015 Spring

96:16 #2

Control A Control B Control C Control C #2

Salvinia minima O O C R R O O A O C O C O R R O O R R ASambucus nigra subsp. canadensis R OSchinus terebinthifolia R R O RSenna pendula var. glabrataSesbania herbacea RSetaria magnaSolidago sempervirens RSolidago strictaSpartina bakeri O R C O R

Symphyotrichum bahamense or expansum RSymphyotrichum carolinianum R O R R R O C R R R R R C O R R R RSymphyotrichum elliottii O CSymphyotrichum simmondsii RSyzygium cuminiTaxodium ascendens

Teucrium canadense R RThalia geniculata R O R R R R R R RThelypteris dentata R RThelypteris interrupta R O O R R O R R R R R R R RTiedemannia filiformis RTypha sp. A/O* C A O O R R O R A A A A O O C O R C O A A A O O R C OUrochloa arrecta R

Usnea sp. R R R R R R RUtricularia foliosa R C O R C R O A A O O CUtricularia gibba R

Utricularia purpurea OUtricularia purpurea or resupinataUtricularia sp. RVigna luteola R R R OWoodwardia virginica R R R

176 46 43 43 45 77 60 43 54 32 45 51 22 71 41 43 37 30 46 47 41 32 41 45 33 35 38 31 34 40 35 44 35