Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-zgpz2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-24T02:06:21.269Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Imazapic Effects on Competition Dynamics Between Native Perennial Grasses and Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shayla A. Burnett*
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Brian A. Mealor
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Corresponding author's Email:


Downy brome inhibits revegetation efforts following ecosystem disturbance. Imazapic is a commonly used herbicide for downy brome management, but more information is needed regarding effective application timing for restoration efforts. We wished to determine (1) if native species establishment exhibited a tradeoff between downy brome competition and injury from herbicide and (2) if this differed between pre- and postemergent applications of imazapic. We used a standard replacement series design and overlaid herbicide treatments. Nine weeks after planting, aboveground biomass was harvested and relative yield (RY) indices calculated. Both imazapic applications reduced downy brome biomass by 91% or more (P < 0.05). Imazapic caused drastic reductions in native biomass but less than what was caused by downy brome competition (P < 0.05). Natives were less injured by a pre- than postemergent application (P < 0.05). In situations where downy brome may impact restoration efforts, pre-emergent applications of imazapic at 70 g ai ha−1 (0.06 lb ai ac−1) may reduce downy brome with less negative impacts on newly-seeded native grasses than post-emergent applications. Ensuring sufficient proportions of native species seeds on restoration sites may reduce downy brome.

Research Article
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.)


Current address: Resource Specialist, Synergy Resource Solutions, Inc., Belgrade, MT 59714


Literature Cited

Aguirre, L, Johnson, DA (1991) Influence of temperature and cheatgrass competition on seedling development of two bunchgrasses. J Range Manage 44:347354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, EB, Knight, DH (1984) The effects of introduced annuals on secondary succession in sagebrush-grassland, Wyoming. Southwest Nat 29:407421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arredondo, JT, Jones, TA, Johnson, DA (1998) Seedling growth of Intermountain perennial and weedy annual grasses. J Range Manage 51:584589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Jha, P, Smith, K (2011) Does resistance to propanil or clomazone alter the growth and competitive abilities of barnyardgrass (Echinocloa crus-galli)? Weed Sci 59:353358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahm, MA, Barnes, TG (2011) Native grass and forb response to pre-emergent application of imazapic and imazapyr. Nat Area J 31:7579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, J, Sherrod, SK (2009) Soil amendment effects on the exotic annual grass Bromus tectorum L. and facilitation of its growth by the native perennial grass Hilaria jamesii (Torr.) Benth. Plant Ecol 201:709721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, WD (1990) Bromus tectorum, a biotic cause of impoverishment in the Great Basin. Pages 301322 in Woodell, GM, ed. The Earth in Transition: Patterns and Processes of Biotic Impoverishment. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Booth, MS, Caldwell, MM, Stark, JM (2003) Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species: Implications for community invasibility and vegetation dynamics. J Ecol 91:3648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, MM, Krueger, WC, Johnson, DE (1991) Effects of established perennial grasses on yields of associated annual weeds. J Range Manage 44:318322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisben, H, Thode, A, Brooks, M, Weber, K (2013) Soil seed bank responses to postfire herbicide and native seeding treatments designed to control Bromus tectorum in a pinyon-juniper woodland at Zion National Park, USA. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:118129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, JC, Roundy, BA, Blank, RR, Meyer, SE, Whittaker, A (2007) What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol Monogr 77:117145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J (1986) On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J Appl Ecol 23:125137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R (1991) Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technology 5:664673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R, O'Neill, M (1993) Density dependence of replacement series experiments. Oikos 66:347352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, CM, Vitousek, PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:6387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, JM, Call, CA, Devoe, N (2012) Effects of targeted grazing and prescribed burning on community and seed dynamics of a downy brome (Bromus tectorum)-dominated landscape. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:259269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dold, C, ed. (2011) What are invasive species? And do we really need to worry about them? Albuquerque, NM, USA US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. GSD Update: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Grassland, Shrubland and Desert Ecosystems Science Program. 9 pGoogle Scholar
Evans, RA (1961) Effects of different densities of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) on growth and survival of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) in the greenhouse. Weeds 9:216223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, ML, Hanna, D, Romme, WH, Crews, TE (2006) Predicting and mitigating weed invasions to restore natural post-fire succession in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Int J Wildland Fire 15:247259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, JL (1977) The Population Biology of Plants. London Academic Press. 892 pGoogle Scholar
Harris, GA (1967) Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol Monogr 37:89111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, MA, West, NE (1986) Dynamics of soil seeds pools in burned and unburned sagebrush semi-deserts. Ecology 67:269272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempy-Mayer, K, Pyke, DA (2008) Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production: Implications for grazing. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:116123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, MJ (2009) Plant materials technical note no. 11: Understanding seeding rates, recommended planting rates, and pure live seed (PLS). Alexandria, LA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Hull, AC, Pechanec, JF (1947) Cheatgrass: A challenge to range research. J Forest 45:555564 Google Scholar
Humphrey, LD, Schupp, EW (2001) Seed banks of Bromus tectorum-dominated communities in the Great Basin. West N Am Natur 61:8592 Google Scholar
Humphrey, LD, Schupp, EW (2004) Competition as a barrier to establishment of a native perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) in alien annual grass (Bromus tectorum) communities. J Arid Environ 58:405422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, PA (2000) The replacement series. J Ecol 88:371385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemmedson, JO, Smith, JG (1964) Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.). Bot Rev 30:226262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, PA (1996) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: History, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environ Chang 6:3752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM, Doran, MP, Orloff, SB, Wilson, RG, Lancaster, DL, Lile, DF, Porath, ML (2007) Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other annual grasses with imazapic. Weed Technol 21:6675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, SO, Bolton, H Jr, Thiede, ME, Rickard, WH (1995) Responses of cheatgrass to nitrogen and water. J Range Manag 48:290297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, PN, Lauenroth, WK, Burke, IC (2003) Effects of nitrogen availability on competition between Bromus tectorum and Bouteloua gracilis . Plant Ecol 167:247254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: An ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN, Pyke, DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum: Variation in time and space. Journ. Ecol 71:6993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangla, S, Sheley, RL, James, JJ, Radosevich, SR (2011) Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth. Plant Ecol 212:531542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, J, Parkinson, H, Duncan, C, Rice, P, Davis, E, Menalled, F (2013) Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control with imazapic on Montana grasslands. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 6:554558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzola, MB, Chambers, JC, Blank, RR, Pyke, DA, Schupp, EW, Allcock, KG, Doescher, PS, Nowak, RS (2011) Effects of resource availability and propagules supply on native species recruitment in sagebrush ecosystems invaded by Bromus tectorum . Biol Invasions 13:513526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menakis, JP, Osborne, D, Miller, M (2003) Mapping the cheatgrass-caused departure from historical natural fire regimes in the Great Basin, USA. Pages 281288 in USDA Forest Service Proceedings R MR S-P-29. Fort Collins, CO USDA Forest Service Google Scholar
Melgoza, G, Nowak, RS, Tausch, RJ (1990) Soil water exploitation after fire: Competition between Bromus tectorum and two native species. Oecologia 83:713 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaco, TA, Johnson, DA, Norton, JM, Jones, TA, Connors, KJ, Norton, JB, Redinbaugh, MB (2003a) Contrasting responses of Intermountain West grasses to soil nitrogen. J Range Manag 56:282290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TA, Johnson, DA, Norton, JM, Jones, TA, Connors, KJ, Norton, JB, Redinbaugh, MG (2003b) Nitrogen effects on seed germination and seedling growth. J Range Manag 56:646653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C, Monaco, TA, Rigby, CW (2009) Variable impacts of imazapic rate on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and seeded species in two rangeland communities. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:110119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasri, M, Doescher, PS (1995) Effect of competition by cheatgrass on shoot growth of Idaho fescue. J Range Manag 48:402405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, JR, Wilson, AM, Goebel, CJ (1970) Factors influencing broadcast seeding in bunchgrass range. J Range Manag 23:163170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service (2010) WY Plant materials no. 3: Perennial vegetation establishment guide, species, cultivars, and seeding rates. Casper, WY Natural Resources Conservation Service. 10 pGoogle Scholar
Orloff, N, Mangold, JM, Menalled, DF (2013) Role of size and nitrogen in competition between annual and perennial grasses. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:8798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed February 26, 2015.Google Scholar
Rafferty, DL, Young, JA (2002) Cheatgrass competition and establishment of desert needlegrass seedlings. J Range Manag 55:7072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, MK, Masters, RA, Bellows, SE (2013) Effects of growth regulator herbicide on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) seed production. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:6064 Google Scholar
Rummell, RS (1946) Some effects of competition from cheatgrass brome on crested wheatgrass and bluestem wheatgrass. Ecology 27:159167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc (2008) The SAS System for Windows. Version 9.2. Cary, NC SAS Google Scholar
Sbatella, GM, Wilson, RG, Enloe, SF, Hicks, C (2011) Propoxycarbazone-sodium and imazapic effects on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and newly seeded perennial grasses. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:7886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, SL, Thill, DC (2004) Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol 18:6065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaydon, RW (1991) Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? J Appl Ecol 28:930946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, DR, Aarssen, LW (1989) On the density dependence of replacement-series competition experiments. J. Ecol 77:975988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, E, Sheley, R, Svejcar, T (2008) Nitrogen enhances the competitive ability of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) relative to native grasses. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:287295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JA, Evans, RA (1978) Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. J Range Manag 31:283289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JA, Evans, RA, Eckert, RE Jr, Kay, BL (1987) Cheatgrass. Rangelands 9:266270 Google Scholar