Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6f8dk Total loading time: 0.547 Render date: 2021-03-06T02:47:02.426Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Selective Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California Sagebrush Scrub using Low Rates of Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Guy B. Kyser
Affiliation:
University of California, Department of Plant Sciences, Davis, CA 95616
J. Earl Creech
Affiliation:
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322
Jimin Zhang
Affiliation:
University of California, Department of Plant Sciences, Davis, CA 95616
Joseph M. DiTomaso
Affiliation:
University of California, Department of Plant Sciences, Davis, CA 95616
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Although glyphosate is typically used as a nonselective herbicide, low rates have the potential to provide selective control of seedling annuals in the understory of established perennial plants. In a repeated experiment on two adjacent sites at a single location near Alturas, CA (2009 and 2010), we evaluated the efficacy of glyphosate at several different rates on medusahead and nontarget species in northern California sagebrush scrub. We applied glyphosate at 10 rates ranging from 0 to 709 g ae ha−1 (0 to 18 oz product acre−1) at three separate timings in each trial: mid-March (medusahead in early seedling stage), late April to early May (tillering), and late May to early June (boot to early head). Plots measured 3 m by 9 m (10 ft by 30 ft) and were arranged in randomized complete blocks with four replications for each rate and timing. We visually estimated vegetative cover for all dominant species in July before medusahead seed drop using three 1-m2 quadrats per plot. Medusahead cover declined with increasing rates of glyphosate, and the middle application timing (at tillering) was the most effective. In rate series regression models, we achieved 95% control of medusahead with 160 g ae ha−1 glyphosate in midseason 2009, compared with 463 g ae ha−1 in early season and 203 g ae ha−1 in late season. In 2010, we achieved 95% control with 348 g ae ha−1 in midseason, compared with > 709 g ae ha−1 in early season. Medusahead seed production reflected changes in cover, though individual plants tended to produce more seed at low densities. We attribute reduced control early in the season and poorer overall control in 2010 to greater tolerance of medusahead to glyphosate at lower temperatures. Treatment effects on big sagebrush, as indicated by shoot tip vigor, were minor, although the midseason timing caused a slight reduction in vigor. These results show that low rates of glyphosate (158 to 315 g ae ha−1) at a treatment timing corresponding to medusahead tillering can give economical and effective control of medusahead without long-term damage to big sagebrush.

Type
Research
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.

References

Beck, K. G., Sebastian, J. R., and Chapman, P. L. 1995. Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control in perennial grasses. Weed Technol. 9:255259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. L., D'Antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Pellant, M., and Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:677688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. L. and Pyke, D. A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Pages 114 in Galley, K.E.M. and Wilson, T. P., eds. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Tallahassee, FL Tall Timbers Research Station. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11.Google Scholar
Butler, T. J., Muir, J. P., and Ducar, J. T. 2005. Weed control and response to herbicides during Tifton 85 bermudagrass establishment from rhizomes. Agron. J. 98:788794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M. H. and Nicol, H. I. 1991. Tolerance of Phalaris aquatica to spraytopping rates of glyphosate or paraquat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 31:229231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:6387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Johnson, D. D. 2008. Managing medusahead in the Intermountain West is at a critical threshold. Rangelands 30(4):1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Sheley, R. L. 2011. Promoting native vegetation and diversity in exotic annual grass infestations. Restor. Ecol. 19:159165.CrossRefGoogle 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. 61:623629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., George, M. R., Doran, M. P., and Laca, E. A. 2008. Control of medusahead using timely sheep grazing. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:241247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Dekker, J. 1988. Temperature effects on translocation patterns of several herbicides within quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 36:545552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M., Glick, H. L., Glasgow, L., and Vencill, W. K. 2011. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/In.asp. Accessed: February 22, 2011.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J. Range Manag. 14:263267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Morishita, D. W., and Price, W. J. 2007. Season-long dose–response of potato to sulfometuron. Weed Sci. 55:521527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyder, D. N., Sneva, F. A., and Freed, V. H. 1962. Susceptibility of big sagebrush and green rabbitbrush to 2,4-D as related to certain environmental, phenological, and physiological conditions. Weeds 10:288295.CrossRefGoogle 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. 21:6575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, G. B., Doran, M. P., McDougald, N. K., Orloff, S. B., Vargas, R. N., Wilson, R. G., and DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Site characteristics determine the success of prescribed burning for medusahead control. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:376384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangla, S., Sheley, R. L., and James, J. J. 2011. Field growth comparisons of invasive alien annual and native perennial grasses in monocultures. J. Arid Environ. 75:206210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiunas, J. B. and Weller, S. C. 1988. Glyphosate activity in potato (Solanum tuberosum) under different temperature regimes and light levels. Weed Sci. 36:137140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, K. C., Anderson, D. L., and Balliette, J. F. 1991. Wyoming big sagebrush control with metsulfuron and 2,4-D in northern New Mexico. J. Range Manag. 44:623627.CrossRefGoogle 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. 19:653658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, J. C., Skroch, W. A., and Monaco, T. J. 1986. Effects of plant growth stage on glyphosate absorption and transport in ligustrum (Ligustrum japonicum) and blue pacific juniper (Juniperus conferta). Weed Sci. 34:115121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. F. and Bunting, S. C. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. Pages 3136 in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., eds. Proc. Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Ogden, UT U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-313.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458. p.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. 21:10711081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, S. B., Kyser, G. B., and DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Susceptibility of exotic annual grass seeds to fire. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:158167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tevis, L. 1958. Germination and growth of ephemerals induced by sprinkling a sandy desert. Ecology 39:681688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torell, P. J., Erickson, L. C., and Haas, R. H. 1961. The medusahead problem in Idaho. Weeds 9:124131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tozer, K. N., Marshall, A. J., and Edwards, G. R. 2008. Methods of reducing ripgut brome seed production and carcasses damage. Proc. New Zeal. Grassland Assoc. 70:5963.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2011. Farm Practices and Management. http://www.ers.usda.gov. Accessed 2011.Google Scholar
Whitwell, T., Banks, P., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P. W. 1980. Glyphosate absorption and translocation in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and activity in horsenettle (Solanum carolinense). Weed Sci. 28:9396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, R. G., Stephenson, G. R., Fletcher, R. A., and Prasad, R. 1989. Seasonal variations in jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and white spruce (Picea glauca) tolerance to glyphosate and triclopyr. Weed Technol. 3:3338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Nat. 52:245252.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1968. Germination of medusahead in response to temperature and afterripening. Weed Sci. 16:9295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Kay, B. L. 1970. Phenology of reproduction of medusahead. Weed Sci. 18:451454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, K. and Mangold, J. 2008. Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) outperforms squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) through interference and growth rate. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:7381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 24 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Selective Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California Sagebrush Scrub using Low Rates of Glyphosate
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Selective Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California Sagebrush Scrub using Low Rates of Glyphosate
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Selective Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California Sagebrush Scrub using Low Rates of Glyphosate
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *