Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:16:03.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rehabilitating Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Infested Rangeland Using a Single-Entry Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley ,
Brett S. Bingham  and
Kirk W. Davies
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Brett S. Bingham
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Kirk W. Davies
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need for practical revegetation strategies for managing medusahead-infested rangeland is substantial and unmet. Our objective was to test the potential for using the single-entry approach (simultaneous application of herbicide and seed with one entry) developed for other invasive-weed infested systems for revegetating medusahead-infested rangeland. Since areas infested with medusahead are frequently burned and burning may help control medusahead and provide a more suitable seedbed for desired species, we also tested the single-entry approach in conjunction with burning. Our primary hypotheses were that (1) the combination of imazapic and seeding would provide best establishment of desired species and (2) burning would enhance the efficacy of imazapic on medusahead and enhance seedling establishment. Treatments included three seeding rates (none, 13.2, or 25.0 kg ha−1 of an even mixture of all species), two herbicides (0 and 52 g a.i. ha−1 imazapic; with and without), and two burning regimes (burned, not burned) applied mid-October 2006 on two sites. In late July, 2008 through 2010, plant density and biomass were sampled. We found that the simultaneous application of imazapic and seeding resulted in establishment of desired species where they were absent. Imazapic application without seeding increased perennial bunchgrass density where enough residual plants existed before treatment. Burning tended to improve the control of medusahead with imazapic and promoted desired species. Even though follow-up treatments may be necessary, applying imazapic and seeding in a single-entry approach may provide a more practical initial revegetation strategy than multi-entry approaches on rangeland devoid of desired residual species. This procedure should reduce the costs of treatment application and make revegetating annual grass-infested rangeland more affordable.

Keywords

Imazapicmedusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevskibunchgrass, e.g. bluebunch wheatgrass, (Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh.) A. Löve ssp. spicataTaeniatherum caput-medusaesingle-entryrevegetationannual grassesinvasive plants
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 612 - 617
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

Barnes, T. G. 2004. Strategies to convert exotic grass pastures to Tall Grass Prairie communities. Weed Technol. 18:1364–1370.Google 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 Manag. 44:318–326.Google Scholar
Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 62. 131 p.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2008. Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 61:110–115.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2010. Revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 63:564–571.Google 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.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2010. Revegetation of Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Steppe. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 63:564–571.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Johnson, D. D. 2008. Managing medusahead in the Intermountain West is at a critical threshold. Rangelands. 30:13–15.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Sheley, R. L. 2011. Promoting native vegetation and diversity in exotic annual grass infestations. Restor. Ecol. 19:159–165.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Svejcar, T. J. 2008. Comparison of medusahead-invaded and noninvaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in Southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 61:623–629.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Brooks, M. L., Allen, E. B., Minnich, R., Rice, P. M., and Kyser, G. B. 2006. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technol. 20:535–548.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., Brown, M. L., Carrithers, V. F., Clark, J. K., DiTomaso, J. M., Lym, R. G., McDaniel, K. C., Renz, M. J., and Rice, P. M. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol. 18:1411–1416.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J. Range Manag. 14:263–267.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. J., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. Effect of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the interference between bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol. 10:13–21.Google 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.Google Scholar
Kedzie-Webb, S. A., Sheley, R. L., and Borkowski, J. J. 2002. Predicting plant community response to picloram. J. Range Manag. 55:576–583.Google Scholar
Kyser, G. B., DiTomaso, J. M., Doran, M. P., Orloff, S. B., Wilson, R. G., Lancaster, D. L., Lile, D. F., and Porath, M. L. 2007. Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other annual grasses with imazapic. Weed Technol. 21:66–75.Google Scholar
Laufenberg, S. M., Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Borkowski, J. 2005. Herbicide effects on density and biomass of Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and associated plant species. Weed Technol. 19:62–72.Google Scholar
Levene, H. 1960. Robust Tests for the Equality of Variance. Pages 278–292 in Olkin, I., ed. Contributions to Probability and Statistics. Palo Alto, CA Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mangold, J. M., James, J. J., and Sheley, R. L. 2007. Presence of soil surface depressions increases water uptake by native grass seeds. Ecol. Restor. 25:278–279.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Sheley, R. L. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. J. Range Manag. 54:502–517.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Nissen, S. J., Gaussoin, R. E., Beran, D. D., and Stougaard, R. N. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technol. 10:392–403.Google Scholar
Miller, H. C. 1996. Demography of medusahead on two soil types: potential for invasion into intact native communities. . Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 36 p.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.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999. Grazing and weeds. Pages 85–96 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments. New York Merecel Dekker. 272 p.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. 2007. Revegetating Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and rabbitbrush (Ericameria teretifolia) infested rangeland in a single-entry. Weed Sci. 55:365–370.Google 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.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Carpinelli, M. F., and Reever Morghan, K. J. 2007. Effects of imazapic on target and nontarget vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technol. 21:1071–1081.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Hook, P. B., and LeCain, R. R. 2006. Establishment of native and invasive plants along a rangeland riparian gradient. Ecol. Restor. 24:173–181.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. F. 1999. Spotted knapweed. Pages 350–361 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single-entry. J. Range Manag. 54:576–583.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.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December 10, 2011.Google 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
Young, J. R., Evans, R. A., and Robison, J. 1972. Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. J. Range Manag. 25:372–375.Google Scholar