Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T18:11:24.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive Effects of Cool-Season Grasses on Re-Establishment of Three Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristi K. Rose ,
Ann L. Hild ,
Tom D. Whitson ,
David W. Koch  and
Larry Van Tassell
Kristi K. Rose
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Ann L. Hild*
Affiliation:
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Tom D. Whitson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
David W. Koch
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Larry Van Tassell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Moscow ID 83844, Russian Federation
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: annhild@uwyo.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The competitive ability of five cool-season grasses relative to Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle, and downy brome was assessed in two field studies. In 1994, Bozoisky Russian wildrye and four wheatgrass varieties (Critana thickspike, Hycrest crested, Luna pubescent, and Sodar streambank wheatgrass) were seeded into populations of downy brome and musk thistle at Riverside, WY. The same grasses were seeded into populations of Dalmatian toadflax at Cheyenne, WY, in 1995. In 1997 and 1998, weed populations at both study sites were reduced in areas seeded with the five grasses relative to unseeded controls. Hycrest crested and Luna pubescent wheatgrasses were the most competitive against the three weed species. Bozoisky Russian wildrye was more competitive against Dalmatian toadflax than against the other weeds. Sodar streambank wheatgrass suppressed musk thistle and downy brome but was not competitive against Dalmatian toadflax. Seeded grasses, such as Hycrest crested and Luna pubescent wheatgrass, appeared to limit the re-establishment of these weeds. Economic model predictions of the net present values and the internal rates of return suggest that Hycrest crested and Luna pubescent wheatgrass can provide financially feasible long-term weed control only if desired grass yields are maintained for more than 15 yr.

Keywords

Crested wheatgrass, Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. × Agropyron desertorum Gaertn. var. ‘Hycrest’Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica (L.) Maire and Petitmengi # LINDAdowny brome, Bromus tectorum L. # BROTEmusk thistle, Carduus nutans L. # CRUNUpubescent wheatgrass, Thinopyrum intermedium (Host. Barkworth & Dewey) Nevski var. ‘Luna’Russian wildrye, Psathyrostachys juncea (Fisch) Nevski var. ‘Bozoisky’streambank wheatgrass, Elymus lanceolatus (Scribn. & J. G. Smith) Gould var. ‘Sodar’thickspike wheatgrass, Elymus macrourus (Turcz.) Tzvelev var. ‘Critana’Competitioneconomic analysisintegrated controlsperennial grassANOVA, analysis of varianceIRR, internal rate of returnLSD, least significant differenceNPV, net present value
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 885 - 891
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

Bottoms, R. M. and Whitson, T. D. 1998. A systems approach for the management of Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Technol. 12: 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Evans, J. O. 1991. Weed dynamics on rangeland. In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
Dahl, B. E. and Sosebee, R. E. 1991. Impact of weeds on herbage production. In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
Ferrell, M. A., Whitson, T. D., Koch, D. W., and Gade, A. E. 1998. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with several grass species. Weed Technol. 12: 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzworth, L., Cash, D., Mosely, J., Koch, D., and Crane, K. 2000. Dryland Pastures in Montana and Wyoming: Species and Cultivars, Seeding Techniques and Grazing Management. Montana and Wyoming Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. EB19. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University.Google Scholar
Hosten, P. E. and West, N. E. 1994. Cheatgrass dynamics following wildfire on a sagebrush semi-desert site in central Utah. In Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., eds. Proc. Symp. Ecol. Manag. Restor. Intermt. Annu. Range. Provo, UT: USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. pp. 56–62.Google Scholar
Jones, R. E. and Medd, R. W. 2000. Economic thresholds and the case for longer term approaches to population management of weeds. Weed Technol. 14: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemp, G. J. and Hull, A. C. Jr. 1971. Methods for seeding three perennial wheatgrasses on cheatgrass ranges in southern Idaho. J. Range Manag. 25: 266–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, C. A. 1991. Noxious weed management strategies. In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 75–83.Google Scholar
Lacy, J. R. and Olson, B. E. 1991. Environmental and economic impacts of noxious range weeds. In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
LaFrance, J. T. and Watts, M. J. 1995. Public grazing in the West and Rangeland Reform ’94. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77: 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technol. 12: 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, P. E. and Wilson, R. G. 1983. Effect of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) control on grass herbage. Weed Sci. 31: 488–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Row, C., Kaiser, H. F., and Sessions, J. 1981. Discount rate for long-term Forest Service investments. J. For. 79: 367–376.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. JMP Statistical Package 3.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. 1995. Integrated rangeland weed management. Rangelands 17: 222–223.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. F. 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol. 12: 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, M. A. and Spahr, R. 1994. Valuation of government grazing leases. J. Real Estate Res. 9: 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torell, L. A. and Doll, J. P. 1991. Public land policy and the value of grazing permits. West. J. Agric. Econ. 16: 174–184.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D. 1991. Sagebrush: classification, distribution, ecology, and control. In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 334–341.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Ferrell, M. A., and Alley, H. P. 1988. Changes in rangeland canopy cover seven years after tebuthiuron application. Weed Technol. 2: 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar