Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:14:17.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Imazapic on Target and Nontarget Vegetation during Revegetation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley ,
Michael F. Carpinelli  and
Kimberly J. Reever Morghan
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA–ARS, Burns, OR 97720
Michael F. Carpinelli
Affiliation:
Grants Soil Survey Office, Grants, NM 87020
Kimberly J. Reever Morghan
Affiliation:
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA–ARS, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medusahead is an introduced, winter-annual grass covering millions of hectares of the semiarid West. It forms exclusive stands and has a dense thatch cover that resists the establishment of desirable species. Prescribed fire can remove medusahead litter and improve plant establishment. Medusahead control is fundamental to establishing desirable species that will, in turn, resist further invasion. Imazapic is an effective herbicide for control of medusahead, but more information is needed on its effects on desirable species. Our objectives were to test how imazapic application rate and timing affected medusahead, seeded desirable species, and other nontarget vegetation on burned and unburned rangeland in southeast Oregon. We burned existing medusahead infestations at two different sites in June 2003. Following the burn, imazapic was applied at rates of 0, 35, 70, 105, 140, 175, and 210 g ai/ha between July and October of 2003 in a randomized strip-plot design. In November 2003, monocultures of seven desirable species were drill-seeded across the imazapic treated areas. Data on cover and density of medusahead and seeded species were collected in 2004 and 2005. Cover data of nontarget species were collected in the summer of 2005. Medusahead cover was highest in control plots and lowest in plots that received the highest herbicide application rates. Medusahead cover was lower in burned plots. The effect of imazapic on nontarget vegetation was less clear. Seeded species established in the study plots, but their response to herbicide rate showed few consistent patterns; some of the seeded species showed little response to herbicide, whereas others appeared to establish best at different herbicide rates, depending on site and whether the plots were burned or unburned. Site and burn treatment also affected how imazapic rate or application month influenced cover of perennial or annual grasses or forbs.

Keywords

Imazapicmedusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski ELYCMInvasive speciesprescribed burnprescribed firerevegetation
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 1071 - 1081
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

Beran, D. D., Masters, R. A., and Gaussoin, R. E. 1999. Grassland legume establishment with imazethapyr and imazapic. Agron. J. 91:592–596.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
Dakheel, A. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Barbour, M. G. 1994. Effect of temperature and moisture on growth interference and photosynthesis of Bromus tectorum and Teaniatherum asperum . Weed Res. 34:11–22.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., and Brown, M. L. et al. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol. 18:1411–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, M. R. 1992. Ecology and Management of Medusahead. Davis, CA University of California. Range Sci. Rep. 32:1–3.Google Scholar
Goebel, C. J., Tazi, M., and Harris, G. A. 1988. Secar bluebunch wheatgrass as a competitor to medusahead. J. Range Manag. 41:88–89.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. and Sindelar, B. W. 1975. Growth characteristics of squirreltail seedlings in competition with medusahead. J. Range Manag. 28:283–285.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 633.Google Scholar
Major, J., McKell, C. M., and Berry, L. J. 1960. Improvement of Medusahead Infested Rangeland. Pages 3. California Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service Leaflet 123.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., Clausnitzer, D., and Borman, M. M. 1999. Medusahead. Pages 271–281. in Sheley, R.L., Petroff, J.K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Range Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.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
Petersen, R. G. 1994. Agricultural Field Experiments: Design and Analysis. New York Marcel Dekker. 409.Google Scholar
Pollak, O. and Kan, T. 1996. The use of prescribed fire to control invasive exotic weeds at Jepson Prairie Preserve. Pages 241–249. in Witham, C.W., Bauder, E.T., Belk, D., Ferren, W.R., Ornduff, R. eds. Proceedings, Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems. Sacramento, CA California Native Plant Society.Google Scholar
SAS 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed. Volume 2. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol. 7:234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, A. A. 1982. Plant Materials for Use on Surface-Mined Lands in Arid and Semiarid Regions. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service SCS-TP-157. 88.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. A. and Evans, R. A. 1970. Invasion of medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed Sci. 18:89–97.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Robison, J. 1972. Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. J. Range Manag. 25:372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar