Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) – Historical Profile

Written by: Brandon Holden, Alison Kilpatrick, Jonathan Sukhra, Lily Vuong

Canadian Kudzu population along the shores of Lake Erie
Canadian Kudzu population along the shores of Lake Erie near Leamington, Ontairo. Photo courtesy of Mike Cowbrough (Cowbrough, 2016).


 The history of Kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata, started off in eastern Asia in primarily subtropical and temperate regions. The kudzu plant was introduced to the United States from Japan in 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The vine was widely marketed in the Southeast as an ornamental plant to be used to shade porches and later promoted as a forage crop (McGroarty, 2010). Concerns revolving around soil erosion through the 1930s and 1940s led the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to recommend the planting of Kudzu as a preventative measure along steep slopes throughout the south (Forseth & Innis, 2004). The Soil Erosion Service, a subsection of the USDA went on to provide approximately 85 million Kudzu seedlings to southern farmers, and paid them to plant the seedlings as a means to further prevent soil erosion throughout the Southern United States (Forseth & Innis, 2004; Grebner, Ezell, Prevost, & Gaddis, 2011). These activities were supplemented through a civilian corps movement that encouraged the planting of the vine in public lands and parks (Forseth & Innis, 2004). Due to governmental promotion, Kudzu had a solid hold throughout the Southeastern United States by the early 1950’s (Grebner et al., 2011). Even though Kudzu was removed from the list of permissible cover plants by 1953 (Grebner et al., 2011), declared a weed by 1970 (Hinman, 2011) and finally added to the noxious weeds list by 1997  (Grebner et al., 2011), the plant was able to spread throughout America and has made its way across the border into Canada. Kudzu is currently found on every continent with the exception of Antarctica (Gigon, Pron, & Buholzer, 2014 ).

In Canada, kudzu was discovered near Leamington, Ontario in 2009 and the population was estimated to be at least 8 years old at the time (Lindgren et al., 2013). It is not currently regulated as a pest under any legislation in Canada (Lindgren et al., 2013), nor does it have an official status as a noxious weed under the Weed Control Act (Waldron, 2012).

In  the United States, kudzu has been able to quickly grow over and shade other vegetation, causing damage to crops, orchards, and forest plantations. The greatest monetary impact of kudzu growth has been felt by the forestry industry where the productivity losses of entire young forest plantations have been estimated between $100 million and $500 million per year (Lindgren et al., 2013). There is also concern that kudzu can host soybean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi), and crop damage and yield losses have been a problem for farmers (Lindgren et al., 2013). In the United States, kudzu has damaged power lines which costs power companies an estimated $1.5 million per year (Lindgren et al., 2013). Kudzu has also reportedly grown over rail lines and caused derailments, costing railroad companies a significant amount in control costs (Lindgren et al., 2013). Costs of control in national and state parks are also reported to be considerable (Lindgren et al., 2013).

Using climate suitability models of current and future climate conditions, it has been predicted that changes in the global climate will allow for kudzu to spread northward (Lindgren et al., 2013). Waldron (2012) believes that it is likely that the kudzu population near Leamington, Ontario will spread further into southern Ontario unless measures are taken to control it.


 Kudzu is a specialized plant that will grow in certain conditions, thriving to r-strat_animal_yellowunmanageable states if presented ideal conditions, and if found in locations where survivorship is low, could take years for seeds to germinate (Lindgren, C. J. et al). Kudzu’s ability to rapidly grow and take over a deciduous forest canopy stand can surpass any healthy forest ecosystem’s tree growth. It is possible for the vine to have multiple canopy layers that can total the entire biomass of a deciduous forest canopy (Forseth & Innis, 2004).  Kudzu’s resilience to methods of eradication is strongly based on its large roots which store large amounts of starch, nitrogen, and water. The roots proficiency to grow into the substrate at 0.03 metres in depth a day, weighing over 180 kg and extending as deep as 3 metres is only one of many factors associated with the persistence of this plant (Forseth & Innis, 2004). This vine also has the ability to maneuver and redirect its leaf angles in relation to the direction of the sun; this is called paraheliotropism (Forseth & Innis, 2004). The leaves can be in positions to receive full sun, parallel to the sunrays to lower temperatures, and steep angles to prevent wilting (Lindgren et al., 2013). Kudzu’s adaptive qualities threaten local biodiversity through high competition for expanding room and below ground for roots. Studies have suggested that some of the common methods for controlling invasive vines, such as mowing, may be inadvertently causing the plants to grow back even more aggressively, which is something to consider when exploring management options (Kartzinel, Hamrick, Wang, Bowsher, Quigley, 2015). Kudzu is also a ‘structural parasite,’ meaning that, rather than supporting itself, it grows on top of other plants and buildings to reach light. Its ability to reproduce and spread quickly allows it to quickly cover shrubs, trees, and forests, where it blocks the sun’s rays from the plants below it, decreasing or eliminating their photosynthetic productivity (Miller & True, 1986).


 The invasion of kudzu has proven to be costly to many industries in North America. With Kudzu being relatively new to Canada, and currently limited to a single outbreak, there is still a high probability that an effective management strategy can be implemented to control and eventually eradicate the vine from Canadian Shores. Some of the management options include doing nothing, grazing, chemical control, biological control, prescribed burning, and mechanical removal. These options are considered and assessed based on costs, benefits, and additional factors. Each option is explored in the following paragraphs and compared in Table 1.

There is the option to do nothing, however, seeing as kudzu is predicted to expand its range, this is not recommended. Kudzu will continue to be a burden on many industries if management of the species is not addressed. It may, however, be viable to focus efforts in controlling kudzu by utilizing it rather than removing it. One of these control measures is grazing by livestock. If heavily grazed on for 3-4 growing seasons, the root systems starve and this may effectively eliminate a kudzu population (Starr et al. 1999). However, vines can grow over fences and up trees, rendering them inaccessible to livestock (Lindgren et al., 2013).

A method used to manage kudzu populations is an herbicide called Glyphosate. In Mississippi, Glyphosate was used to tame kudzu and was successful in controlling 60-85% of the vine after 4 years (Lindgren et al., 2013). In some other states, regular use of Glyphosate with a backpack sprayer saw results of 80-100% success in just one season of use. Although herbicides have been effective against kudzu, it requires multiple and frequent applications (Minogue, Enloe, Osiecka, Lauer, 2011). Studies have shown that kudzu that has been controlled with herbicides, and shows no signs of growth, can emerge from its roots after a year, possibly more, of dormancy (Minogue et al., 2011). Some herbicide treatments have left the soil bare, making it difficult to reestablish native species, and does not halt the return of kudzu as it has no problem growing in disturbed areas (Minogue et al., 2011). In some cases, herbaceous species have been able to colonize areas where kudzu has been reduced chemically, however kudzu can return and overtop these species in a single growing season if the area is not closely monitored (Minogue et al., 2011).

Another form of control is prescribed burning. This process kills the foliage of the plant but also requires repeated applications to be effective (Starr, Martz, Loope, 1999).

There are several biological means that are already in place and more that may be implemented to control the growth of kudzu. Bacterial blights, insect herbivory, and insect seed predation occur in high levels in field populations of kudzu. Seed predation is quite prevalent, with up to 81% of seeds incurring damage in populations studied in North Carolina.  A study found two weevils that attacked the stems of kudzu and eight beetles that complete larval development in the kudzu roots. When evaluations of potential control agents are made, the range of the control agents must be considered. Efforts were made by the United States Forestry Service to find a biological control agent for kudzu. A “blackleg” fungus, a viral mosaic disease and a rust fungus have all been shown to cause mild injury to kudzu (Starr et al. 1999). Studies in China revealed that most of these biological control agents do not solely target kudzu, which is a risk to native species (Lindgren et al., 2013). More research needs to be done to determine the viability of biological control options.

Successful long term control of kudzu requires that the extensive root system be destroyed (Starr et al. 1999). As such, the mechanical removal of the entire root has proven to be effective in eradicating the species but is labour-intensive and time consuming (Starr et al. 1999). Another physical control method is close mowing but this requires frequent and repeated action (Starr et al. 1999). Close mowing has the same issues that grazing has as a control method because vines can grow up surfaces, which still requires alternative labour-intensive mechanical removal.

Table 1: Comparison of different potential management methods to deal with the invasive vine Kudzu. While time intensive, mechanical removal provides the greatest chance of success while reducing further negative impact on the environment.

Chart comparing the different Kudzu management method outlined above.



Cowbrough, Mike. (2016) Photo: Canadian Kudzu population, Lake Erie.

Forseth, I. N. Jr., & Innis, A. F. (2004). Kudzu (pueraria montana): History, physiology, and ecology combine to make a major ecosystem threat. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 23(5):401-413

Gigon, A., Pron, S., & Buholzer, S. (2014). Ecology and distribution of the Southeast Asian

invasive liana Kudzu, Pueraria lobata (Fabaceae), in Southern Switzerland. EPPP Bulletin, 44(3), 490-501. Doi: 10.1111/epp.12171

Grebner, D. L., Ezell, A. W., Prevost, J. D., & Gaddis, D. A. (2011). Kudzu control and impact on monetary returns to non-industrial private forest landowners in Mississippi. Journal Of Sustainable Forestry, 30(3), 204-223. doi:10.1080/10549811.2011.530559

Hinman, K. (2011). Kudzu: how a wonder vine unveiled by Japan at the 1876 centennial began    eating America. American History, (2), 38.

Kartzinel, T. R., Hamrick, J. L., Chongyun, W., Bowsher, A. W., & Quigley, B. P. (2015).          Heterogeneity of clonal patterns among patches of kudzu, pueraria montana var. lobata, an invasive plant. Annals Of Botany, 116(5), 739-750. doi:10.1093/aob/mcv117

Lindgren, C. J., Castro, K.L., Coiner, H. A., Nurse, R. E., & Darbyshire, S. J. (2013). The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada (12): Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Sanjappa & Predeep. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 93:71-95, doi:10.4141/cjps2012-128

McGroarty, M. J. (2010). How to control kudzu, the vine that ate the South. Kudzu’’ Retrieved from:

Miller, J. H., & True, R. E. (1986). Herbicide tests for kudzu eradication. Georgia Forest Research Paper. Retrieved from

Minogue, P. J., Enloe, S. F., Osiecka, A., & Lauer, D. K. (2011). Comparison of aminocyclopyrachlor to common herbicides for kudzu (pueraria montana) management. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 4:419-426

Starr, F., Martz, K., Loope, L. (1999). Kudzu (pueraria lobata): An alien plant report. United States Geological Survey Resources Division. Retrieved from

Waldron, G. E., & Larson, B. M. H. (2012). Kudzu vine, pueraria montana, adventive in Southern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 162(1):31-33


Elk (Cervus canadensis) – Management Strategy

Written by: Justyna Van Poucke-Choquette, Christopher Reinhart, Ashley McNeill and Cassie Luff


Management Plan: This plan provides details regarding the implementation and maintenance to managing Ontario’s Elk populations by using fencing as a method of keeping them out of pasture lands. With government agencies turning to non-lethal management method for protection of farmer’s crop and pasture lands, methods such as fencing will become increasingly important.  While there are multiple options for creating fences, the most effective option is a 3-D fence made of different heights and distances apart. (Johnson et. al., 2014). The fencing option is the most viable because it is a one time installment with slight maintenance of the fence afterwards. The cost of this type of fence is relatively minimal because all it requires is multiple, single wired fences spaced out. However, compared to the cost of not doing anything and letting the Elk continue on their feeding of pastures and stored crops would be exponentially higher and unfeasible for both the farmers and the government.  Another viable option for farms that currently have an existing fence could simply add more fences of different heights onto the original. Ideally a height of 6 to 8 feet will keep Elk out of the pastures, however by having multiple heights and distances it becomes harder for the Elk to jump over and navigate due to their poor depth perception. Farmers could even add an electrical component onto the 3-D fences to make them that much more effective. However, in Alberta, the success rate of the simple single wired multi fence method proved to have extremely high success at a rate of 75% effectiveness and therefore the addition of the electrical fence is unnecessary (Blair, 2016; Johnson and Burton, 2015). [JF3] , (Paige, 2015).  Once the Elk encounter this fence and try to get around it, they get stuck and tripped up in the fence, eventually getting frustrated and giving up (Knight, 2014; Blair, 2015). Through the introduction of this specifc fence type, optimal foraging will play a key role in persuading the Elk to not use their energy, in attempts to obtain a small quantity of food. By introducing a fence around pastures, it will eliminate Elk from being able to move into the pastures and consume the vegetation that is necessary for the survival of livestock. This is crucial because it is the simplest option for a problem that causes farmers massive losses in [JF4] pasture crops as well as stored crops. In a study done by the Peace River Forage Association of British Columbia, they calculated how much it would cost to create 3D fences for different areas including grain bag yard, hay stockyard, winter feeding and swath grazing. The winter feeding grounds and the swath grazing are the more relevant for this specific topic because the concern and problems are due to Elk entering the pasture area. The total construction costs of a 20 acre winter feeding area was $2140 and the total construction costs of a 160 acre swath grazing area was $5700 acres, which breaks down to $1140 per year. The same study also determined that the financial benefits of creating a 3D fence surrounding the swath grazing area would be $30,500 a year, $101 per cow. Comparing the savings, $30,500 to the costs of maintaining the fences each year of $1140, the benefits strongly outweigh the costs.  Information gathered from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs deemed that the Haliburton area has a total of 290 hectares of tame or seeded pastures and 1480 hectares for natural land used for pastures. This is a total of 1770 hectares for the Haliburton area, which also has the highest population of Elk in Ontario. This issue of crop destruction from Elk needs to be addressed, stored crops such as hay bales and silage bags, are not covered under the Ontario Crop Insurance Program and therefore cannot be covered by the government thus making the farmers pay for the losses out of their own pocket. Past historical management methods of Elk turned out to be devastating for the population. By the late 1800’s they were completely extirpated from Ontario (Hamr, et. al., 2016). Therefore we need to manage Elk that were recently introduced in a non-lethal way to ensure that this does not happen again.

Potential Challenges and Solutions: One concern with fencing large areas of land is reducing wildlife passage. If animals are not free to move through the property, for example in the case of a migration route, they are much more likely to attempt to breach the fence, and damage to the fence is the likely result. This can also result in the elk getting tangled in the fencing. For this reason, it is recommended that the fences are not built around any area larger than 640 acres (Knight, 2014). By limiting each side of the fence to one and a half kilometers or less, elk will be able to circumvent the fence without problem.  Another issue to be considered is that elk may be able to find weak spots in the fencing which can allow them to gain access to the pasture. To prevent this, simply maintaining the fencing will ensure that there are minimal weak spots.

Legal Factors: The use of fencing is a non-lethal management method, and therefore does not require any type of legal permits of any source. While farmers still need to apply for permits from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to remove Elk by lethal means from their farms, they are not listed as any type of species at risk. The process of this application process can be long and challenging [JF8] [S9] and therefore the easiest methods would be to create a fence system that would eliminate the ability for Elk to enter into pastures. The only potential for this to require a type of permit is if the fence crosses a stream and somehow hinders the flow or has a post placed into the river itself. This could potentially require permits from the municipal level, and provincial level, as well as receiving permits [JF10] from the local Conservation Authority. The federal fisheries act is a long and powerful piece of legislation used to protect fish and fish habitats, and in the case of creating the fences this act will be taken into account. The provincial equivalent are the Fish Protection Act and the Riparian Areas Regulations. All of which provide protection for rivers and the riparian zones. These acts and regulations are often enforced by the county, township, etc.  This could entail inspection and studies to be done to determine if the creation of the fence would cause any significant harm to the river or riparian ecosystem. With all that said, it would be very easy to avoid placing any permanent structure into the river system by simple placing them on either bank and allowing the fence to stretch to either post.


Conclusion: The fence-extension is a viable option because it’s relatively low-cost to implement, depending on the circumstances. Since the Elk can jump 6-feet, they typically won’t do so just to get to an area to graze. The 3-D fencing is also a viable option, and can be very cost-effective. The options of installing a fence extension or a 3-D fence is humane and doesn’t require any Elk to get injured or killed for the benefit of humans. Because of this, there are no permits required to install these types of fences.



Knight, J. (2014, March). Modifying Fences to Protect High-Value Pastures from Deer and Elk. Retrieved from


Agency, P. C., & Canada, G. of. (2012, January 24). Parks Canada – elk island national park – background.   Retrieved January 27, 2017, from     np/ab/elkisland/natcul/elkisland-we.aspx

Austin, D. D., P. J. Urness, and D. Duersch. 1998. Alfalfa hay crop loss due to mule deer depredation. Journal of Range Management 51:29–31


Blair, Jennifer. “Got Trouble With Wildlife On Your Pasture? Try 3D Fencing”. Alberta Farmer Express. June 16, 2015. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.


Hamr, J., Mallory, F. F., & Filion, I. (2016). The history of elk (Cervus canadensis) restoration in      Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 130(2), 167. doi:10.22621/cfn.v130i2.1842


Haliburton County Community Food Assessment”. Agricultural Food Production and Consumption. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Mar. 2017.


Innes, Robin J. 2011. Cervus elaphus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory    (Producer). Available: [2017, February 11].


Johnson, Talon, and Burton, Sandra. 3D Fences Spread Across the Land. N.p., 2017. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.


Johnson, H. E., Hammond, M., Dorsey, P. D., Fischer, J. W., Walter, W. D., Anderson, C., & VERcauteren, K. C. (2014). Evaluation of techniques to reduce deer and Elk damage to agricultural   crops. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(2), 358-365. doi:10.1002/wsb.408


Knight, J. (2014, March). Modifying Fences to Protect High-Value Pastures from Deer and Elk. Retrieved January 27, 2017, from Montana State University,   


McCorquodale, S., P. Wik, and P. Fowler. 2011. Elk survival and mortality causes in the Blue Mountains    of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:897-904.


McIntosh, T.E., Rosatte, R.C., Hamr, J., & Murray, D.L. (2014). Patterns of Mortality and Factors    Influencing Survival of a Recently Restored Elk Population in Ontario, Canada. Restoration           Ecology, 22(6), 806-814. doi:101.111/rec 12145


Paige, J. (2015, November 2). Adding a third division to a wildlife barrier fence. Retrieved from Manitoba Cooperator:

Rosatte, R. (2014). 2014 Bancroft/North Hastings Elk Research and Monitoring Update. Ontario   Federation of Anglers and Hunters.


Ryckman, M. J., Rosatte, R.C., McIntosh, T., Hamr, J., & Jenkins, D. (2010) Postrelease Dispersal of Reintroduced Elk (Cervus elaphus) in Ontario, Canada. Restoration Ecology, 18(2), 173-180. DOI:10.1111/J. 1526-100X.2009.00523.X


Rhyan, J. C., Nol, P., Quance, C., Gertonson, A., Belfrage, J., Harris, L., & … Robbe-Austerman, S. (2013).   Transmission of Brucellosis from Elk to Cattle and Bison, Greater Yellowstone Area, USA, 2002-2012. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(12), 1992-1995. doi:10.3201/eid1912.130167


Wagner, K. K., R. H. Schmidt, and M. R. Conover. 1997. Compensation programs for wildlife damage in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:312–319.

Wildlife Population Management”. N.p., 2017. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.


Witmer, G. 1990. Reintroduction of elk in the United States. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 64:131–135.


Yott, A., Rosatta, R., Schaefer J., Hamr, A., Fryxell, J. (2011) Movement and Spread of a Founding Population of Reintroduced Elk (Cervus elaphus) in Ontario, Canada. The Journal of the Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Autumn Olive Management Strategy

Historical Profile

            Similar species to the Autumn Olive are the Russian Olive, Buffalo Berry, and Bush Honeysuckle. Based on early reports of the species it was brought over to North America/United States by early settlers in the 1830’s as a source of food, medicine, wildlife habitat, ornamental use, and windbreaks. Autumn Olive is found from Maine to Virginia and as far west as Wisconsin. Due to its atmospheric nitrogen fixation through its roots and high success rate in low nutrient soils it was specifically used on sandy slopes of bridges and roadways to prevent soil erosion. The Autumn Olive is also known as the Autumn Berry because of the berries it produces turning into berries with silver specs when ripe. Aki-Gumi as it’s known in Japan translates to the Autumn silver berry, it grows to 20 feet tall in north America however it can grow to 30 feet tall in parts that it originated from like Japan, India and other Parts of the Himalayas. Due to the hardiness and rapid reproduction rate the species quickly began spreading uncontrollably, the plant was listed as invasive within Ontario and efforts to reduce population size have failed (Sternberg & West, 2017).



Elaeagnus umbellata also known as the autumn olive is a deciduous shrub that originates from East Asia, specifically spanning from the Himalayas to Japan (Walker, 2012). The plant was purposely introduced to North America and Australia but soon after fell into the noxious or invasive species categories depending on state and province. In Canada, autumn olive is only listed as invasive within Ontario (, 2007).


Habitat: The Autumn Olive is both extremely resilient and resistant to a wide range of growing conditions and can establish itself in meadows, pastures, forest edges, sparse forests, road sides and previously disturbed areas (, 2007). The plant grows best in well drained sandy soils but can also survive a wide range of soil and moisture conditions (Global invasive species database, 2005).  Autumn olive plants do well up to plant hardiness zone 3 but can tolerate slightly cooler growing spaces. The Autumn Olive is a moderately shade tolerant species which allows it to survive as an understory plant though full sun is ideal. The possibility of it spreading over to the west is an issue due to the autumn olives preference of open grasslands. They are denser in areas of less canopy cover which has been found as a good way to help regulate them along roadsides.


Figure 1: Global distribution of the Autumn Olive, Elaeagnus umbellate. It originated in Asia but in 1830 it was transported to the United states where it then spread up into Ontario. (Base map-


Figure 1: This map shows the areas around the world where autumn olive is located.


Figure 2:  Map of ideal growing areas in  Ontario for Autumn Olive


Reproductive Strategy: The autumn olive can produce up to 200,000 seeds every year through small edible berries (Walker, B 2012). They normally bear fruit during September-October and once the seeds are dispersed, the plant will take between two to six years to begin reproducing. Their mass offspring production and rapid growth rate classifies them as an r-strategist species The Autumn olive is pollinated through insects since their male and female counterparts are separate.


Table 1:  In this table it will show the Autumn Olive’s characteristics compared to that of k and r-strategist. From it you can see it is somewhat in between but more of r-strategist in terms of adaptability with reproduction.

Characteristic r-strategist k-strategist Autumn Olive
Mortality Variable and unpredictable More often constant and predictable Constant
Lifespan Short Long Long roughly 30-40 years
Seedlings produced large Small Large quantity of fruit bared each year
Parental care Very little to none Necessity None
Frequency of reproduction Once or more within a small timeframe Will reproduce on multiple occasions but over a prolonged period of time Will reproduce after 3 year growing period then annually every September-October
Additional factors Generally mature individuals have success in reproduction Mature individuals sometimes will reproduce successfully Even if they are cut or burned they will grow back vigorously allowing them to continue reproducing

Survivorship: The Autumn Olive has a high survival rate in the locations that it grows. It is very tolerant to multiple soil conditions and is even moderately shade tolerant allowing it to grow in understory if necessary. They have a Type 1 survivorship curve since they are able to survive through early to midlife but do not survive to old age. Their ability to die off is more linked towards their age rather than their surroundings since if they are damaged they grow back immensely. Autumn Olive does not care for their young and produce a lot of offspring but have a very low mortality rate during the early to midway point of their life. They produce tens of thousands of offspring that have low mortality rates of 10%-30% based off conditions around them.


Dispersal/ Vectors: The Autumn Olive has become a quickly spreading pest because of its multiple methods or reproduction. The plants produce roughly 200,000 seeds encased in small edible berries every year which are dispersed through birds, mammals and seed droppings. Along with the plant’s rapid seed dispersal rate, severed branches can also grow roots and become new plants. It has quickly spread across North America due to its rapid dispersal strategies.  


Special Considerations: The Autumn Olive can reproduce from forest fires which makes it very hard to control. Forest fires are used to help regulate forest growth and help certain species reproduce but this species will not die but thrive from it making it very sustainable. Most natural ways to control the autumn olive are ineffective when managing the species leading human interference to be required in order to reduce the infestation.

The fruit of the Autumn Olive also contains extremely powerful antioxidant properties including 40-70g of lycopene per 100g serving making it one of the world’s most powerful antioxidants. The berries can be used for a wide range of recipes including jams, fruit lathers and wines.


Critical Assessment and Management Options:

        Autumn Olive has been taking over the majority of the landscapes that it has been planted in since their introduction. The ability to predict when and where this species will become a problem would allow management to more effectively prioritize control efforts and implement the most efficient management practices available (Matthew R. Moore 2013). With regards to the control of this plant there are 3 options available. The options consist of, chemical control, removal control, shade control. These methods will be explained in the following paragraphs.

        Options such as chemical removal, is a very costly method of controlling the plants along with harmful to the area around the plants. The chemicals would be applied to the tree in order to kill it without it being able to repopulate during the process. This method would be very effective on killing the tree but it could have some adverse affects on the surrounding wildlife. Since a variety of animals and birds consume the berries it is possible that they could ingest the poison if it were to get on the berries. In order to prevent occurrences like that the chemical removal method would have to be done in the spring and summer seasons before berries grow in through the fall and persist through winter. Otherwise the chemicals could end up harming the wildlife around the tree. Along with that the price of the chemicals is not cheap, since the chemicals being used for the removal.  The plant can be cut with a chainsaw, hand saw, or brush mower. A formulation of glyphosate, in a 20-50 percent solution, is then applied immediately to the cut stump surface by using a low pressure hand held sprayer. This type of treatment has proved effective in killing the root system and preventing resprouting when applied late in the growing season (Jackson, 2017). This method is much safer for the species around the plant if done this way since there is lower risk of contact with the chemicals.

        Another possible way to remove the plant is through uprooting it physically. Doing so would have to be done in different ways depending on the size of the tree. The size of the tree would dictate if you would need larger instruments to pull/dig it up from the ground as well as if it needs to be chopped down first before so. For instance if it was around 7ft tall it would be better to level it down first with a chainsaw before the initial uprooting of the tree itself. The tree could not just be cut down since it will splinter outward with shoots to rapidly to replace what it had lost. That is why the roots must be dealt with if you are not using chemicals as a form of removal. The cost of this will depend on the sizes of the trees themselves as stated before equipment and labour wise. Knowing that it would not be as expensive as the chemical process itself, but it is definitely more lengthy and harder to do. This method is one that is not as effective for that reason but the full removal of it ensures that there will be nothing left to grow.

        The last way to control Autumn Olive is through shade. Though this process does not directly remove the tree itself it has been tested to reduce the spread of the trees. Making them stay in close quarters of one another. Sites where autumn olive was present were found most often on primary roads with an average road canopy closure of about 50%. Autumn olive was encountered least on secondary and tertiary roads and where road canopy closure averaged 65%. (Moore, 2013). After some experiments it was found that Autumn Olive spread less in areas where there was canopy cover compared to open space. They predominantly grew around 5-10m away from the mother tree than that of open areas. Though the species still will spread it will be more contained and managed better under shade compared to that of direct sunlight. After two growing seasons, 61% of the forest understory contained AO, an increase of 26%. (Dornbos, 2016). Though numbers escalated during tests on the difference in growth rate the overall number was less than half of what was found in an open environment. Therefore this method is one that does not directly help to remove the Autumn Olive, but rather slow down their reproduction rates.




Critical Assessment:

There are many management strategies used in the past to reduce autumn olive populations. Likely the least effective strategy for reducing the species is by cutting the plants. This strategy is counterproductive due to the plants ability to grow roots from severed branches and regrow from a stump (Black, 2007). The most effective management method to date is cutting the tree and applying herbicide to the cut area (Global invasive species database, 2005). The only setbacks with this method is the cost of herbicides and the potential dangers of working with harmful chemicals in the environment. Any attempts to eradicate the plants through prescribed burning is proven futile because the autumn olive is a nitrogen fixing plant which often results in it being amongst the first species to reestablish after a fire has occurred (Global invasive species database, 2005). Though pulling out plants that are less than two years old can be effective when done correctly, it is not a long-term solution to the autumn olives colonization. This is because it is impractical to attempt to remove full grown 20-30 foot tall plants and the young plants will regrow if any roots are left intact. Lastly, If the autumn olive is left alone with no management it is likely they will spread into Western provinces though it may be beneficial to allow the plants to grow in disturbed areas to help balance nitrogen levels. .  The plant can be cut with a chainsaw, handsaw, or brush mower. These cuttings will be removed by putting the larger sections though a wood chipper, the chips stored for use in the future. Plot data indicate that treatments of both stump/ glyphosate and basal bark/Garlon 4 result in very high kill rates. Plants that survive these treatments generally exhibit malformed regrowth or partial top kill; typically this was not observed (Delanoy, 2007). This same treatment was used on buckthorn and has proven to have a very high mortality rate among the plants it was performed on. A formulation of glyphosate, in a 20-50 percent solution, is then applied immediately to the cut stump surface by using a low-pressure hand held sprayer. This type of treatment has proved effective in killing the root system and preventing re-sprouting when applied late in the growing season (Jackson, 2017). This method is much safer for the species around the plant if done this way since there is lower risk of contact with the chemicals.


Table 2: In this table you can see the different management options with the factors that are involved in each of them.


Management Strategy:
In this plan, there will be information regarding the process and maintenance that will be required for the management of the Autumn Olive. The plan that will be used will be cutting the tree down to a stump and following up with an application of herbicides to the stump. Chemical control is the most effective method for controlling autumn olive. Numerous techniques exist for applying herbicides. But, the cut stump treatment is probably the most effective method (Jackson, 2017). Regarding the herbicides being used for this process a series of Class 9 pesticides will be used in non-homeowner areas since those are not permitted for cosmetic use unless certain actions are performed. Autumn Olive is a very resilient plant that can survive in very harsh and nice conditions making it a hard foe to manage if done improperly. With the use of this management strategy this plant should be able to be removed effectively. These methods have been proven effective with the use of these herbicides can provide total kill with little or no regrowth the following year (Missouri Department of Conservation). With their resistance to simply cutting them down along with burning them more powerful methods must be considered when managing the Autumn Olive.


The Process of Killing the Autumn Olive:

To start the process obtaining all the pesticides and equipment needed for the killing/stunting of the Autumn Olive’s growth. After performing the cutting and spraying of the herbicides the autumn olive will either be killed then or at the very least have their growth slowed down exponentially. The first process would be cutting down the tree, this can be done with a handsaw or chainsaw depending on the equipment available. A formulation of glyphosate, in a 20-50 percent solution, is then applied immediately to the cut stump surface by using a low-pressure hand held sprayer (David R. Jackson 2017). Glyphosate can be applied to the stump but there are also other options such as dicamba or 2,4-d. The overall process is proven to be more effective during July-August before they bear fruit. While applying the herbicides to the cut stump care is taken so that surrounding vegetation is not affected by them. After the application is done there is not much to do besides monitor the area after to check if the process worked effectively or not and reapply techniques if necessary.



Black, B ‘Autumn Olive, Weed or new Cash Crop?’  (2007) Retrieved from:


Corace, I. G., Leister, K. P., & Brosnan, E. (2008). Efficacy of Different Glyphosate Concentrations in Managing Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) Resprouts (Michigan). Ecological Restoration, 26(2), 111-113.


David R. Jackson. 2017. Autumn Olive.Penn State University. Available to public Online:


Delanoy, L., & Archibold, O. (2007). Efficacy of Control Measures for European Buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica L.) in Saskatchewan. Environmental Management, 40(4), 709-718. doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0409-1


Dornbos, J. L., Martzke, M. R., Gries, K., & Hesselink, R. (2016). Physiological competitiveness of autumn olive compared with native woody competitors in open field and forest understory. Forest Ecology And Management, 372101-108. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.051


Lee,T.D., Eisenhaure, S.E., & Gaudreau, I.P. (2017). Pre-logging Treatment of Invasive Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus Mill.) Promotes Regenderation of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.). Forest (19994907), 8(1), 1-12. Doi:10.3390/f8010016


Michigan Department of Natural Resources. (2012). Invasive species-best control practices Autumn Olive. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Online references: found at-


Moore, M. R., Buckley, D. S., Klingeman, I. E., & Saxton, A. M. (2013). Distribution and growth of autumn olive in a managed forest landscape. Forest Ecology And Management, 310589-599. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.056


Global invasive species database ‘Autumn Olives’ (2005) Retrieved from:


Nagel, L. M., Corace, I. G., & Storer, A. J. (2008). An Experimental Approach to Testing the Efficacy of Management Treatments for Glossy Buckthorn at Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. Ecological Restoration, 26(2), 136-142. (2016) Retrieved from:


Walker, B ‘The Views of Autumn Olives’ Dave’s Garden (2012) Retrieved from:


Northern Pike, (Esox lucius) and Smallmouth Bass, (Micropterus dolomieu) – Management Strategy

Written by: Lindsay Bagg, Trevor Vanderkooy, Victor Del Dotto, Joe Atkinson and Brianna Grieves

Legal Factors

Lindsay, ON exists within Zone 17 as described by the Ontario Fishing Regulations. In Zone 17 there are currently few limitations set for fishing northern pike and smallmouth bass. The open season for northern pike exists all year long and opens the 3rd Saturday in June and ends December 15th for smallmouth bass. There are no size restrictions for either species but there are catch limits based upon the type of license the fisherman possesses of either 6 or 2 for each species. It is important to remember that these restrictions are only those for Zone 17, there are zones within Ontario in which Pike and Bass do have size restrictions. With 20 different zones in total there is a lot of variation. Legal implications exist for anyone who does not abide by these regulations (MNRF, 2017).

Management Strategy

Of course prevention is the most effective invasive management strategy, because once an aquatic invader establishes itself within the ecosystem, range expansion is almost inevitable and elimination is rarely a viable option (Zanden, Olden, Thorne, & Mandrak, 2004). Advocacy for responsible angling and education will be extremely important moving forward in the prevention of the further spread of northern pike and smallmouth bass. Unfortunately, with northern pike and smallmouth bass we are past the point of prevention in many areas. Establishing a set of laws and regulations that may allow angling and physical removal to be a viable method of control for populations of northern pike and smallmouth bass could be a long process of trial and error. Action could be taken by having the season for northern pike and bass open all year long in all zones where they appear as an invasive species and with no size restrictions. Limiting catch and release would be another important step towards effective management.

If laws and regulations were to be changed to allow for physical removal predicting which systems are likely to be impacted would be an important management goal. Few studies up until this point have been able to make quantitative predictions of aquatic invader impacts (Zanden et al., 2004). Though there are many studies that suggest a negative impact, further research is needed to determine whether or not invasive northern pike and smallmouth bass are truly a concern and detriment to their new ecosystems.

Potential Challenges and Solutions

As with many legal issues, making changes to laws and regulations can take time. Hoping for an overnight solution by means of angling would be misguided, to say the least. Many of the other more immediate methods of control can have a more negative impact on the system than beneficial. The huge challenge in the management of northern pike and smallmouth bass is finding the balance between negatively impacting an entire system and controlling the invasive populations. For this reason, angling seems to be the most viable option of management until more quantifiable research can be conducted regarding the impacts of these invasive species.


As long as affected ecosystems are remaining stable, angling offers the best and least controversial method of management for the northern pike and smallmouth bass. Fishing selectively for northern pike and smallmouth bass has the lowest possible negative impact on the native species in the ecosystem and targets only the invasive. A re-evaluation of laws and regulations regarding the northern pike and smallmouth bass may be beneficial for complete removal but is not necessarily essential for management. Further studies regarding prediction of impact will be essential in the management of invasive aquatic species such as the northern pike and smallmouth bass. Predictions of impact will indicate which systems are most vulnerable and where to focus time and resources.


Zanden, M., Olden, J. D., Thorne, J. H., & Mandrak, N. E. (2004). Predicting occurrences and impacts of smallmouth bass introductions in north temperate lakes. Ecological Applications, 14(1), 132-148.

Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) & Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) : Management Plan

Written by: Andrew Base, Ashley Prince, and Reid Van Kuren

Management Plan

This management plan provides detailed information regarding the most effective management option for water hyacinth and water lettuce that involves the least risk to the environment and the general population. Based on the benefits outweighing the costs, it is determined that the physical removal of the water hyacinth and water lettuce is the most effective option for control, as long as a small, but closed, market can be built around its removal. In this case, a closed market is a market in which profit is solely made for the progress of the management strategy. This approach is the most viable method, since much of the removed water hyacinth and water lettuce can be sold as feed for livestock like cows and pigs, or even be used as a biofuel additive (Mishima, 2008). Money generated from the sales of this plant can be used as a way to provide more funding towards management resources such as labour and equipment. This system does not create an increasing demand for the product, and would therefore does not necessarily create another market for the plant. If the plant was sold for potential medicinal properties after it’s harvested from targeted sites, there could possibility be an increase in demand for the product and would therefore contribute to the spread of water hyacinth and water lettuce in Southern Ontario. Previously, in Ontario (Azan, 2015) and in the southern United States (Langand, 1998), the physical approach has been implemented and seems to be the main tactic used my organization in North America.

In addition to this approach, the issue must also be addressed from a different angle. Not only do water hyacinth and water lettuce need to be removed from bodies of water in southern Ontario, but the driving factor for its introduction to water ways must be diminished. Seeing that water hyacinth and water lettuce are most commonly introduced to the natural environments via decorative ponds or aquariums, a public education plan must be set in place in order to engage communities in the prevention of its propagation and to encourage pond and aquarium business’ to stop selling both plants. Programs such as volunteer based river clean-up or invasive species bio-blitzes could be organized in partnership with organizations such as the OFAH of Ducks Unlimited. To add to these programs, pubic education nights and conferences can be hosted, along with efforts to build public pressure upon local governments to take action against the newly emerging invasive species. Strong social media can also reach many targeted interest groups across a broad platform.

Legal Factors

There are no laws conflicting with the physical removal of the invasive species, as it does not negatively impact the quality of the water that the invasive species resides in. Though in order to put more pressure on local and provincial governments to take action, the Clean Water Act (S.O. 2006, Chapter22) can be used as a stepping-stone towards involving communities in the management project. This act requires communities to monitor existing and possible threats to waterways, and to implement necessary actions to diminish the threat. It allows for public participation on all levels, in order for everyone to get the opportunity to play a role in the planning process of any mitigation or prevention plan against the invasion of water hyacinth and water lettuce for example. Finally, and most importantly, the Clean Water Act of Ontario requires that all plans and projects must be “based on sound science” (Clean Water Act, 2006). In turn, the Provincial government of Ontario will have more reason to add water hyacinth and water lettuce to the Invasive Species Act’s list of invasive species.

Water bodies in Ontario are mostly considered crown land managed by the ministry of natural resources under the Public Lands Act. The Public Lands Act (PLA) applies to the use of provincial crown land and shore lands, excluding the use of federal lands and water bodies, such as, the Trent Severn. The removal of invasive species come with rules; Ontario Regulations 239/13(section 9), and the Endangered Species Act (MNR. 2016). These rules include that the species is on your property limits, only remove the invasive species, and proper disposal of plant. In the case of chemical removal or biological removal a work permit would need to be granted under the PLA. Rules to be followed are also found under the PLA.

Potential Challenges and Solutions

Even if this management project may seem simple and small in scale compared to other efforts focusing on more prominent invasive species, such as Giant Hogweed and Asian Carp, this plan still faces many challenges. Most importantly, the issue of funding poses as the largest hurdle in this project. Without any form of income or outside support, no action can be taken against the spread of water lettuce in the waterways of southern Ontario. Secondly, industry that supplies water lettuce is to root cause of its current spread throughout natural water bodies in our region. Actions must be put in place in order to limit the sale of, or at least discourage these industries from selling water lettuce. Finally, in order to highlight the importance of the current issue facing water lettuce in southern Ontario, public knowledge and education programs must be put in place. This will prove to be one of the most important factors that will allow us to reduce the dispersal of the invasive aquatic plant. The following table highlights the issues, their challenges and the potential solutions that are suggested in order to effectively coordinate a management strategy against the spread of water hyacinth and water lettuce.

Table 3. Funding, public awareness of the issue and the water lettuce industry are the most prominent issues facing the management of water lettuce in Ontario.

Issues Challenges Solutions
Funding The challenge is finding the funding to pay for labour, equipment and other necessary resources required for managing the invasive species. -Selling collected water hyacinth and water lettuce as biofuel or even as live stock feed.

-Running volunteer and community based programs in order to deal with the issue in a cost effective manner.

-Gain support from local government, in order to receive funding.

-Apply for grants.

The “Water” plant Industry The decorative pond and aquarium industry is largely the reason why water hyacinth and water lettuce has spread so much in southern Ontario. The sale of this plant is not under any form of control. -Educate the general public about the issue.

– Social pressure from communities for stores to halt the sale of water hyacinth and water lettuce may be effective on the small scale.

-Lobbying to add the plant on the Prohibited List of the Invasive Species Act would have the largest impact.

Lack of Public Knowledge Reaching out to a broad range of individuals may prove difficult. Engaging communities may be even more difficult to accomplish -Hold conferences

-Organize shoreline clean-ups and bioblitzes

-Develop a strong media presence.

-Develop partnerships with organizations such as Ducks unlimited or OFAH.


The physical removal of water hyacinth and water lettuce paired with the establishment of a public education program is the ideal method for addressing the spread of water hyacinth and water lettuce. This multi-faceted approach tackles the current issues that water ways in Southern Ontario face in regards to water hyacinth and water lettuce, and also addresses the main source of the spread of the plant. Since this plan involves sound scientific research, community involvement and sound ecological practices, this management plan will ideally be successful upon its undertaking.


Azan, S., Bardecki, M., & Laursen, A. E. (2015). Invasive aquatic plants in the aquarium and ornamental              pond industries: a risk assessment for southern Ontario ( Canada). Weed Research55(3), 249-          259. doi:10.1111/wre.12135

Baker, H. (2015, February 2). NOAA National Center for Research on Aquatic Invasive Species (NCRAIS).           Retrieved February 18, 2017, from           &HUCNumber=

Cilliers, C.J. (1991). Biological control of water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes (Araceae), in South Africa.          Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 37(1-3): 225-229.

DMCA Complaint. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2017, from

EDDMapS. 2017. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia – Center for            Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Available online at; last      accessed January 26, 2017.

Harley, K.L.S., R.C. Kassulke, D.P.A. Sands, and M.D. Day. (1990). Biological control of water     lettuce, Pistia stratiotes (Araceae) by Neohydronomus affinis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).   Entomophaga 35(3): 363-374.

Langeland, K.A., and K.C. Burks. 1998. Identification and biology of non-native plants in Florida’s natural           areas, p. 20. University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.


Starry Stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa)- Management Strategy

Written by: Brittany Williams, John North, Cole Brodeur, Mitch Dwyer

Management Plan: There are a variety of factors that show that doing nothing for the removal strategies in some areas may be the best method. In some cases, starry stonewort has already completely taken over and has extremely dense mats. With some removal efforts it can increase the chances of fragmentation and spreading the bulbils to new areas in the lake. In addition, native species such as bladderwort and coontail have actually been found to thrive in infested areas. Whereas, it has been found to outcompete non-native species such as Eurasian water-milfoil, curly leaf pondweed and fanwort (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). In areas where starry stonewort is dense and has taken over it is more beneficial to let the natural factors work itself out and eliminate the potential for fragmentation. This would mean starry stonewort covering more than 70% of the area. If there are areas where starry stonewort has recently established and has not fully taken over removal must occur. This would mean the starry stonewort plants covers only 30% or less of the area. This will eliminate the potential for the population to increase exponentially in size within a short. In Pullman & Crawfords (2010) research, they observed that chemical removal may be the better method. This will also decrease the chance of fragmentation and ecosystem disturbance. Overall, the best management plan for starry stonewort in dense areas is to do nothing, newly established areas to do chemical removal, and to increase the education and research being done.

Legal Factors: A legal implication that must be considered in Ontario is the Invasive Species Act. This act differentiates between restricted and prohibited invasive species and the actions that must be taken for particular species. Another legal implication would be the Fish and Wildlife Act and Endangered Species Act in Ontario. This would ensure that removal efforts will not cause harm to any species listed in these acts. It may also show the importance of removing starry stonewort if it is causing environmental harm to species listed. Lastly, if the chemical removal method is taken the Pesticides Act must be followed to ensure no additional harm will occur. The Pesticides Act will give more insight about who needs to have a license, who can get a license, how to get a license, and the importance of licenses according to the law. The Pesticides Act would also give more insight to information on application. This will include areas which pesticides cannot be used, when application can occur, who can physically apply them, and the volume at which can be added.

Increase Education and Research: No matter what removal plan is implemented, education and research must be increased for starry stonewort. There are three issues that currently exist with starry stonewort: lack of public knowledge, the potential for spread from human activity, and the similarity between other species leading to misidentification. To eliminate the issue of lack of public knowledge and spread from human activity increased education must occur. This can include making various booklets and pamphlets for conservation areas and environmental companies to have. This will allow the public to understand what starry stonewort is and the issues that may arise from it constantly spreading among bodies of water. In addition, having information boards at boat launch areas to lakes which either currently have or do not have starry stonewort. This will allow boaters to keep an eye out for starry stonewort and if they see a plant which may resemble it, then researchers will have an idea of areas to look out for. This will include boaters having resources of where to report these plants. This can include reporting through a website, in office at conservation areas, or through social media. It could also been done through EDDMapS, so that boaters can use the satellite imaging to have a rough idea of where the plants were. Researchers can then use these websites, EDDMapS, and in office observations. Another option which can decrease the chance of spreading among bodies of water, would be increasing the number of boat washing stations at boat launching areas. This will eliminate the chances of bulbils being stuck to motors and hulls. This may also decrease the chances of other non-native species spreading to new areas. On information boards, the impacts that starry stonewort may have on boats must be stressed. By emphasizing that starry stonewort can potentially get stuck in their motors and cause motor damage, this will show boaters the importance of using the boat washing stations. In addition to the issue of lack of awareness and spread from human activity, the increased education for researchers should also be emphasized. There are many different species in the same taxa (Chara and Nitella spp.) which means misidentifying starry stonewort is quite possible. This means that non-experts may not observe starry stonewort in an area, which can give the plant time to establish without our knowledge. A way to eliminate this issue is to increase online seminars which can be available for people doing research on starry stonewort. This will allow easy access for people to increase their knowledge of how to identify it, and eliminate the misidentification issue.

Removal of Newly Established Areas: In lake ecosystems where starry stonewort has recently established, or has very few plants, removal efforts are extremely important. By removing the small number of current plants that have established, it can eliminate the possibility of spreading in that area. In simplest terms, the two removal methods are chemical (algaecides or herbicides) or manual removal (harvesting machine). Although little research has been done on both methods, it can be concluded that chemical removal may be the better method for smaller infestations. The specifics as to which specific algaecide would be used for removal will be decided after more research. This would include the success rate on removal efforts between different algaecides. Potential algaecides to use could include: Cultrine Ultra, Hydrothol, and PondMaster products. In Michigan, mechanical harvesting was used for removal efforts in Indianwood Lake. Since the biomass was so large, the removal efforts took a long time because it was filling up the harvesting machine so quickly (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). In this particular area, it was observed that starry stonewort would actually  re- grow faster after mechanical removal than native species. This enabled a monoculture to be quickly created (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). This can be an example as to how algaecides may be a better removal method for smaller populations. By using algaecides for removal, it may decrease the ecosystem disturbance, kill plants more quickly, and be a better control (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). One major thing to note about chemical removal is sometimes it can create a “haircut treatment” where only the taller plants die off and it only reduces the height of the plant. Although this method will not completely eliminate a specific area, it can help decrease the chances of boats spreading the bulbils. This method can also be used near riparian zones of cottages, and boat launch sites to reduce the height of the plants. This will decrease chances of spread, and will increase human satisfaction for issues such as swimming, boating, and fishing. Pullman & Crawford (2010) state starry stonewort can be sensitive to common copper and endothall based algaecides and Cultrine Ultra (combined with other herbicides) can affectively suppress starry stonewort. In Stony Lake where Cultrine Ultra were used, starry stonewort did not increase and other plant species were able to reach the surface before starry stonewort entered its exponential growth phase (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). Although research still needs to be further completed as to which algaecide is the best to use, and when the prime application time is.

Conclusion: Overall, increased education and research must occur in all circumstances to increase awareness, increase proper identification, and to decrease spreading. If species are discovered sooner, then quick action can be taken to ensure spreading is decreased. In areas where starry stonewort has already taken over, it is best to leave it and allow the natural factors work itself out. In areas where starry stonewort is newly established and has not taken over, chemical removal should occur to decrease the chances of spreading.


Pullman, D., Crawford, G. (2010). A decade of starry stonewort in Michigan. LakeLine. pp. 36-42.

Coyote (Canis latrans)- Management Plan

Written By: Adam Bocskei, Emma Ross, Jesse Beauchamp & Madison Penton


To construct the most effective management plan, there are some important points to first consider. These include the size and topography of pasture, the intensity of predation, the number and species of livestock, the farmer’s willingness to invest financially, and the public’s perception of the strategy. In all instances however, it is clear that not doing anything will continue to result in loss, and that potential attractants should be removed regardless of which management strategy is used. The two best options for management are guardian donkeys and guardian dogs. These strategies and their implementation will be explained below. The livestock owner should select the one that best suits his or her situation.


The introduction of the LPD’s is a non-lethal management solution, therefore no legal permits need to be addressed or purchased to introduce this plan. A piece of legislation that may need to be consulted is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act under the protection of property section, it states that one may harass, capture or kill the wildlife for the purpose of deterring it from damaging the one’s property. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is a provincial legislation, but depending on the municipality there may be specific by laws pertaining to the introduction and number of livestock protection dogs that someone may have on their property.


Smith et al (2000) detail the most effective way for a guardian donkey to be implemented by a farmer. The use of livestock guarding donkeys should be implemented only when guarding sheep in smaller (< 240 ha), open pastures containing no more than 200 head of sheep or goat. If this is the case, a donkey will be the easiest and most effective management strategy. The donkey should be selected from medium to large stock, be female or a gelded male, and should be raised alongside the sheep from an early age. It should also be isolated from other donkeys, mules and horses as well dogs. A donkey’s effectiveness can be tested by gauging its reaction to a domestic dog introduced by a farmer. Donkeys that do not appear to be effective should be removed and replaced. As mentioned previously, a donkey is also less of a financial risk than a dog, with an average purchase price of $144, maintenance cost of $66, a life expectancy of 10-20 years, and no training required (Smith et al, 2000).


As with any management strategy there is always the potential for issues. Some of the issues that can happen when using donkeys as livestock guardians are getting a donkey that is not aggressive towards canids. There is a possibility of getting a non-aggressive donkey, so make sure that when you are selecting a donkey, which you know for a fact that it is bred to be a guardian or has a history of aggression towards canids (Andelt, 2004). Never get more than one donkey because they just want to stay together and lose interest in protecting the livestock. Donkeys work best in situations where there are few or just one threat at a time since they are unable to fend off multiple attackers (Andelt, 2004). Donkeys should be removed during lambing because they can disrupt the bonding between ewe and lamb. (Andelt, 2004).


According to VerCauteren et. al. (2012), before a dog can be implemented, it must first be trained. Training should begin with the process of bonding the dog to the livestock by creating a close association between the two. This bonding phase should begin when the pup is between 3 and 12 weeks of age. Human interaction with the dogs should be limited to training only. Dogs should be spayed at 6 months of age or neutered at 9 months of age to avoid the desire to roam and to reduce the risk of unplanned pups. A guardian dog is significantly more expensive than a donkey, costing between $850 – $1040 per year, with the initial purchase price of the dog varying by breed (VerCauteren et. al., 2012). This method relies on the use of living animals, and is therefore susceptible to problems (see table 2).


As with any management strategy there is always the potential for issues. Some of the issues that could be seen are dogs roaming outside of their range, aggression towards the livestock or towards humans or the dog does not guard the sheep (Smith et al 2000). A more detailed list of these issues and solutions can be seen in Table 2 (below) in order for this method to be successful one must dedicate substantial amounts of time and energy into the training of the dogs to try to stop any negative behaviors from occurring. If you are not able to do the training yourself the option of hiring a dog trainer would be the most effective option (VerCauteren, et al, 2012)

Table 2: Potential issues with livestock protecting dogs (adapted from   VerCauteren et. al., 2012).

 Roaming ·         Excessive human contact

·         Dog was not spayed or neutered

·         Weakly bonded to livestock

·         Greater interest in hunting wildlife than protecting livestock

·         Fencing

·         Spay and Neuter

·         Replace breed or individual

·         Minimal attention to the dog

·         Raise dog with an already effective LPD

·         Spay and Neuter

Aggression toward livestock ·         Lack of discipline

·         Immaturity

·         Adolescence

·         Reprimand bad behavior

·         Shock collar

·         Replace breed

·         Temporary removal

·         Consistent

·         Raise with effective LPD

·         Minimize potential for boredom

Insufficient protection against offending species ·         Breed characteristics

·         Illness

·         Female in heat

·         Too few dogs

·         Replace breed that is more aggressive

·         Regular health care

·         Alternative prevention tools

·         Electrified fence

·         Use breed

·         Rear in area with offending species

·         Monitor health

·         Supply with alternative prevention tools

·         Employ more dogs

Lack of obedience and ability to handle ·         Insufficient training

·         Fearful temperament

·         Increase frequency of training

·         maintain regular contact until the dog is adult

·         avoid fearful pups

·         Early and consistent training
Lack of attentiveness toward livestock ·         Insufficient or bonding too late

·         Female in heat

·         Old dogs

·         Replace with effective dog

·         Medical checkup

·         Follow recommended bonding procedures

·         Monitor health

Insufficient patrolling of area to be protected ·         Too large of area

·         Lack of encouragement

·         Disperse resources: food, water, and shelter

·         Provide encouragement

·         Replace with more territorial breed

·         Conduct routine walks with dog within area to be protected


Livestock Guardian Dogs and Donkeys are the most effective and ethical management strategy for mitigating predation of Coyotes on livestock . Both of these are the best methods because they do not involve killing, trapping, or removing Coyotes therefore they do not require any legal documentation or permits to be implemented. Guardian dogs are effective when you have multiple threats and large herds of sheep to guard because they act as a pack to create a territory around the herd. This exclusion method works since other dog species like coyotes will not want to enter their territory and if they do the dogs will defend it. Guardian Donkeys are most effective for smaller herds with only a few or one major threat at a time because they are naturally aggressive towards canids and are very territorial. The best kind of management plan when it comes to native species like the Coyote  is one that satisfies the needs of all groups involved which is exactly what the option of Livestock Guardian Dogs and Donkeys do.


Benson, J. F., & Patterson, B. R. (2013). Inter-specific territoriality in a Canis hybrid zone: spatial segregation between wolves, coyotes, and hybrids. Oecologia, 173(4), 1539-1550.        doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2730-8

Bourne, J. (2004, December 8). Protecting Livestock with Guard Donkeys. Retrieved from Alberta: Agriculture and Forestry:$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9396

Bozarth, C. A., Hailer, F., Rockwood, L. L., Edwards, C. W., & Maldonado, A. E. (2011). Coyote        Colonization Of Northern Virginia And Admixture With Great Lakes Wolves. Journal Of    Mammalogy, 92(5), 1070-1080. Doi:10.1644/10-Mamm-A-223.1

Crimmins, S. M., Edwards, J. W., & Houben, J. M. (2012). Canis latrans (Coyote) Habitat Use and Feeding Habits in Central West Virginia. Northeastern

Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Cellar, A. C. (2011). Good fences make good neighbors:        implementation of electric fencing for establishing effective livestock-protection dogs. Human-         Wildlife Interactions, 5(1), 106-111.

Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Landry, J. (2010). Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: is    an ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges?. Bioscience, (4), 299.

Genetic and morphological differentiation of wolves ( Canis lupus) and coyotes ( Canis latrans) in                northeastern Ontario. (2012). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90(10), 1221-1230.

Gilbert-Norton, L. B., Wilson, R. R., Shivik, J. A., & Zeh, D. (2013). The Effect of Social Hierarchy on               Captive Coyote (Canis latrans) Foraging Behavior. Ethology, 119(4), 335-343.       doi:10.1111/eth.12070

Grady, W. (1995). The World of the Coyote. Vancouver : The Sierra Club.

Hansen, I., Staaland, T., & Ringsø, A. (2002). Patrolling with Livestock Guard Dogs: A Potential Method to                 Reduce Predation on Sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science, 52(1),      43-48. doi:10.1080/09064700252806416

Hilton, H. (1978). Systematics and Ecology of the Eastern Coyote. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Hinton, J. W., van Manen, F. T., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2015). Space Use and Habitat Selection by Resident and Transient Coyotes (Canis latrans). Plos ONE, 10(7), 1-17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132203

Magle, S., Simoni, L., Lehrer, E., & Brown, J. (2014). Urban predator-prey association: coyote and deer      distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosystems, 17(4), 875-891.       doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0389-5

Mastro, L. L. (2011). Life History and Ecology of Coyotes in the Mid-Atlantic States: A Summary of the       Scientific Literature. Southeastern Naturalist, 10(4), 721-730.

Meadows, R. (2006). Culling Coyotes Doesn’t Pay Off. Conservation In Practice, 7(3), 11.

Newsome, T., Bruskotter, J., & Ripple, W. (2015). When shooting a coyote kills a wolf: Mistaken identity or misguided management?. Biodiversity & Conservation, 24(12), 3145-3149. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0999-0

Otstavel, T., Vuoric, K. A., Sims, D. E., Valros, A., Vainio, O., & Saloniemi, H. (2009). The first experience    of livestock guarding dogs preventing large carnivore damages in Finland. Estonian Journal Of              Ecology, 58(3), 216-224. doi:10.3176/eco.2009.3.06

Rinehart, M. E. (2011). Behaviour of North American Mammals. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

SCHELL, C. J., YOUNG, J. K., LONSDORF, E. V., & SANTYMIRE, R. M. (2013). Anthropogenic and       physiologically induced stress responses in captive coyotes. Journal Of Mammalogy, 94(5), 1131-               1140. doi:10.1644/13-MAMM-A-001.1

Swingen, M. B., DePerno, C. S., & Moorman, C. E. (2015). Seasonal Coyote Diet Composition at a Low-      Productivity Site. Southeastern Naturalist, 14(2), 397-404.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, July 23). Livestock Losses to Predators. Retrieved from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service :

VerCauteren, K. C., Lavelle, M. J., Gehring, T. M., & Landry, J. (2012). Cow dogs: Use of livestock   protection dogs for reducing predation and transmission of pathogens from wildlife to cattle.              Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140128-136. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.06.006

Way, J. G. (2007). A Comparison of Body Mass of Canis latrans (Coyotes) Between Eastern and Western   North America. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(1), 111-124.

Wheeldon, T. J., & Patterson, B. R. (2012). Genetic and morphological differentiation of wolves (Canis      lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal Of Zoology, (10),             1221. doi:10.1139/Z2012-090

Young, J. K., Andelt, W. F., Terletzky, P. A., & Shivik, J. A. (2006). A comparison of coyote ecology after 25                years: 1978 versus 2003. Canadian Journal Of Zoology, 84(4), 573-582. doi:10.1139/Z06-030

Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) – Management Plan

Written by:  Brandon Holden, Alison Kilpatrick, Jonathan Sukhra, Lily Vuong

Canadian Kudzu population along the shores of Lake Erie near Leamington, Ontario. Photo courtesy of Mike Cowbrough (Cowbrough, 2016)

Management Plan

This plan provides details regarding the integrated management plan to eradicate Kudzu from Leamington Ontario. Due to the isolated nature of the kudzu population in Ontario, the recommended management strategy is prescribed burning followed by physical/mechanical removal. This method is labour-intensive and time consuming but can effectively eradicate the species from the province and, therefore, the country. At the Leamington site, kudzu has formed a blanket that extends 31 metres from the beach to the top of a steep south-facing bank, and has reportedly spread along 113 metres of the shoreline, covering roughly 0.35 hectares of land (Waldron, 2012; Lindgren et al., 2013).As the longevity of Kudzu seeds in the soil is unknown (Lindgren, 2010), this management strategy is to be repeated yearly until Kudzu has been eradicated from the site. Following eradication, yearly surveys of the site and surrounding area should be conducted to ensure Kudzu does not  re-establish.

The combination of both management strategies is required to tackle the Kudzu population at Leamington as each on their own would be insufficient or too costly/labour intensive. Prescribed burns are effective at reducing the aboveground biomass, but cannot destroy Kudzu root nodes or crowns (Lindgren, 2010). If the root nodes/crowns are allowed to remain, Kudzu can re-establish.

Mechanical removal of Kudzu, while labour and time intensive, has been shown to be effective at removing Kudzu. Challenges with this method come with large populations where the level of labour required would be prohibitive. Due to the Leamington population being relatively small, addressing Kudzu with mechanical removal would be feasible.

It is the combination of both management strategies that allow this management strategy to be successful. Burning the above ground biomass lessens the amount of work required for mechanical removal, and allows for easier access to the root nodes and crowns. These would have to be removed with hand tools such as shovels, axes and hand clippers as the terrain at Leamington doesn’t allow for heavy equipment.

This management strategy should be implemented once per season, during the summer, after Kudzu has dedicated energy to growing leaves and shoots but before seed pods are established. A secondary burn could be implemented later in the season (fall) to destroy any regrowth following the first burn/mechanical removal. This reduces the remaining energy available to the roots to re-establish the following year.

As kudzu may have originally been planted intentionally at the Leamington site to stabilize the bank, it may be necessary to establish a plan to plant native riparian vegetation to prevent the bank from eroding after kudzu has been removed.

Legal Factors

With the proposed management plan, there are a number of legal factors that need to be taken into consideration. Kudzu is not listed on the Ontario Invasive Species Act and so there are no restrictions or prohibitions with respect to transport, possession or propagation of the plant. The management plan does not rely on pesticides in any form so no considerations need to be made in regards to the Pesticide Act. In Ontario, prescribed burns need prior approval from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Ontario, 2016). After approval there are still a number of controls must be in place for the protection of private property and the public. There have to be licenced and qualified staff on site, everyone must be briefed as to their responsibilities during the burn, and communication between all parties must be maintained throughout the burn (Ontario, 2016 ).

Potential Challenges and Solutions

The biggest challenge to this management strategy is to ensure timely removal of Kudzu. The plan is designed to quickly destroy the current plants as well as promote seed bank germination in order to deplete it in a timely manner. To this end, ensuring removal of all root nodes and crowns is essential in order to reduce regrowth in subsequent years of the management plan. To ensure this happens, the mechanical removal portion of the management plan must be carried out in a thorough and comprehensive manner.


While Kudzu control can be a significant challenge in some areas, the Canadian population of the plant is small and isolated. The Kudzu population in Leamington represents a unique opportunity to eradicate the entire known population of the invasive plant from Canadian shores. As eradication is currently a viable option, every effort should be made while this holds true. The combination of prescribed burns followed by mechanical removal of root nodes and crowns provides the greatest chance at successful removal of Kudzu while limiting cost and chance of greater environmental degradation. The undetermined nature of kudzu’s introduction into Ontario makes it difficult to design an effective plan to prevent the reinvasion of the species in the future. The likelihood that it was introduced through intentional planting would mean that the only necessary action for the prevention of reinvasion would be to not consider the species for bank stabilization in the future


Alderman, D. H. (2015). When an exotic becomes native taming, naming, and kudzu as regional symbolic capital. Southeastern Geographer, (1), 32.

Boersma, P. D., Reichard, S. H., & N., V. B. (2006). Invasive species in the Pacific Northwest.   Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Bergmann, C., Swearingen J, M. (2009). Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Working       Group: Kudzu. Retrieved from:

EDDMapS. 2017. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia – Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Available online at; last accessed January 27, 2017.

Forseth Jr., I. N., & Innis, A. F. (2004). Kudzu (Pueraria montana): History, Physiology, and     Ecology Combine to Make a Major Ecosystem Threat. Critical Reviews In Plant    Sciences, 23(5), 401. doi:10.1080/073526804905150

Frye, M. PhD. (2010) Lessons Learned from Six Years of Kudzu Research. Cornell University.    Retrieved from:

Gigon, A., Pron, S., & Buholzer, S. (2014). Ecology and distribution of the Southeast Asian      invasive liana Kudzu, Pueraria lobata (Fabaceae), in Southern Switzerland. EPPO   Bulletin, (3), 490. doi:10.1111/epp.12172

Grebner, D. L., Ezell, A. W., Prevost, J. D., & Gaddis, D. A. (2011). Kudzu Control and Impact on Monetary Returns to Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners in Mississippi.        Journal Of Sustainable Forestry, 30(3), 204-223. doi:10.1080/10549811.2011.530559

Hinman, K. (2011). Kudzu: how a wonder vine unveiled by Japan at the 1876 centennial began    eating America. American History, (2), 38.

(2009, September 23). Invasive Plant Species Takes Root in Canada. CBC News Windsor.         Retrieved from

Kartzinel, T. R., Hamrick, J. L., Chongyun, W., Bowsher, A. W., & Quigley, B. P. (2015).          Heterogeneity of clonal patterns among patches of kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata,    an invasive plant. Annals Of Botany, 116(5), 739-750. doi:10.1093/aob/mcv117

Kudzu. (2014). Kudzu (Pueraria montana). Retrieved from:

Lindgren, C. J., Castro, K. L., Coiner, H. A., Nurse, R. E., & Darbyshire, S. J. (2013). The         Biology of Invasive Alien Plants in Canada. 12. Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Sanjappa & Predeep. Canadian Journal Of Plant Science, 93(1), 71-95.       doi:10.4141/CJPS2012-128

Minogue, P. J., Enloe, S. F., Osiecka, A., & Lauer, D. K. (2011). Comparison of    Aminocyclopyrachlor to Common Herbicides for Kudzu (Pueraria montana) Management. Invasive Plant Science & Management, 4(4), 419-426. doi:10.1614/IPSM- D-11-00024.1

(2016, December 9). Prescribed Burns. Retrieved from         burn#section-2

Rashid, H., Asaeda, T., & Uddin, N. (2010). The Allelopathic Potential of Kudzu (Pueraria       montana). Weed Science, 58(1), 47-55. doi:10.1614/WS-09-106.1

Smith, A. L., Hewitt, N., Klenk, N., Bazely, D. R., Yan, N., Wood, S., & … Lipsig-Mummé, C.   (2012). Effects of climate change on the distribution of invasive alien species in Canada:   a knowledge synthesis of range change projections in a warming world. Environmental        Reviews, 20(1), 1-16.

USDA Forest Service. (2004) Kudzu Pueraria montana. Retrieved from:

Wong, K. H., Li, G. Q., Li, K. M., Razmovski-Naumovski, V., & Chan, K. (2011). Review:      Kudzu root: Traditional uses and potential medicinal benefits in diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Journal Of Ethnopharmacology, 134584-607. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.02.001
Yang, X., Huang, W., Tian, B., & Ding, J. (2014). Differences in growth and herbivory damage   of native and invasive kudzu (Peuraria montana var. lobata) populations grown in the        native range. Plant Ecology, (3), 339. doi:10.1007/s11258-014-0304-4

Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) – Ecological Profile

Written by: Alison Kilpatrick

Distribution: Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) is a perennial vine native to China, Korea, Japan, India and eastward through the Philippines (Lindgren, Castro, Coiner, Nurse, & Darbyshire, 2013). Populations of Kudzu have been noted outside of its native range in Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Switzerland, South Africa, South America, Mexico, the United States, and now Canada (Pasiecznik, 2007). Kudzu was introduced into the United States in Pennsylvania and was widely encouraged to be planted by landowners (Forseth & Innis, 2004). It has since naturalized and spread west to Texas, east to Massachusetts, north to Michigan, and south to Florida (Lindgren et al., 2013). There have also been reports of Kudzu on the west coast in Washington and Oregon (Lindgren et al., 2013). Kudzu now covers approximately 3 million hectares of land in the United States and is estimated to be spreading by 50,000 hectares per year (Forseth & Innis, 2004).


Figure 1: Current global distribution of Kudzu, Pueraria montana (Base map: ESRI 2015; Distribution modified from EDDMaps)


Figure 2: Kudzu range within Canada. Kudzu is currently limited to one small population on the shores of Lake Erie near Leamington, Ontario (Base map: ESRI 2015; Distribution modified from EDDMaps).

Habitat: Kudzu’s ability to establish itself in a wide range of conditions makes it a generalist species. It can be found in a wide variety of habitats including forests, shores, floodplains, fields, and disturbed areas (Lindgren et al., 2013). While it thrives in areas that are open and have well-drained, fertile soils, it can establish itself in nutrient-deficient soils due to its ability to fix nitrogen from  the atmosphere (Lindgren et al., 2013). Kudzu does not grow well in soils that are shallow or poorly-drained (Lindgren et al., 2013). It can grow in soils ranging from acidic (pH 4.5) to neutral (pH 7.0), but it does not do well in soils that have a high pH (Lindgren et al., 2013). Kudzu is most productive when it has access to full sunlight (Lindgren et al., 2013). It is sensitive to cold, so it is most successful in locations that have mild winters (mean temperature between 5-15°C) and hot summers (mean temperature over 25°C), but its roots are reportedly capable of surviving temperatures as low as -25°C (Lindgren et al., 2013).  For optimal growth, Kudzu requires at least 100 cm of precipitation annually, however the mean annual precipitation in the Leamington area is only 93 cm (Lindgren et al., 2013). This population is currently growing on a clay-rich slope on the shoreline of Lake Erie, where the mean temperature in January is -4.6°C and in July it is 22.3°C (Lindgren et al., 2013).

Potential For Infestation: Kudzu exhibits characteristics of r-strategists. r-strat_animal_yellowIt is a
perennial that can grow in unstable conditions, allocates little energy
into seed production but produces many seeds multiple times, and its seeds have a low probability of surviving the early stage of life (Lindgren et al., 2013). See Table 1 for the summary of Kudzu characteristics that support its classification as an r-strategist.

Table 1: Summary of the reproductive characteristics of Kudzu compared to those of K and r-selected species (Molles & Cahill, 2014; Forseth & Innis, 2004). Kudzu aligns best with the reproductive characteristics of r-strategists.

Characteristic K-strategist r-strategist Kudzu
Environment Stable Unstable Capable of establishing in disturbed areas
Mortality Higher probability of surviving to adulthood Lower probability of surviving to adulthood Most seeds do not establish as seedlings
Size Large bodied Small bodied Relatively small herbaceous vine
Fecundity Few offspring at a time Many offspring at a time Produces many seeds at a time
Frequency of Reproduction Multiple times over a prolonged period Once to multiple times over a short period Produces seeds every season
Energy allocation Higher energy allocated to producing offspring Lower energy allocated to producing offspring Low energy allocated to seed production, high energy allocated to extension growth

Survivorship: Kudzu  follows the Type III survivorship curve typical of plants (see Figure 3). Its seeds usually do not successfully establish (Lindgren et al., 2013). Therefore, this species has a low probability of survival in its early stage of life. Once established, Kudzu continues to grow through vegetative reproduction (Lindgren et al., 2013).


Figure 3: Survivorship curves (Image credit: Husthwaite, n.d.)

Dispersal and Vectors: Kudzu produces seeds annually and its seed pods can disperseVector_Human
up to 25 meters but most stay within 6 meters of their origin (Lindgren et al., 2013). However, despite the production of viable seeds, Kudzu seedlings are rare and usually do not survive to the following year when found in the wild (Lindgren et al., 2013). This suggests that seeds are not effectively dispersed or that there is something preventing seedlings from establishing (Lindgren et al., 2013). Therefore, the principal method of propagation of Kudzu is vegetative reproduction rather than sexual reproduction
(Lindgren et al., 2013). It spreads through rapid extension growth and frequent rooting of stems that contact the soil (Forseth & Innis, 2004). Humans are a primary vector for Kudzu dispersal as most long-distance dispersal has been through intentional planting by humans (Forseth & Innis, 2004). Kudzu’s method of introduction into Ontario is currently undetermined, though several possibilities have been considered including water dispersal across Lake Erie, bird dispersal, disposal of farming materials, or intentional planting for stabilization of the shore (Lindgren et al., 2013). However, there is insufficient evidence to support any of these methods as the source for the population in the Leamington area (Lindgren et al., 2013).
Special Considerations: Kudzu is an aggressive competitor because its rapid growth rate allows it to smother and shade other species before they can establish (Forseth & Innis, 2004). In addition, a compound that inhibits seed germination and plant growth has been found in Kudzu root and leaf extracts (Lindgren et al., 2013). High concentrations of this compound found in soil following Kudzu decomposition could be enough to result in allelopathic effects on some plant species (Lindgren et al., 2013). Through its ability to fix nitrogen in the atmosphere, Kudzu can alter an ecosystem’s nitrogen cycles and can potentially affect regional air quality (Forseth & Innis, 2004; Lindgren et al., 2013).


EDDMapS (2017). Kudzu: Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia – Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Retrieved January 26, 2017 from

Forseth, I. N, Jr. & Innis, A. F. (2004). Kudzu (pueraria montana): History, physiology, and ecology combine to make a major ecosystem threat. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 23(5):401-413.

Husthwaite, R. (n.d.). Survivorship curves [image]. Retrieved January 26, 2017 from

Lindgren, C. J., Castro, K.L., Coiner, H. A., Nurse, R. E., & Darbyshire, S. J. (2013). The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada (12): Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Sanjappa & Predeep. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 93:71-95, doi:10.4141/cjps2012-128

Molles, M., & Cahill, J. (2014). Ecology: concepts and applications (3 edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pasiecznik, N. (2007). Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu). Invasive Species Compendium. Retrieved January 26, 2017 from

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus Virginianus)

Written by: Sean Bryan, Jessie Harris, Narmeen Nweisser and Frank Zacharias

Management Plan

This plan involves two methods of management to eradicate White-tailed Deer in urban settings. The first method of management will be to sterilize the female deer in and around the urban settings. This will cause some problems due to the fact that this method causes young bucks (male deer) to enter the area trying to mate more with the females that are in heat. (Figura, 2014). We have decided to not use of abortifacients or other methods to prevent the female deer from going into estrus because we believe this will cause more stress on the deer that already have a lot to deal with. So to solve that problem we will also open the hunting season for a longer period of time. The management plan needs help from all aspects of the community from hunters, to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF), and even people in the community for monitoring. The hunters will be able to hunt for longer, potentially having more bonding time with people they love. The hunting will not be done in urban settings because of the fact that you can shoot a gun in urban settings. The deer will be hunted just on the outskirts of the urban setting making it hard for the males to enter the urban areas. This also allows them to be able to feed themselves and their families with the meat. For those reasons, we decided that having the hunting season open longer will not only help with our management strategy but also help with community connections. We also understand that some people in the community don’t agree with the method of hunting so instead of just opening the hunting season as a means of control can have a lot of deer killed. Therefore we will take a more ethical approach for closer to the urban area by using the sterilizing method. Monitoring of the populations of male and female deer will contribute to the success of this project and knowing if it will work.

Legal Factors

The management strategies that were chosen for this project will require a few different pieces a legislation and permits to be obtained to complete the work. For the deer season to be open longer we will need to be in close contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The MNRF will have to be contacted to have the hunting season extended. This will require a permit for within the boundaries of the urban area. This is done this way because there is no need to change the whole provinces’ hunting season just for a selected area. The MNRF will then come to a decision on whether or not to open the season longer [JF1] or not as part of the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act. The MNRF will also be in contact for permits required to do the sterilizing of the deer. The permit will give us a set amount of deer that can be sterilized but will also indicate what training the people would need. This will require monitoring before the decision is made so the MNFR has all the proper data they need for their decision. This means there are legal implications from the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act which is at the provincial level (Ontario Government, 2016).

Challenges & Solutions

Some of the things we will encounter are legal challenges, community members not being okay with the new hunting laws and the male deer population increase. The legal encounters will be a challenge as they may be time-consuming and expensive to publish and figure out. We plan to solve that problem by making sure that the project is organized and all information is complete as fast and proper as possible. The MNRF may want a lot of research done on their habitats in and around the community which can be costly and also time-consuming. With the help of the community and trail cameras, we can fulfill all the monitoring needs as long as the community is willing to participate. The MNRF will need to make sure that the drugs for sterilizing methods are safe and legal. This part can be costly as the right testing needs to be done on the drugs to make sure everything will run smooth. The proper training will have to be decided upon for the surgical method by the MNRF. There are many sterilizing processes that have been done around North America already which can help in the process of complete this challenge. Inside urban areas, there are a lot of people that may not agree with the hunting season change. The option to just shoot as many deer as possible is an option for removing them from urban settings. So the “meet halfway” we will not be killing all of the deer but making an educated decision on what the right number should be. The male deer population increases after sterilizing methods have been done with the tubal ligation method. This will be one of our hardest challenges to deal with, we predict. When the deer move into an area we will be asking the hunters to be enjoying the outdoors more by having a longer season open. This problem can also be solved by having research done on how quick the male deer enter the area after sterilizing and then we can have the season start or continue from there.


By choosing both methods of non-lethal and lethal are what’s going to make this project succeed. If we only have the choice of the sterilizing methods we would not have solved our problem due to the research coming out of Cornell University saying that having the female deer sterile makes the young buck more attracted to them causing an increase in deer population. But also just killing all the deer would not be the best option as the conservation of the deer are still a very important part of this project to continue to have bonding time with family or friends while hunting. Some permits will need to be acquired for this project to be complete. This will be a costly project but the jobs and education that will be created through this project will be a great success.


Figura, D. (2014). Cornell University culls and studies its deer herd on campus using archers and ‘trap and bolt” method. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

Ontario Government. (2016). Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from regulations-summary