Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:59:19.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invasion of Medusahead into the Great Basin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James A. Young  and
Raymond A. Evans
James A. Young
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr.
Raymond A. Evans
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We characterized soil and vegetation assemblages, many of which are infested with medusahead (Taeniatherum asperum (Sim.) Nevski), on the margin of the Great Basin. Interpretations of these assemblages provide an index of the validity of the basic environmental unit of this ecosystem which can be manipulated through weed control and revegetation techniques. Vertisol (churning clay soils) sites with sparse native plant communities are more susceptible to medusahead invasion than more complex low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula Nutt.) or low sagebrush-woodland communities on related clay soils. If the more complex communities are degraded to a low seral state, medusahead can invade and occupy the site. Wet meadows and burned coniferous forest sites at high elevations were the only sites where medusahead occurred on soils with textures other than clay. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) communities on medium to coarse textured soils were very resistant to medusahead invasion. The restriction of medusahead to certain sites controls the mechanism of invasion and interacts with the breeding system of the species to influence its evolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1970 , pp. 89 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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

1. Abbot, H. L. 1855. Explorations for a railroad route from the Sacramento Valley to the Columbia River. 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 91. Wash., D. C. 608 p.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1960. Soil Classification—A comprehensive system. 7th Approximation. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dep. of Agr., Wash., D. C. 263 p.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dep. of Agr., Wash., D. C. 504 p.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W., LeTourneau, D., and Erickson, L. C. 1961. The chemical composition of medusahead and downy brome. Weeds 9:307–311.Google Scholar
5. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziolosie. Grundzugeder Vegetationa—Kunde, Springer, Vienna. 340 p.Google Scholar
6. Cain, S. A. and de Oliveira Castro, G. M. 1959. Manual of Vegetation Analysis. Harper and Brothers, Publishers. New York. 325 p.Google Scholar
7. Daubenmire, R. F. 1952. Forest vegetation of northern Idaho and adjacent Washington and its bearing on concepts of vegetation classification. Ecol. Mono. 22:301–330.Google Scholar
8. Eckert, R. E. Jr. and Evans, R. A. 1967. A chemical fallow technique for control of downy brome and establishment of perennial grasses on rangeland. J. Range Manage. 20:35–41.Google Scholar
9. Eckert, R. E. Jr. and Evans, R. A. 1968. Chemical control of low sagebrush and associated green rabbitbrush. T. Range Manage. 21:325–327.Google Scholar
10. Evans, R. A., Eckert, R. E. Jr., and Kay, B. L. 1967. Wheatgrass establishment with paraquat and tillage on downy brome ranges. Weeds 15:50–55.Google Scholar
11. Evans, R. A. and Love, R. M. 1957. The step-point method of sampling—A practical tool in range research. T. Range Manage. 10:208–212.Google Scholar
12. Fosberg, M. A. 1965. Relationship of cheatgrass and medusahead to soils in the Columbia River Basin. Proc. Cheatgrass Symposium, Vale, Oregon. U. S. Dep. Int. Wash., D. C. p. 30.Google Scholar
13. Harper, J. L. 1965. Establishment, aggression, and cohabitation in weedy species, p. 243–265, In Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L. (ed). The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
14. Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J. Range Manage. 14:263–267.Google Scholar
15. Hironaka, M. 1965. The medusahead problem. Proc. Cheatgrass Symposium, Vale, Oregon. U. S. Dep. Int., Wash., D. C. p. 62–63.Google Scholar
16. Kay, B. L. 1963. Effects of dalapon on a medusahead community. Weeds 11:207–209.Google Scholar
17. Kay, Burgess L. and McKell, Cyrus M. 1963. Preemergence herbicides as an aid in seeding annual rangelands. Weeds 11:260–264.Google Scholar
18. Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in Changing Environments—Some Theoretical Explorations. Princeton Univ. Press., Princeton, New Jersey. 119 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Macdonald, G. A. and Gay, T. E. Jr. 1966. Geology of the southern Cascade Range, Modoc Plateau, and Great Basin areas in northeastern California, p. 43–48. In Mineral Resources of California, Bull. 194, California Div. of Mines and Geol.Google Scholar
20. Major, J., McKell, C. M., and Berry, L. J. 1960. Improvement of medusahead-infested rangeland. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Leaf. 123. 3 p.Google Scholar
21. Mallory, J. 1960. Soil relationships with medusahead. Proc. California Sect., Amer. Soc. Range Manage. Annual Meeting, Nov., 1960, Fresno, California, p. 39–41.Google Scholar
22. McKell, C. M., Robison, J. P., and Major, J. 1962. Ecotypic variation in medusahead, an introduced annual grass. Ecology 43:686–698.Google Scholar
23. McKell, C. M., Wilson, A. M., and Kay, B. L. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125–131.Google Scholar
24. Munz, P. A. and Keck, D. D. 1959. A California Flora. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 1679 p.Google Scholar
25. Murphy, A. H. and Turner, D. 1959. A study of the germination of medusahead seed. California Dep. of Agr. Bull. 48: 6–10.Google Scholar
26. Piemeisel, R. L. 1945. Natural replacement of weed host of the beet leafhopper as affected by rodents. U. S. Dep. of Agr., Wash., D. C. Circ. 739. 48 p.Google Scholar
27. Poulton, C. E. and Tisdale, E. W. 1961. A quantitative method for the description and classification of range vegetation. J. Range Manage. 14:13–21.Google Scholar
28. Savage, D. E. 1969. The relationship of sagegrouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Mis. Pub. Agr. Exp. Sta, College of Agi., Univ. of Nevada. 101 p.Google Scholar
29. Savage, D. E., Young, J. A., and Evans, R. A. 1969. Utilization of downy brome and medusahead caryopses by chukar partridge. J. Wildlife Manage. 33:975–978.Google Scholar
30. Swenson, C. F., LeTourneau, D., and Erickson, L. C. 1964. Silica in medusahead. Weeds 12:16–18.Google Scholar
31. Torell, P. J. and Erickson, L. C. 1967. Reseeding medusahead-infested ranges. Agr. Exp. Sta., College of Agr., Univ. of Idaho, Bull. 489. 17 p.Google Scholar
32. Turner, R. B., Poulton, C. E., and Gould, W. L. 1963. Medusahead—A threat to Oregon Rangeland. Agr. Exp. Sta., Oregon State Univ. Spec. Rep. 149. 21 p.Google Scholar
33. Webb, D. A. 1965. Dispersal and establishment: what do we really know, pp. 92–102. In Hawkes, J. G. (Ed) Reproductive Biology and Taxonomy of Vascular Plants. Bot. Soc. of Brit. Isles, Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
34. Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1969. Wheatgrass establishment with tillage and herbicides in a mesic medusahead community. J. Range Mange. 22:151–155.Google Scholar
35. Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1968. Germination of medusahead in response to temperature and after-ripening. Weed Sci. 16:92–95.Google Scholar
36. Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1968. Germination of medusahead in response to osmotic stress. Weed Sci. 16:364–368.Google Scholar
37. Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1969. Population dynamics of downy brome. Weed Sci. 17:20–26.Google Scholar