Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:54:30.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landscape-Scale Rehabilitation of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)-Dominated Sagebrush Steppe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley ,
Edward A. Vasquez ,
Anna-Marie Chamberlain  and
Brenda S. Smith
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR, 97720
Edward A. Vasquez
Affiliation:
Wyoming Wildlife Consultants LLC, Ft. Collins, CO 82051
Anna-Marie Chamberlain
Affiliation:
Oregon State University Extension Malheur County, Ontario, OR 97914
Brenda S. Smith
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR, 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Producers facing infestations of invasive annual grasses regularly voice the need for practical revegetation strategies that can be applied across broad landscapes. Our objective was to determine the potential for scaling up the single-entry approach for revegetating medusahead-infested rangeland to broader, more heterogeneous landscape-scale revegetation of winter annual grass–infested rangeland. We hypothesized, when applied on a highly variable landscape scale, the combination of imazapic and seeding would provide highest abundance of perennial grasses and lowest amount of annual grasses. Treatments included a control, seeding of crested wheatgrass (‘Hycrest’) and Sandberg's bluegrass, spraying (60 g ai ha−1 imazapic), and a simultaneously applied combination of spraying and seeding. The HyCrest and Sandberg's bluegrass seeding rates were 19 and 3.4 kg ha−1, respectively. The treatments were applied to large plots (1.4 to 8 ha) and replicated five times, with each replication located in different watersheds throughout southeastern Oregon. This study shows that the single-entry approach can be scaled up to larger landscapes, but variation within establishment areas will likely be high. This procedure should reduce the costs over multientry treatment applications and make revegetating annual grass–infested rangeland across landscapes more affordable.

Keywords

Imazapic, medusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski, crested wheatgrass, Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. × Agropyron desertorum Gaertn. ‘Hycrest’, Sandberg's bluegrass, Poa secunda J.S. PreslInvasive annual grassesmedusaheadcheatgrassrestorationrangelandone-pass system
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 436 - 442
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, E. W., Borman, M. M., and Krueger, W. C. 1998. Ecological Provinces of Oregon: A Treatise on the Basic Ecological Geography of the State. Corvallis, OR : Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. 138 p.Google Scholar
Bestelmeyer, B. T., Brown, J. R., Fuhlendorf, S. D., Fults, G. A., and Wu, X. B. 2012. A landscape approach to rangeland conservation practices. Pages 337–370 in Briske, D. D., ed. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices. Lawrence, KS : Allen Press.Google Scholar
Bestelmeyer, B. T., Goolsby, D., and Archer, S. R. 2011. Spatial perspectives in state-and-transition models: a missing link to land management? J. Appl. Ecol. 48:746–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, M. M., Krueger, W. C., and Johnson, D. E. 1991. Effects of established perennial grasses on yields of associated annual weeds. J. Range Manage. 44:318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R., Svejcar, T., Brunson, M., Dobrowolski, J., Fredrickson, E., Krueter, U., Launchbaugh, K., Southworth, J., and Thurow, T. 2002. Range sites: are they the appropriate spatial unit for measuring and managing rangelands? Rangelands 24:7–12.Google Scholar
Davies, K. F. and Sheley, R. L. 2011. Promoting native vegetation and diversity in exotic annual grass infestations. Restor. Ecol. 19:159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2008. Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 61:110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2010. Revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 63:564–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2011. Plant community diversity and native plant abundance decline with increasing abundance of an exotic annual grass. Oecologia 167:481–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, K. W. and Johnson, D. D. 2008. Managing medusahead in the Intermountain West is at a critical threshold. Rangelands 30:13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Svejcar, T. J. 2008. Comparison of medusahead-invaded and non-invaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 61:623–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S. D. and Smeins, F. E. 1998. Soil heterogeneity influenc on plant species response to grazing within a semi-arid savanna. Plant Ecol. 138:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J. Range Manage. 14:263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. J., Davies, K. W., Sheley, R. L., and Aanderud, Z. T. 2008. Linking nitrogen partitioning and species abundance to invasion resistance in the Great Basin. Oecologia 156:637–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. D. and Davies, K. W. 2012. Medusahead management in sagebrush-stem rangelands: Prevention, control and revegetation. Rangelands. 34 (1):32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. D., Davies, K. W., Schreder, P. T., and Chamberlain, A. M. 2011. Perceptions of ranchers about medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) management on sagebruch steppe rangelands. Environ. Manage. 48:400–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueter, U. P., Amestoy, H. E., Kothmann, M. M., Ueckert, D. N., Mcginty, W. A., and Cummings, S. R. 2005. The use of brush management methods: a Texas landowner survey. J. Range Manage. 58:284–291.Google Scholar
Miller, H. C. 1996. Demography of Medusahead on Two Soil Types: Potential for Invasion into Intact Native Communities. M.S. thesis. Corvallis, OR : Oregon State University. 36 p.Google Scholar
Milton, S. 2004. Grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 100:69–75.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Osmond, T. M., and Dewey, S. A. 2005. Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol. 19:653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 4–18 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR : Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Rafferty, D. L. and Young, J. A. 2002. Cheatgrass competition and establishment of desert needlegrass seedlings. J. Range Manage. 55:70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS. 2009. Proc Glimmix. Cary, NC : SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. I., Svejcar, T. J., and Jacobs, J. S. 2005. Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. Weed Sci. 53:307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. 2007. Revegetating Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and green rabbitbrush (Ericameria teretifolia) infested rangeland in a single-entry. Weed Sci. 55:365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Bingham, B. S., and Davies, K. F. 2012. Rehabilitating medusahead infested rangeland using a single-entry approach. Weed Sci. 60:612–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Carpinelli, M. F. 2005. Creating weed-resistant plant communities using niche-differentiated nonnative species. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 58:480–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Carpinelli, M. F., and Morghan, K. J. R. 2007. Effects of imazapic on target and non-target vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technol. 21:1071–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetaing spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single-entry. J. Range Manage. 54:144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., James, J. J., Rinella, M. J., Blumenthal, D., and Ditomaso, J. M. 2011. Invasive plant management on anticipated conservation benefits: a scientific assessment. Pages 291–336 in Briske, D. D., ed. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices. Lawrence, KS : Allen Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., Maxwell, B. C., and Jacobs, J. S. 1996. Successional rangeland weed management. Rangelands 18:155–159.Google Scholar
Turner, M. G. and Chapin, F. S. 2005. Causes and consequences of spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem function. Pages 9–30 in Lovett, G. M., Jones, C. G., Turner, M. G., and Weather, K. C., eds. Ecosystem Function in Heterogeneous landscapes. New York : Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington-Allen, R. A., Ramsey, R. D., West, N. E., and Efroymson, R. A. 2006. A remote sensing-based protocol for assessing rangeland condition and trend. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 59:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Nat. 52:245–252.Google Scholar