Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:03:33.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rehabilitating Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum)–Invaded Shrublands Using Imazapic and Seeding with Native Shrubs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Suzanne M. Owen ,
Carolyn Hull Sieg  and
Catherine A. Gehring
Suzanne M. Owen*
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2500 S. Pine Knoll Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Carolyn Hull Sieg
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2500 S. Pine Knoll Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Catherine A. Gehring
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Box 5640, Flagstaff, AZ 86011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: smowen@fs.fed.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rehabilitation of downy brome–infested shrublands is challenging once this invasive grass dominates native communities. The effectiveness of imazapic herbicide in reducing downy brome cover has been variable, and there is uncertainty about the impacts of imazapic on native species. We used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) field experiment and greenhouse studies to (1) determine if imazapic herbicide applied at 132 g ai ha−1 (8 oz/ac−1) and seeding with two native shrub species (Wyoming big sagebrush [Artemisia tridentata] and Mexican cliffrose [Purshia mexicana]) reduced downy brome cover and promoted shrub establishment, (2) assess potential effects of imazapic on nontarget plant species and plant community composition, and (3) determine if imazapic affected downy brome or seeded shrub species when applied at different developmental stages. Seeding shrubs, alone, or in combination with imazapic application, did not significantly increase shrub density, possibly because of droughty conditions. In the field, imazapic reduced downy brome cover by 20% and nontarget forb cover by 25% and altered plant community composition the first year after treatment. Imazapic was lethal to downy brome at all growth stages in the greenhouse and reduced shrub germination by 50 to 80%, but older shrub seedlings were more tolerant of the herbicide. We conclude that a one-time application of imazapic combined with seeding shrubs was only slightly effective in rehabilitating areas with high downy brome and thatch cover and resulted in short-term impacts to nontarget species. These results highlight the need to treat downy brome infestations before they become too large. Also, removing thatch prior to treating with imazapic, although likely lethal to the native shrubs we studied, could increase the effectiveness of imazapic.

Keywords

Imazapicdowny brome, Bromus tectorum L.Mexican cliffrose, Purshia mexicana (D. Don) HenricksonWyoming big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis Beetle & Young. Nomenclature of all plants follows the USDA-NRCS PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/), and common names of invasive plant species follow the WSSA database (http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch.php).Exotic species managementherbicidenontarget speciesrangeland seeding
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 223 - 233
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

Baker, W. L., Garner, J., and Lyon, P. 2009. Effect of imazapic on cheatgrass and native plants in Wyoming big sagebrush restoration for Gunnison sage-grouse. Nat. Areas J 29:204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASF Corporation 2006. Plateau herbicide – for weed control, native grass establishment and turf growth suppression on pastures, rangeland and noncrop areas. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products. NVA 2006-04-126-0287.Google Scholar
Belnap, J. and Phillips, S. L. 2001. Soil biota in an ungrazed grassland: response to annual grass (Bromus tectorum) invasion. Ecol. Appl 11:1261–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, J. B. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: the importance of climate, soil, disturbance and seed availability. J. Veg. Sci 17:693–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, M. D., Jurgensen, M. F., Page-Dumroese, D. S., and Powers, R. F. 2007. Contribution of actinorhizal shrubs to site fertility in a Northern California mixed pine forest. For Ecol Manag 244:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. C., Roundy, B. A., Blank, R. R., Meyer, S. E., and Whittaker, A. 2007. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol. Monogr 77:117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. C. and Smith, E. G. 2007. Imazapic provides 2-year control of weedy annuals in seeded Great Basin fuelbreak. Native Plants J 8:91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. W., Nafus, A. M., and Sheley, R. L. 2010. Non-native competitive perennial grass impedes the spread of an invasive annual grass. Biol. Invasions 12:3187–3194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, T. F. 2004. JMP Manual for Moore's: The Basic Practice of Statistics. 3rd ed. New York W.H. Freeman. 228 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Pitcairn, M. J. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Berkeley, CA California Invasive Plant Council Cal-IPC Publication 2006-03. 78 p.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., 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
Eiswerth, M. E., Krauter, K., Swanson, S. R., and Zielinski, M. 2009. Post-fire seeding on Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites: regression analyses of seeded nonnative and native species densities. J. Environ. Manag 90:1320–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, R. D., Rimer, R., Sperry, L., and Belnap, J. 2001. Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecol. Appl 11:1301–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, L. M., Hanna, D., and Romme, W. H. 2004. Historical and recent fires in pinyon-juniper woodlands on Mesa Verde, Colorado, USA. For. Ecol. Manag 198:269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. D. and Anderson, V. J. 2007. Cheatgrass invasion in salt desert shrublands: benefits of postfire reclamation. Rangeland Ecol. Manag 60:234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, R. E., Agee, J. K., Fulé, P. Z., Keeley, J. E., Key, C., Kitchen, S. G., Miller, R., and Schulte, L. A. 2008. Ecological effects of large fires on US landscapes: benefit or catastrophe? Int. J. Wildland Fire 17:696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, D. R., Lym, R. G., Sterling, J. J., and Sieg, C. H. 2003. Observation: leafy spurge control in western prairie fringed orchid habitat. J. Range Manag 56:466–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knick, S. T., Dobkin, D. S., Rotenberry, J. T., Shroeder, M. A., Vander Haegen, W. M., and Van Riper, C. III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 195:611–634.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 21:66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. M. 2005. Seeding considerations in restoring big sagebrush habitat. Pages 75–80. In Shaw, N. L., Pellant, M., and Monsen, comps, S. B. Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration Symposium Proceedings, Boise, ID. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proc. RMRS-P-38.Google Scholar
Leger, E. A. 2008. The adaptive value of remnant native plants in invaded communities: an example from the great basin. Ecol. Appl 18:1226–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lysne, C. R. 2005. Restoring Wyoming big sagebrush. Pages 93–98. In Shaw, N. L., Monsen, S. B., and Pellant, comps, M. Sage-grouse Habitat Improvement Symposium: Proceedings. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proc. RMRS-P-38.Google Scholar
Maier, A. M., Perryman, B. L., Olson, R. A., and Hild, A. L. 2001. Climatic influences on recruitment of 3 subspecies of Artemisia tridentata . Rangeland Ecol. Manag 54:699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markle, D. M. and Lym, R. G. 2001. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control and herbage production with imazapic. Weed Technol 15:474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, J. A. and Duggleby, R. G. 2006. Acetohydroxyacid synthase and its role in the biosynthetic pathway for branched-chain amino acids. Amino Acids 31:173–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
McKay, J. K., Christian, C. E., Harrison, S., and Rice, K. J. 2005. How local is local? A eview of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restor. Ecol 13:432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. F. and Wigand, P. E. Holocene changes in semiarid pinyon juniper woodlands. Bioscience 44:465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monson, S. B., Stevens, R., and Shaw, N. L. 2004. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Volume 3. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-Vol-3. Pp. 699–866.Google Scholar
Morris, C., Monaco, T. A., and Rigby, C. W. 2009. Variable impacts of Imazapic rate on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and seeded species in two rangeland communities. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 2:110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, S. M., Sieg, C. H., Gehring, C. A., and Bowker, M. A. 2009. Above- and belowground responses to tree thinning depend on the treatment of tree debris. For. Ecol. Manag 259:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevéy, J. S., Germino, M. J., Huntly, N. J., and Inouye, R. S. 2010. Exotic plants increase and native plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecol 201:39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, M., Haferkamp, M., Masters, R. A., Muscha, J., Bellows, S., and Vermeire, L. 2010. Growth regulator herbicides prevent invasive annual grass seed production. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 3:12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, A. K., Allendorf, F. W., Holt, J. S., et al. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 32:305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L. eds. 1991. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, Fl CRC Press, Inc. 135 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, N. L., DeBolt, A. M., and Rosentreter, R. 2005. Reseeding big sagebrush: techniques and issues. Pages 99–108. In Shaw, N. L., Monsen, S. B., and Pellant, comps, M. Sage-grouse Habitat Improvement Symposium: Proceedings. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proc. RMRS-P-38.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol 18:60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieg, C. H., Phillips, B. G., and Moser, L. P. 2003. Exotic invasive plants. Pages 251–267. In Friederici, P. ed. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., Parker, I. M., and Windle, P. N. 2005. Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol. Appl 4:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2009. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed: December 4, 2009.Google Scholar
Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In McArthur, E. D., Romney, E. M., Smith, S. D., and Tueller, comps, P. T. Proceedings on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5–7; LasVegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 4–10.Google Scholar
Vollmer, J. L. and Vollmer, J. G. 2008. Controlling cheatgrass in winter range to restore habitat and endemic fire. Pages 57–60. In Kitchen, S. G., Pendleton, R. L., Monaco, T. A., and Vernon, J. eds. Proceedings of Shrublands Under Fire: Disturbance and Recovery in a Changing World; 2006; June 6–8; Cedar City, UT. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proc. RMRS-P-52.Google Scholar
Weed Science Society of America 2010. Composite List of Weeds. http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch.php. Accessed: July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Williams, M. I., Schuman, G. E., Hild, A. L., and Vicklund, L. E. 2002. Wyoming big sagebrush density: effects of seeding rates and grass competition. Restor. Ecol 10:385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WRCC] Western Regional Climate Center 2009. Historical Climate Information. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html. Accessed: November 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., Eckert, R. E., and Kay, B. L. 1987. Cheatgrass. Rangelands 9:266–270.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Owen supplementary material

Appendix

Download Owen supplementary material(File)
File 28 KB