Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:19:33.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Restoration Methods across a Range of Plant Communities Dominated by Invasive Annual Grasses to Native Perennial Grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Priscilla A. Nyamai ,
Timothy S. Prather  and
John M. Wallace
Priscilla A. Nyamai*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Timothy S. Prather
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
John M. Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prairies are imperiled habitats, with remnants being generally small and often existing in isolation. Invasive plants have the potential to invade not just the edge of small remnants but also the interior because smaller remnants experience greater edge effects than do large, contiguous prairies. Additionally, invasive plants limit recruitment of native plants, which can arrest secondary succession. We proposed to assess techniques for restoration that included removing annual grasses and supplementing native species recruitment with seeding of native grass and forb species. We also assessed the effect of specific factors affecting recruitment: soil moisture and seed predation. Treatments included broadcast, spot, or no application of the herbicides imazapic and glyphosate and with or without seeding plus mulch. With treatments nested within each of three plant communities, ranging from annual- to perennial-dominated communities, in four blocks per community, plant characteristics (percentage of cover and plant density), soil moisture availability, and seed-predation losses were measured along a plant community gradient within one season at two locations. A combination of broadcast herbicide application and seeding with mulching was found to be more effective in reducing annual grasses and enhancing the establishment of native grass species in predominately annual and mixed communities (annuals and perennials). Spot herbicide application was effective in predominately perennial communities, whereas only seeding native species did not improve recruitment. Although seed predation reduced seedling recruitment, mulch provided seed protection and enhanced soil moisture retention. Plant community response to imposed treatments differed among communities, suggesting that a decision support tool would facilitate management decisions tailored for each plant community. The decision tool would be useful to ensure that appropriate treatments are applied and that specific factors affecting recruitment, such as seed predation and soil moisture, are addressed.

Keywords

GlyphosateimazapicInvasive speciesplant communityrestorationseed predationsoil moisture
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 306 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 400 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, C. J. and MacMahon, J. A. 2001. Granivores, exclosures and seed banks: harvester ants and rodents in sagebrush-steppe. J. Arid Environ. 49:343–355.Google Scholar
Bakker, J. D., Wilson, S. D., Christian, J. M., Li, X., Ambrose, L. G., and Waddington, J. 2003. Contingency of grassland restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses. Ecol. Appl. 13:137–153.Google Scholar
Bakker, J. D. and Wilson, S. D. 2004. Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:1058–1064.Google Scholar
Barnes, T. G. 2007. Using herbicides to rehabilitate native grasslands. Nat. Areas J. 27:56–65.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. M., Jordan, N. R., and Svenson, E. L. 2003. Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the example of Tallgrass Prairie. Conserv. Ecol. 7(1):6.Google Scholar
Bochet, E., Garcia-Fayos, P., Alborch, B., and Tormo, J. 2007. Soil water availability effects on seed germination account for species segregation in semiarid road slopes. Plant Soil 295:179–191.Google Scholar
Brown, C. S., Anderson, V. J., Claassen, V. P., Stannard, M. E., Wilson, L. M., Atkinson, S. Y., Bromberg, J. E., Grant, T. A. III, and Munis, M. D. 2008. Restoration ecology and invasive plants in the semiarid west. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:399–413.Google Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 2004. Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species. J. Range Manag. 57:97–105.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. 2000. Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol. Appl. 10:1400–1413.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. D. and Carla, M. D. 2004. Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: Implications for an historical invasion. Ecology 85:1273–1283.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 2003. Imazapic: herbicide factsheet. J. Pestic. Reform 23(3):1–5.Google Scholar
Cully, A. C., Cully, J. F. Jr, and Hiebert, R. D. 2003. Invasion of exotic plant species in tallgrass prairie fragments. Conserv. Biol. 17:990–998.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:183–211.Google Scholar
Dickson, T. L. and Busby, W. H. 2009. Forb species establishment increases with decreased grass seeding density and with increased forb seeding density in a northeast Kansas experimental prairie restoration. Restor. Ecol. 17:597–605.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., DiTomaso, J. M., Orloff, S. B., and Drake, D. J. 2004. Soil water dynamics differ among rangeland plant communities dominated by yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses or perennial grasses. Weed Sci. 52:929–935.Google Scholar
Ewing, K. 2002. Effects of initial site treatments on early growth and three year survival of Idaho fescue. Restor. Ecol. 10:282–288.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, G. 2004. Techniques for restoring native plant communities in upland and wetland prairies in the Midwest and West Coast regions of North America. Eugene, OR Nature Conservancy report prepared for City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division.Google Scholar
Foster, B. L., Murphy, C. A., Keller, K. R., Aschenbach, T. A., Questad, E. J., and Kindscher, K. 2007. Restoration of prairie community structure and ecosystem function in an abandoned hayfield: a sowing experiment. Restor. Ecol. 15:652–661.Google Scholar
Hanson, T., Sanchez-de Leon, Y., Johnson-Maynard, J., and Brunsfeld, S. 2008. Influence of soil and site characteristics on Palouse Prairie plant communities. West. N. Am. Nat. 68(2):231–240.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. T. and Young, T. P. 2005. Weed control and soil amendment effects on restoration plantings in an Oregon grassland. West. N. Am. Nat. 65:507–515.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. 1998. Post-dispersal seed predation: consequences for plant demography and evolution. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1:32–46.Google Scholar
Humphrey, L. D. and Schupp, E. W. 2002. Seedling survival from locally and commercially obtained seeds on two semiarid sites. Restor. Ecol. 10(1):88–95.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. G. and Simon, S. A. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa–Snake Province. Portland, OR USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. 400 p.Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically based invasive plant management on rangelands. Weed Sci. 54:597–605.Google Scholar
Montalvo, A. M., McMillan, P. A., and Allen, E. B. 2002. The relative importance of seeding method, soil ripping, and soil variables on seeding success. Restor. Ecol. 10:52–67.Google Scholar
Orrock, J. L., Danielson, B. J., Burns, M. J., and Levey, D. J. 2003. Spatial ecology of predator–prey interactions: corridors and patch shape influence seed predation. Ecology 84:2589–2599.Google Scholar
Orrock, J. L., Witter, M. S., and Reichman, O. J. 2008. Native consumers and seed limitation constrain the restoration of a native perennial grass in exotic habitats. Restor. Ecol. 17:148–157.Google Scholar
Predavec, M. 1997. Seed removal by rodents, ants and birds in the Simpson Desert, Central Australia. J. Arid Environ. 36:327–332.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. and Toney, J. C. 1998. Exotic weed control treatments for conservation of fescue grassland in Montana. Biol. Conserv. 85:83–95.Google Scholar
Ruijven, J., Deyn, D., Gerlinde, B., and Berendse, F. 2003. Diversity reduces invisibility in experimental plant communities: the role of plant species. Ecol. Lett. 6:910–918.Google Scholar
Scheinost, P., Stannard, M., and Prather, T. 2009. USDA NRCS Plant Guide: Ventenata dubia. Pullman, WA Pullman Plant Materials Center.Google Scholar
Seabloom, E. W., Borer, E. T., Boucher, V. L., Burton, R. S., Cottingham, K. L., Goldwasser, L., Gram, W. K., Kendall, B. E., and Micheli, F. 2003a. Competition, seed limitation, disturbance, and reestablishment of California native annual forbs. Ecol. Appl. 13(3):575–592.Google Scholar
Seabloom, E. W., Harpole, W. S., Reichman, O. J., and Tilman, D. 2003b. Invasion, competitive dominance and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Ecology 100:13384–13389.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Sci. 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Melissa, L. H. 2006. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using rich seed mixture. Restor. Ecol. 14:627–635.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mangold, J. M., and Anderson, J. L. 2006. Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant–dominated rangelands. Ecol. Monogr. 76:365–379.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobs, J. S. 1996. Successional rangeland weed management. Rangelands 18:155–159.Google Scholar
Stanley, A. G., Kaye, T. N., and Dunwiddie, P. W. 2008. Regional strategies for restoring invaded prairies: observations from a multisite collaborative research project. Native Plants J. 9:247–254.Google Scholar
Strand, E., Black, A. E., Scott, J. M., Wright, R. G., Morgan, P., and Watson, C. 1998. Biodiversity and land-use history of the Palouse bioregion: pre-European to present. Pages 85–89 in Sisk, T. D., ed. Perspectives on the Land Use History of North America: A Context for Understanding Our Changing Environment. Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-1998-0003.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92.Google Scholar
Tunnell, S. J., Stubbendieck, J., Palazzolo, S., and Masters, R. A. 2006. Forb response to herbicides in a degraded tallgrass prairie. Nat. Areas J. 26:72–77.Google Scholar
Weddell, B. J. and Lichthardt, J. 2001. Restoration of Palouse and Canyon grasslands: a review. Pages 1–12 in Weddell, B. J., ed. Restoring Palouse and Canyon Grasslands: Putting Back the Missing Pieces. Cottonwood, ID Idaho Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 01-15.Google Scholar
Zeiter, M., Stampfli, A., and Newbery, D. M. 2006. Recruitment limitation constrains local species richness and productivity in dry grassland. Ecology 87:942–951.Google Scholar