Can Imazapic and Seeding Be Applied Simultaneously to Rehabilitate Medusahead-Invaded Rangeland? Single vs. Multiple Entry Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/rv042v686

To the best of our knowledge, one or more authors of this paper were federal employees when contributing to this work. This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by the Society for Range Management and can be found at:  http://www.bioone.org/loi/rama.

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • It has recently been proposed that the cost of rehabilitating medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae [L.] Nevski)-invaded rangelands may be reduced by concurrently seeding desired vegetation and applying the preemergent herbicide imazapic. However, the efficacy of this ‘‘single-entry’’ approach has been inconsistent, and it has not been compared to the multiple-entry approach where seeding is delayed 1 yr to decrease herbicide damage to nontarget seeded species. We evaluated single- and multiple-entry approaches in medusahead-invaded rangelands in southeastern Oregon with seeding for both approaches occurring in October 2011. Before seeding and applying herbicide, all plots were burned to improve medusahead control with imazapic and prepare the seedbed for drill seeding–introduced perennial bunchgrasses. Both approaches effectively controlled medusahead during the 2 yr postseeding. However, almost no seeded bunchgrasses established with the single-entry treatment (< 0.5 individals • m⁻²), probably as a result of nontarget herbicide mortality. Perennial grass cover and density in the single-entry treatment did not differ from the untreated control. In contrast, the multiple-entry treatment had on average 6.5 seeded bunchgrasses • m⁻² in the second year postseeding. Perennial grass (seeded and nonseed species) cover was eight times greater in the multiple-entry compared to the single-entry treatment by the second year postseeding. These results suggest that the multiple-entry approach has altered the community from annual-dominated to perennial grass-dominated, but the single-entry approach will likely be reinvaded and dominated medusahead without additional treatments because of a lack of perennial vegetation.
Resource Type
DOI
Date Available
Date Issued
Citation
  • Davies, K. W., Madsen, M. D., Nafus, A. M., Boyd, C. S., & Johnson, D. D. (2014). Can imazapic and seeding be applied simultaneously to rehabilitate medusahead-invaded rangeland? Single vs. multiple entry. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(6), 650-656. doi:10.2111/REM-D-14-00019.1
Series
Keyword
Rights Statement
Funding Statement (additional comments about funding)
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-31T19:35:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 NafusAletaRangelandEcolManagementCanImazapicSeeding.pdf: 610532 bytes, checksum: 341793bad6bfe93f2b6c06abae0ac662 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-11
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Erin Clark(erin.clark@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-12-31T19:35:57Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 NafusAletaRangelandEcolManagementCanImazapicSeeding.pdf: 610532 bytes, checksum: 341793bad6bfe93f2b6c06abae0ac662 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Erin Clark (erin.clark@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-12-31T19:35:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 NafusAletaRangelandEcolManagementCanImazapicSeeding.pdf: 610532 bytes, checksum: 341793bad6bfe93f2b6c06abae0ac662 (MD5)

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items