Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:22:09.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Short-term Response of Holcus lanatus L. (Common Velvetgrass) to Chemical and Manual Control at Yosemite National Park, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Laura J. Jones
Affiliation:
National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, Division of Resources Management and Science, 5230 Foresta Road, El Portal, CA 95318
Steven M. Ostoja*
Affiliation:
National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, Division of Resources Management and Science, 5230 Foresta Road, El Portal, CA 95318
Matthew L. Brooks
Affiliation:
US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Yosemite Field Station, Oakhurst, CA 93644
Martin Hutten
Affiliation:
US Forest Service, Wrangell Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Wrangell, AK 99929
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

One of the highest priority invasive species at both Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks is Holcus lanatus L. (common velvetgrass), a perennial bunchgrass that invades mid-elevation montane meadows. Despite velvetgrass being a high priority species, there is little information available on control techniques. The goal of this project was to evaluate the short-term response of a single application of common chemical and manual velvetgrass control techniques. The study was conducted at three montane sites in Yosemite National Park. Glyphosate spot-spray treatments were applied at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% concentrations, and compared with hand pulling to evaluate effects on cover of common velvetgrass, cover of other plant species, and community species richness. Posttreatment year 1 cover of common velvetgrass was 12.1% ± 1.6 in control plots, 6.3% ± 1.5 averaged over the four chemical treatments (all chemical treatments performed similarly), and 13.6% ± 1.7 for handpulled plots. This represents an approximately 50% reduction in common velvetgrass cover in chemically- treated plots recoded posttreatment year 1 and no statistically significant reduction in hand pulled plots compared with controls. However, there was no treatment effect in posttreatment year 2, and all herbicide application rates performed similarly. In addition, there were no significant treatment effects on nontarget species or species richness. These results suggest that for this level of infestation and habitat type, (1) one year of hand pulling is not an effective control method and (2) glyphosate provides some level of control in the short-term without impact to nontarget plant species, but the effect is temporary as a single year of glyphosate treatment is ineffective over a two-year period.

Type
Research Article
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, SJ, Stone, CP, Higashino, PK (1992) Distribution and spread of alien plants in Kipahulu Valley, Haleakala National Park, above 2,300 ft. elevation. Pages 300338 in Stone, C, Smith, C, Tunison, J, eds. Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawai'i: Management and Research. Honolulu University of Hawai'i Press Google Scholar
Arnthórsdóttir, S (1994) Colonization of experimental patches in a mown grassland. Oikos 70:7379 Google Scholar
Bakker, J, Dekker, M, de Vries, Y (1980) The effect of different management practices on a grassland community and the resulting fate of seedlings. Acta Bot Neerl 29:469482 Google Scholar
Bastow, JL, Preisser, EL, Strong, DR (2008) Holcus lanatus invasion slows decomposition through its interaction with a macroinvertebrate detritivore, Porcellio scaber. Biol Invasions 10:191199 Google Scholar
Beddows, A (1961) Holcus lanatus L. J Ecol 49:421430 Google Scholar
Buckland, S, Thompson, K, Hodgson, J, Grime, J (2001) Grassland invasions: effects of manipulations of climate and management. J Appl Ecol 38:301309 Google Scholar
Cal-IPC (2006) California Invasive Plant Inventory. Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. Rep. Cal-IPC Publication 2006–02.Google Scholar
Clark, DL, Wilson, MV (1998) Fire effects on wetland prairie plant species. U.S. Report to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Oregon Refuges. Eugene, OR Oregon State University Google Scholar
Clark, DL, Wilson, MV (2001) Fire, mowing, and hand-removal of woody species in restoring a native wetland prairie in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Wetlands 21:135144 Google Scholar
D’Antonio, CM, Berlow, EL, Haubensak, KL (2004) Invasive Exotic Plant Species in Sierra Nevada Ecoystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. Washington, DC United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pp 175184 Google Scholar
Debinski, DM, Jakubauskas, ME, Kindscher, K (2000) Montane meadows as indicators of environmental change. Environ Monit Assess 64:213225 Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R, Chancellor, R, Drennan, D (1984) The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J Appl Ecol 21:629641 Google Scholar
Graber, DM (1996) Status of terrestrial vertebrates. Pages 709734 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume 2. Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis, CA University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Google Scholar
Jesson, L, Kelly, D, Sparrow, A (2000) The importance of dispersal, disturbance, and competition for exotic plant invasions in Arthur's Pass National Park, New Zealand. N Z J Bot 38:451468 Google Scholar
Kattelmann, R, Embury, M (1996) Riparian areas and wetlands Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Volune 3. Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. Davis, CA University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Google Scholar
Klinger, R, Underwood, EC, Moore, PE (2006) The role of environmental gradients in non-native plant invasion into burnt areas of Yosemite National Park, California. Divers Distrib 12:139156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufenberg, SM, Sheley, RL, Jacobs, JS, Borkowski, J (2005) Herbicide effects on density and biomass of Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and associated plant species 1. Weed Technol 19:6272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loope, LL, Nagata, RJ, Medeiros, AC (1992) Alien plants in Haleakala National Park. Pages 551576 in Stone, C Smith, C Tunison, J. eds. Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawai'i: Management and Research. Honolulu, Hawai'i University of Hawai'i Press Google Scholar
Måren, IE, Vandvik, V, Ekelund, K (2008) Restoration of bracken-invaded Calluna vulgaris heathlands: Effects on vegetation dynamics and non-target species. Biol Conserv 141:10321042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, E (1929) Brief survey of the plants of Yosemite National Park. Pages 162171 in Michael, E, ed. Yosemite Range-Naturalist Manual Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park.Google Scholar
Milligan, AL, Putwain, PD, Marrs, RH (2003) A field assessment of the role of selective herbicides in the restoration of British moorland dominated by Molinia . Biol Conserv 109:369379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naramore, RS (1949) Exotic grasses in Yosemite National Park. Yosemite Nature Notes 28:109109 Google Scholar
National Park Service ((2010)) Invasive Plant Management Plan Update Environmental Assessment. Yosemite National Park, CA National Park Service.Google Scholar
National Park Service((2014)) Invasive plant work plan for Yosemite National Park Yosemite National Park, CA: National Park Service Google Scholar
NatureServe ((2013)) NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed August 22, 2013Google Scholar
Peart, D (1989a) Species interactions in a successional grassland. I. Seed rain and seedling recruitment. J Ecol 77:236251 Google Scholar
Peart, D (1989b) Species interactions in a successional grassland. III. Effects of canopy gaps, gopher mounds and grazing on colonization. J Ecol 77:267289 Google Scholar
Rice, PM, Toney, JC (1998) Exotic weed control treatments for conservation of fescue grassland in Montana. Biol Conserv 85:8395 Google Scholar
Rice, PM, Toney, JC, Bedunah, DJ, Carlson, CE (1997) Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa . J Appl Ecol 34:13971412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute ((2008)) User guide. Version 8.01. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Pages 515 pGoogle Scholar
Shafi, M, Yarranton, G (1973) Diversity, floristic richness, and species evenness during a secondary (post-fire) succession. Ecology 54:897902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, JD, Turkington, R (1988) The biology of Canadian weeds. 82. Holcus lanatus L. Can J Plant Sci 68:131147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, MA, D’Antonio, CM, Suttle, KB, Sousa, WP (2006) Ecological resistance, seed density and their interactions determine patterns of invasion in a California coastal grassland. Ecol Lett 9:160170 Google Scholar
Tramer, EJ (1975) The regulation of plant species diversity on an early successional old-field. Ecology 56:905914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyser, RW, Asebrook, JM, Potter, RW, Kurth, LL (1998) Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park, USA: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restor Ecol 6:197206 Google Scholar
Underwood, EC, Klinger, R, Moore, PE (2004) Predicting patterns of non-native plant invasions in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Divers Distrib 10:447459 Google Scholar
Watt, TA, Haggar, R (1980) The effect of defoliation upon yield, flowering and vegetative spread of Holcus lanatus growing with and without Lolium perenne . Grass Forage Sci 35:227234 Google Scholar
Wilson, MV, Clark, DL (1997) Final Report 1994–1997: Effects of fire, mowing, and mowing with herbicide on native prairie of Baskett Butte, Baskett Slough NWR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Oregon Refuges. Rep. Order No. 13590-6-0112 Google Scholar