Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:10:42.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native Perennial Grasses in Highway Medians: Pre- and Postplant Techniques for Establishment in a Mediterranean Climate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Young  and
Victor P. Claassen
Stephen L. Young*
Affiliation:
Center for Precision Agricultural Systems, Washington State University, 24106 N. Bunn Rd., Prosser, WA 99350
Victor P. Claassen
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, 2144 Plant and Environmental Sciences Building, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within highway rights-of-way, native perennial grasses provide desirable services to support natural and human constructed ecosystems. However, native perennial grass establishment in annual grass dominated roadsides of semiarid and Mediterranean climates of the western United States requires specific cultural and chemical management treatments to control weeds. In 2004, field studies were conducted in Sacramento Valley, California to determine the effect of herbicide, disc cultivation, and species selection on native perennial grass establishment and annual weed persistence. Perennial grass species mixes common to drier and wetter upland areas in northern California were drill seeded at two sites (I-5 North and I-5 South) that had been burned in 2003 and received weed control (i.e., herbicide, cultivation, mowing) in spring 2004. Herbicides were the most important treatments for native perennial grass establishment and weed reduction. Native perennial grass species persistence was largely unaffected by cultivation or native plant accessions at these sites. Native perennial grass density increased at I-5 North in the second year of growth (2006) resulting in a plant density totaled across all herbicide regimes of 3.9 plants m−1 compared to 2.5 plants m−1 at I-5 South. Vigorous native perennial grass growth in the more fertile and less droughty soils of I-5 North helped to limit annual weeds through competition, which is anticipated to reduce the need for chemical and mechanical control in years following early establishment.

Keywords

ChlorsulfuronclopyralidglyphosatetriclopyrChlorsulfuronclopyralidhighway rights-of-wayrestorationsoil fertilitysoil water holding capacity
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 368 - 375
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, J. H. and Long, R. 1999. Hedgerows: Turning Farm Waste Areas into Active IPM Life Cycles. Yolo County Resource Conservation District. Sacramento, CA California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pest Management Grants Final Report No. 97-0247. 20 p.Google Scholar
Annese, V., Cazzato, E., and Corleto, A. 2006. Quantitative and qualitative traits of natural ecotypes of perennial grasses (Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Phalaris tuberosa L., Brachypodium rupestre (Host) R. et S.) collected in southern Italy. Genet. Resour. and Crop Evol 53:431–441.Google Scholar
Barnes, T. G. 2006. Strategies to convert exotic grass pastures to tall grass prairie communities. Weed Technol. (Supplement) 18:1364–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. A. 1995. Evaluating roadside revegetation in Central Arizona. Pages 68–73. in. Proceedings of the Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium. Ogden, UT United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service and Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
Bugg, R. L., Brown, C. S., and Anderson, J. H. 1997. Restoring native perennial grasses to rural roadsides in the Sacramento Valley of California: establishment and evaluation. Restor. Ecol 5:214–228.Google Scholar
Canevari, M. W., Colbert, F. O., Romander, L. L., Mitich, L. W., Gouveia, P., Cudney, D. W., and Steinmaus, S., editors. 2002. Principles of Weed Control. Fresno, CA Thomson Publications. 630 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2005. Grass and Grass-Like Weeds of California CD-ROM. Berkeley, CA California Invasive Plant Council.Google Scholar
Dyer, A. R. and Rice, K. J. 1999. Effects of competition on resource availability and growth of a California bunchgrass. Ecology 80:2697–2710.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Chichester, NY Wiley & Sons. 222 p.Google Scholar
Hallock, B., Scharff, M., Rein, S., and Curto, M. 2002. Plant establishment with rainfall simulators for erosion control. Sacramento, CA Office of Water Programs, California State University.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA University of California Press. 440 p.Google Scholar
Holmes, T. H. and Rice, K. J. 1996. Patterns of growth and soil-water utilization in some exotic annuals and native perennial bunchgrasses of California. Ann. Bot 78:233–243.Google Scholar
Ivanovitch, L. J. 1975. Roadside Revegetation in Montana. Helena, MT Environmental and Landscape Unit, Preconstruction Bureau, Montana Department of Highways. 40 p.Google Scholar
Kimbal, M. and Lamb, C. 1999. Establishing hedgerows for pest control and wildlife. Pages 13–22. in Robbins, P., editor. Bring Farm Edges Back to Life. Woodland, CA Yolo County Resource Conservation District.Google Scholar
Knapp, E. E. and Rice, K. J. 1996. Genetic structure and gene flow in Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye): implications for native grassland restoration. Restor. Ecol 4:1–10.Google Scholar
Lulow, M. E., Young, T. P., Wirka, J. L., and Anderson, J. H. 2007. Variation in the initial success of seeded native bunchgrasses in the rangeland foothills of Yolo County, California. Ecol. Restor 25:20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dell, R., Young, S. L., and Claassen, V. P. 2007. Native roadside perennial grasses persist a decade after planting in the Sacramento Valley. Calif. Agric 61:79–84.Google Scholar
Reever Morghan, K. J. and Rice, K. J. 2006. Variation in resource availability changes the impact of invasive thistles on native bunchgrasses. Ecol. Appl 16:528–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rentch, J. S., Fortney, R. H., Stephenson, S. L., Adams, H. S., Grafton, W. N., and Anderson, J. T. 2005. Vegetation-site relationships of roadside plant communities in West Virginia, USA. J. Appl. Ecol 42:129–138.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. SAS Version 9.1.3 for Windows. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 360 p.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W., Asebrook, J. M., Potter, R. W., and Kurth, L. L. 1998. Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park, USA: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restor. Ecol 6:197–206.Google Scholar
Wrysinski, J. 1999. Roadside establishment of native perennial grasses. Pages 23–28. in Robbins, P., editor. Bring Farm Edges Back to Life. Woodland, CA Yolo County Resource Conservation District.Google Scholar
Wrysinski, J. 2000. Know Your Natives: A Pictorial Guide to California Native Grasses. Woodland, CA Yolo County Resource Conservation District. 51 p.Google Scholar
Young, S. L. and Claassen, V. P. 2008. Release of roadside native perennial grasses following removal of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Ecol. Restor. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar