Principal source: McWilliams, John D. 2004. Arundo donax. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)., 2006. Risk Assessment Arundo donax L., Poaceae
Compiler: National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) & IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)
Updates with support from the Overseas Territories Environmental Programme (OTEP) project XOT603, a joint project with the Cayman Islands Government - Department of Environment
Review: Tom Dudley Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara & Natural Resource & Environmental Sciences University of Nevada, Reno. United States
Publication date: 2011-02-17
Recommended citation: Global Invasive Species Database (2024) Species profile: Arundo donax. Downloaded from http://iucngisd.org/gisd/speciesname/Arundo+donax on 10-11-2024.
A weed risk assessment study of Arundo donax for Queensland, Australia was conducted by Csurhes (2009). The study concluded that to conclude that \"A. donax has the potential to become a significant weed in certain riparian habitats in Queensland, as it has done elsewhere in the world. Areas most at risk appear to be well-drained soils associated with disturbed riparian (freshwater) habitats in the subtropics\".
Chemical: The use of systemic herbicides such as glyphosate or fluazipop applied after flowering either as a cut stump treatment or foliar spray have been found to control Arundo donax. Caution should be taken when using such herbicides around water or in wetlands (Benton et al, 2005; PIER, 2008).
Physical: Hand pulling may be effective at removing small infestations of Arundo donax, but care must be taken to remove all rhizomes to prevent re-establishment. Cutting is not recomended unless the rhizomes are dug up, as tiny rhizomes can grow into new colonies. Burning is not recomended either as it has been demonstrated to aid the growth of Arundo donax because it regrows 3-4 times faster than native plants (PIER, 2008; Ambrose & Rundel, 2007).
Biological control: Native flora and fauna typically do not offer any significant control potential of Arundo donax. It is uncertain what natural controlling mechanisms for giant reed are in its countries of origin, although corn borers, spider mites, and aphids have been reported in the Mediterranean. A sugar cane moth-borer in Barbados is reported to attack giant reed, but it is also a major pest of sugar cane and is already found in the United States in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. A leafhopper in Pakistan utilizes A. donax as an alternate host but attacks corn and wheat. In the United States a number of diseases have been reported on giant reed, including root rot, lesions, crown rust, and stem speckle, but none seem to have seriously impacted advance of this weed. Giant reed is not very palatable to cattle, but during the drier seasons they will graze the young shoots, followed by the upper parts of the older plants. However, in many areas of California the use of Angora and Spanish goats is showing promise for controlling A. donax. Also an unidentified stem-boring sawfly that appears similar to Tetramesa romana has been demonstrated to cuase significant damage to A. donax, and it is being tested in quarantine as a candidate biocontrol agent for it (McWilliams, 2004; Dudley et al, 2006).
Integrated management: A popular approach to treating giant Arundo donax has been to cut the stalks and remove the biomass, wait 3 to 6 weeks for the plants to grow about 1 m tall, then apply a foliar spray of herbicide solution. The chief advantage to this approach is less herbicide is needed to treat fresh growth compared with tall, established plants, and coverage is often better because of the shorter and uniform-height plants. However, cutting the stems may result in plants returning to growth-phase, drawing nutrients from the root mass. As a result there is less translocation of herbicide to the roots and less root-kill. Additionally, cut-stem treatment requires more time and personnel than foliar spraying and requires careful timing. Cut stems must be treated with concentrated herbicide within 1 to 2 minutes of cutting to ensure tissue uptake. This treatment is most effective after flowering. The advantage of this treatment is that it requires less herbicide and the herbicide can be applied more precisely. It is rarely less expensive than foliar spraying except on very small, isolated patches or individual plants (McWilliams, 2004).