Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:53:09.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native Forb Establishment following Application of Aminopyralid or Clopyralid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2017

Niels A. Jorgensen ,
Mike J. Moechnig ,
Mary B. Halstvedt  and
Mark J. Renz
Niels A. Jorgensen*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Associate Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Mike J. Moechnig
Affiliation:
Field Scientist and Field Scientist, Dow AgroSciences, Toronto, SD and Billings, MT
Mary B. Halstvedt
Affiliation:
Field Scientist and Field Scientist, Dow AgroSciences, Toronto, SD and Billings, MT
Mark J. Renz
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Associate Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest exists in planting mixed forb–grass prairies in the midwestern United States. Aminopyralid or clopyralid can be used to suppress competition from invasive plants prior to seeding prairies. As these active ingredients are known to persist, concern exists that reductions in forb establishment could occur. We tested whether common midwestern forb species could tolerate an application of aminopyralid or clopyralid alone or in combination the summer prior to seeding, and whether fall dormant or spring seeding date influenced establishment. This experiment was performed in Beresford, SD, and Arlington, WI, where aminopyralid (54 or 123 g ae ha−1), clopyralid (237 and 420 g ae ha−1), or aminopyralid+clopyralid (54+237 g ae ha−1) were applied to a prepared seedbed in July of 2009. Ten forbs were seeded in November 2009 as a dormant seeding and in April 2010 as a spring seeding at both locations, and establishment was assessed 12 and 24 mo after treatment (MAT). Results were site and species specific. Time of seeding was an important driver of plant counts at both locations 12 and 24 MAT. In Wisconsin at 12 MAT, 60% of species studied exhibited higher counts in the spring seeding. This trend persisted in some, but was not consistent across all 10 species. In South Dakota, 80% of species studied had higher counts at 12 and 24 MAT, but differences were species specific and often differed from those studied in Wisconsin. Those species that had higher counts in spring seeding at 12 MAT, maintained higher counts at 24 MAT. Forbs planted in plots treated with herbicides did not differ from plots left untreated at either location. Results suggest native forbs typically seeded in the upper Midwest can tolerate these herbicides when applied at least 4 mo prior to seeding.

Keywords

AminopyralidclopyralidHerbicideinvasive speciesnative plant establishmentprairie restoration
Type
Research and Education
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 90 - 98
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Associate Editor for this paper: Steven S. Seefeldt, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

References

Literature Cited

Almquist, TL, Lym, RG (2010) Effect of aminopyralid on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and the native plant community in a restored tallgrass prairie. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 3:155–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, RC (2009) History and progress of ecological restoration in tallgrass prairie. Pages 217–228 in Taylor C, Taft J, Warwick C, eds., Canaries in the Catbird Seat, INHS Special Publication 30. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Champaign–Urbana Google Scholar
Becker, R, Haar, M (2008) Minnesota Rankings for Native Forb Tolerance to Aminopyralid and Clopyralid Herbicides. Minnesota Extension Service. http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/sites/appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/files/forb_tolerance_to_aminopyralid_and_clopyralid_herbicides.pdf. Accessed: October 29, 2015Google Scholar
Blumenthal, DM, Jordan, NR, Svenson, EL (2005) Effects of prairie restoration on weed invasions. Agr Ecosyst Environ 107:221–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukun, B, Shaner, DL, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P, Brunk, G (2010) Comparison of the interactions of aminopyralid vs. clopyralid with soil. Weed Sci 58:473–477 Google Scholar
Carrithers, VF, Burch, PL, Kline, WN, Masters, RA, Nelson, JA, Halstvedt, MB, Troth, JL, Breuninger, JM (2005) Aminopyralid: a new reduced risk active ingredient for control of broadleaf invasive and noxious weeds. Proc West Soc Weed Sci 58:59–60 Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2009) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglass, C, Nissen, SJ, Vassios, JD, Ransom, CV, Peterson, VF (2012) Influence of aminopyralid, clopyralid, metsulfuron, and picloram application timing on grass establishment. Proc West Soc Weed Sci 65:65 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Lym, RG, Wilson, R, Westra, P, Nissen, S, Beck, G, Moechnig, MJ, Peterson, V, Masters, RA, Halstvedt, M (2007) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol 21:890–894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fast, FJ, Ferrell, JA, MacDonald, GE, Krutz, LJ, Kline, WN (2010) Picloram and aminopyralid sorption to soil and clay minerals. Weed Sci 58:484–489 Google Scholar
Gascoigne, WR, Hoag, D, Koontz, L, Tangen, BA, Shaffer, TL, Gleason, RA (2011) Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecol Econ 70:1715–1725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerla, PJ, Cornett, MW, Ekstein, JD, Ahlering, MA (2012) Talking big: lessons learned from a 9000 hectare restoration in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie. Sustainability 4:3066–3087 Google Scholar
Guggisberg, A, Welk, E, Sforza, R, Horvath, DP, Anderson, JV, Foley, ME, Rieseberg, LH (2012) Invasion history of North American Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense . J Biogeogr 39:1919–1931 Google Scholar
Halstvedt, MB, Peterson, VF, Beck, KG, Moechnig, MJ, Rice, PM (2011) The effect of application timing on forb tolerance to aminopyralid. Proc West Soc Weed Sci 64:61–62 Google Scholar
Hodgson, JM (1968) The nature, ecology, and control of Canada thistle. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Report No. 1386Google Scholar
Jachetta, JJ, Havens, PL, Dybowski, JA, Kranzfelder, JA, Tiu, C (2005) Aminopyralid: a new reduced risk herbicide for invasive species control: toxicology, ecotoxicology, and environmental fate profile. Proc West Soc Weed Sci 58:60–61 Google Scholar
Larson, DL (2009) Evaluation of Restoration Methods to Minimize Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Infestation. Jamestown, SD: U.S. Geological Survey Rep No. 2009-1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, DL, Bright, JB, Drobney, P, Larson, JL, Palaia, N, Rabie, PA, Vacek, S, Wells, D (2013) Using prairie restoration to curtail invasion of Canada thistle: the importance of limiting similarity and seed mix richness. Biol Invasions 15:2049–2063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, JR, Lym, RG (2011) Aminopyralid soil residues affect crop rotation in North Dakota soils. Weed Technol 25:422–429 Google Scholar
Mikkelson, JR, Lym, RG (2013) Effect of aminopyralid on desirable forb species. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 6:30–35 Google Scholar
Norton, DA (2009) Species invasions and the limits to restoration: learning from the New Zealand experience. Science 325:569–571 Google Scholar
Panke, B, Renz, MJ (2012) Management of Invasive Plants in Wisconsin: Canada Thistle (A3924-04). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Extension. Pp 1–4 Google Scholar
Prairie Moon Nursery. (2015) How to Germinate Native Seeds. http://www.prairiemoon.com/How-to-Germinate-Native-Seeds.html. Accessed: October 28, 2015Google Scholar
Renz, MJ (2010) Establishment of forage grasses and legumes after fall herbicide applications. Forage & Grazinglands, 8 10.1094/FG-2010-0806-01-RSGoogle Scholar
Samson, F, Knopf, F (1994) Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44:418–421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, FB, Knopf, FL, Ostlie, WR (2004) Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildlife Soc B 32:6–15 Google Scholar
Schramm, P (1990) Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. Pages 169–178 in Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Iowa PressGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, D, Schaerer, HM, Stinson, CSA (1993) A European weed survey in 10 major crop systems to identify targets for biological control. Weed Res 33:449–458 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Boydston, RA, Kaspari, PN, Zhang, M, Carr, E, Smeenk, J, Barnes, DL (2013) Aminopyralid residue impacts on potatoes and weeds. Am J Potato Res 90:239–244 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Boydston, RA, Kaspari, PN (2014) Clopyralid and dicamba residue impacts on potatoes and weeds. Am J Potato Res 91:625–631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senseman, SA, Hancock, HG, Wauchope, RD, Armburst, KL, Peters, TJ, Massey, JH, Johnson, DH, Reynolds, J, Lichtner, F, MacDonald, GE, Rushing, DW, Kitner, D, McLean, HS, Vencill, W (2007) Herbicide Handbook (9th edn., Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 458 pGoogle Scholar
Skold, MD (1989) Cropland retirement policies and their effects on land use in the Great Plains. J Prod Agric 2:197–201 Google Scholar
Smith, LL, Askew, SD, Hagood, ES Jr, Barney, JN (2015) Screening preemergence and postemergence herbicides for safety in bioenergy crops. Weed Technol 29:135–146 Google Scholar
Solecki, MK (1997) Controlling invasive plants. Pages 251--278 in Packard S, Mutel CF, eds. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook: For Prairies, Savannas, and Woodlands. Washington, DC: Island PressGoogle Scholar
Steiger, TL (1930) Structure of prairie vegetation. Ecology 11:170–217 Google Scholar
Tilman, D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92 Google Scholar
Wagner, V, Nelson, CR (2014) Herbicides can negatively affect seed performance in native plants. Restor Ecol 22:288–291 Google Scholar
Wilson, SD, Gerry, AK (1995) Strategies for mixed‐grass prairie restoration: herbicide, tilling, and nitrogen manipulation. Restor Ecol 3:290–298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, SG, Burch, P, Carrithers, V, Duncan, C, Masters, RA, Whitson, T (2005) Canada thistle control with aminopyralid. Proc West Soc Weed Sci 58:62 Google Scholar