4.7 Review

Review of Existing Knowledge and Practices of Tarping for the Control of Invasive Knotweeds

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10102152

关键词

ground covering; Reynoutria; Fallopia; Polygonum; knotweed management; geotextile; invasive alien plants

资金

  1. SNCF Reseau
  2. INRAE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Managing invasive exotic plant species, especially Asian knotweeds, is challenging and tarping is a commonly cited but variable control method. Understanding knotweed biology and implementing practical recommendations, such as covering the entire stand and monitoring regularly, may enhance the efficacy of tarping in controlling knotweed infestations.
Managing invasive exotic plant species is a complex challenge, especially for Asian knotweeds (Reynoutria spp.). Tarping is a regularly cited but poorly documented control method, which consists of covering the ground with a tarp (agricultural tarp, geotextile, geomembrane, etc.) to create a physical barrier to hinder plant growth and deprive the plants of light in order to deplete their rhizomatous reserves. To improve our knowledge of tarping in order to identify the key factors of its success or failure, we reviewed the relevant grey and scientific literature and conducted an international survey among managers to collect feedback on tarping experiments. In the literature, as well as in the field, practices are quite heterogeneous, and the method's effectiveness is highly contrasted. A better consideration of knotweed biology may improve the efficacy of the method. Based on the bibliography and survey work, we propose practical recommendations including covering the entire stand, extending the tarping up to 2.5 m beyond its edges for a period of at least six years, and ensuring regular monitoring. Even though tarping does not seem to be a one-size-fits-all solution to eradicate knotweed, it could still be a useful control method once knotweed has become a critical management issue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据