Control strategies for invasive plant kudzu (Pueraria montana) and impacts on soil communities

Sep 3, 2026

Upload by Ophelia

Invasive kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) threatens biodiversity, yet its management options—synthetic herbicides, fungal bioherbicides, and mowing—have rarely been evaluated for non-target soil effects. A randomized complete block design tested glyphosate, aminopyralid, Albifimbria verrucaria, combined treatments, and mowing, with untreated and carrier controls. Soil edaphic chemistry and enzymatic activity remained generally stable through May–September sampling, while community analyses showed only weak treatment-by-time structuring of fungal and bacterial assemblages. Results indicate generally stable microbial communities without discernible adverse non-target effects. Land managers can select suitable kudzu control strategies without undue concern for harmful impacts on soils.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryGeneral

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Experimental design and treatments

Key findings on soil chemistry and microbial communities

Implications for management

| Control strategies for the invasive plant kudzu (Pueraria montana) only minimally impacts soil activity, chemistry, and bacterial and
fungal communities | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Maryam Shahrtasha, 1, Avery E. Tucker a, Mark A. Weaver b, Shawn P. Brown a, 2, *
a Department of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis 38152, TN USA
b USDA ARS, Biological Control of Pests Research Unit, National Biological Control Laboratory, Stoneville, MS USA 38776 | | | | | A R T I C L E I N F O | | A B S T R A C T | | | Keywords: Invasive Plants Glyphosate Milestone
Soil Communities Bacteria
Fungi | | Invasive plant species pose serious threats to biodiversity and stability of native ecosystems. Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) is an abundant and highly aggressive invasive plant in the Southeast United States. Herbicides, bioherbicides, and cultural practices are integral parts of integrated management of kudzu, yet few studies have evaluated the impact of kudzu management strategies on soils and their biological and chemical properties. To examine whether kudzu management options impact edaphic chemistry and/or soil microbial communities, we implemented a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with kudzu control treatments, which included synthetic, biological, and combined herbicide applications as well as mowing. Changes inedaphic chemistry, soil activity, and in bacterial and fungal communities were then measured across a single growing season. Treatments included the herbicides glyphosate and aminopyralid, the fungal bioherbicide Albifimbria verrucaria, mowing, as well as the combined treatments of aminopyralid andA. verrucaria, glyphosate and mowing, and two controls (untreated control and the surfactant used as a carrier for aminopyralid and A. verrucaria spores). Soils were collected at multiple points across the growing season between May and September. Soil enzymatic activity and edaphic chemistry were generally stable across treatments and time. Further, our community analyses indicates that the interaction between treatments and time structures fungal and bacterial soil communities, but only weakly. This study suggests that soil microbial communities are generally stable in response to different management strategies and had no discernable adverse non-target effects. We conclude that land managers likely can use any control strategies that are best suited for their circumstances without undue concern about how kudzu control strategies might impact soils. | | | Dates of Treatment Application and Samples Collected | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Treatments | May 31 (D0) | June 2 (D2) | June 4 (D4) | June 8 (D8) | June 16 (D16) | July 2 (D32) | July 23
(D53) | August 13 (D74) | September 2 (D94) | September 24 (D116) | | Roundup® | 50% Label Rate (Roundup)†‡ | | | | 50% Label Rate (Roundup)‡ | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | Milestone® | 50% Label Rate (Milestone)†‡ | | | | 50% Label Rate (Milestone)‡ | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | AV | 1st Application (AV)†‡ | | | | 2nd Application (AV)‡ | 3rd Application (AV)†‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | Milestone® + | 100% Label Rate | | | | 1st Application | 2nd Application | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | AV | (Milestone)†‡ | | | | (AV)‡ | (AV)†‡ | | | | | | Mow | †‡ | | | | ‡ | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | Roundup® + | 50% Label Rate | | | | 50% Label Rate | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | Mow | (Roundup)†‡ | | | | (Roundup)‡ | | | | | | | Surfactant Control | 1st Application †‡ | | | | 2nd Application ‡ | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | Untreated Control | †‡ | | | | ‡ | †‡ | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | †‡ | | | A | | --- | --- | | | A | | | A | | B | | | | | |
BC | | |
C | | |
C | | |

C | | | Response | Treatment | Time | Treatment x Time | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Sobs (Fungi) | F7, 15.832 = 2.63, P = 0.051 | F9, 138.142= 2.44, P = 0.013 | F63, 137.666 = 1.1

FAQs

What management strategies for kudzu were tested in the study?

The study evaluated synthetic herbicides (glyphosate and aminopyralid), the fungal bioherbicide Albifimbria verrucaria, mowing, their combined applications, and two controls (untreated and carrier surfactant).

How did kudzu treatments affect soil chemistry and enzymatic activity over the growing season?

Soil enzymatic activity and edaphic chemistry were generally stable across treatments and across time from May through September sampling points.

Did kudzu control alter fungal and bacterial soil communities in a harmful way?

Community analyses indicated that treatment and time influenced fungal and bacterial communities only weakly, and the study found no discernible adverse non-target effects on soil microbial communities.

Sep 3, 2026

Upload by Ophelia