Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T01:37:30.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) Response to Defoliation on Foothill Rangeland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rachel A. Frost  and
Jeffrey C. Mosley
Rachel A. Frost*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Jeffrey C. Mosley
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: frost@montana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfur cinquefoil is an invasive, perennial forb on rangelands of western Canada and the United States. Sulfur cinquefoil reproduces solely by seed and it is a prolific seed producer. Our 2-yr study (2006, 2007) investigated the optimal timing and intensity of defoliation to decrease aboveground productivity and seed production of sulfur cinquefoil plants on foothill rangeland in southwestern Montana. Each year, 150 sulfur cinquefoil plants within a 430-m2 enclosure were tagged for identification and randomly assigned to one of 15 clipping treatments with 10 plants per treatment. Clipping treatments were conducted at three timings: (preflower [early June], flowering [late June], and seedset [mid-July]) and all possible combinations of timings for a total of seven timing treatments clipped to two stubble heights (7.5 cm or 15 cm), comprising 14 unique treatments. The final (15th) treatment consisted of an unclipped control. Response variables collected at senescence (late July) included aboveground biomass; number of buds, flowers and fruits on each plant; and number and viability of seeds produced. Results indicated that defoliation of sulfur cinquefoil can effectively reduce its yield and seed production. All clipping treatments reduced aboveground biomass of sulfur cinquefoil compared with control plants (P ≤ 0.05), except clipping to 15 cm during preflowering in the wetter year of 2006. Clipping to either 7.5 cm or 15 cm at all times or combinations of timings reduced the number of buds, flowers, fruits, and seeds produced by sulfur cinquefoil (P ≤ 0.05). Viable seed production was reduced 99 to 100% when plants were clipped once to either 7.5 or 15 cm during flowering or seedset. Results suggest that targeted livestock grazing or mowing applied one time per season during flowering or seedset could effectively suppress the biomass production and viable seed production of sulfur cinquefoil.

Keywords

Sulfur cinquefoil, Potentilla recta L. PTLRCDefoliationyieldseed bankviable seedsclippingrangeland
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 408 - 416
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

Al-Rowaily, S. L., West, N. E., and Walker, J. W. 1996. Effect of simulated defoliation and plant competition on flowering and seed yield of leafy spurge. Pages 6–7 in West, N. E., ed. Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere: Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO : Society for Range Management.Google Scholar
Benzel, K. R., Mosley, T. K., and Mosley, J. C. 2009. Defoliation timing effects on spotted knapweed seed production and viability. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 62:550–556.Google Scholar
Bowes, G. and Thomas, G. 1978. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) control based on a population model. Pages 254–256 in Hyder, D. N., ed. Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress, Denver, CO. Denver, CO : Society for Range Management.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and Nachapong, M. 1985. The establishment of seedlings from primary and regrowth seeds of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). J. Ecol. 73:255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, C. L., Rice, P. M., Story, J. M., and Johnson, R. 2004. Sulfur Cinquefoil Biology, Ecology, and Management in Pasture and Rangeland. Bozeman, MT : Montana State University Extension Service. Bulletin 109. 12 p.Google Scholar
Dwire, K. A., Parks, C. G., McInnis, M. L., and Naylor, B. J. 2006. Seed production and dispersal of sulfur cinquefoil in northeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 59:63–72.Google Scholar
Endress, B. A., Parks, C. G., Naylor, B. J., and Radosevich, S. R. 2008. Herbicide and native grass seeding effects on sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)-infested grasslands. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:50–58.Google Scholar
Grabe, D. F. 1970. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook for Agricultural Seeds. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Ithaca, NY : Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62 p.Google Scholar
Harrison, P. J. and Dale, H. M. 1966. The effect of grazing and clipping on the control of wild carrot. Weeds 14:285–288.Google Scholar
Kiemnec, G. L. and McInnis, M. L. 2009. Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) seed ecology: seed bank survival and water and salt stresses on germination. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2:22–27.Google Scholar
Kirby, D. R., Hanson, T. P., Krabbenhoft, K. D., and Kirby, M. M. 1997. Effects of simulated defoliation on leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland. Weed Technol. 11:586–590.Google Scholar
Kuehl, R. O. 2000. Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA : Duxberry Press. 666 p.Google Scholar
Lesica, P. and Ellis, M. 2010. Demography of sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) in a northern Rocky Mountain grassland. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 3:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesica, P. and Martin, B. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire and season of burn on recruitment of the invasive exotic plant, Potentilla recta, in a semiarid grassland. Restor. Ecol. 11:516–523.Google Scholar
Mosley, J. C. and Roselle, L. 2006. Targeted livestock grazing to suppress invasive annual grasses. Pages 68–77 in Launchbaugh, K. and Walker, J., eds. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Denver, CO : American Sheep Industry.Google Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. 1967. Response of mountain grassland vegetation to clipping in southwestern Montana. Ecol. 48:942–949.Google Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. and Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of Western Montana. Ogden, UT : US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-66. 154 p.Google Scholar
Naylor, B. J., Endress, B. A., and Parks, C. G. 2005. Multiscale detection of sulfur cinquefoil using aerial photography. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 58:447–451.Google Scholar
Olson, B. and Launchbaugh, K. 2006. Managing herbaceous broadleaf weeds with targeted grazing. Pages 58–67 in Launchbaugh, K. and Walker, J., eds. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Denver, CO : American Sheep Industry.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E., Wallander, R. T., and Lacey, J. R. 1997. Effects of sheep grazing on a spotted knapweed-infested Idaho fescue community. J. Range Manag. 50:386–390.Google Scholar
Parks, C. G., Endress, B. A., Vavra, M., McInnis, M. L., and Naylor, B. J. 2008. Cattle, deer, and elk grazing of the invasive plant sulfur cinquefoil. Nat. Areas J. 28:404–408.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. L., Parks, C. G., Dwire, K. A., Endress, B. A., and Johnson, K. L. 2006. Age structure and age-related performance of sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta). Weed Sci. 54:87–93.Google Scholar
Powell, G. W. 1996. Analysis of Sulphur Cinquefoil in British Columbia. Victoria, British Columbia : BC Ministry of Forests Research Branch. Working Paper 16. 36 p.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1991. Sulfur cinquefoil: a new threat to biological diversity. West. Wildlands 17:34–40.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1993. Distribution and Ecology of Sulfur Cinquefoil in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Final Report, Montana Noxious Weed Trust Fund Project. Helena, MT : Montana Department of Agriculture. 11 p.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1999. Sulfur cinquefoil. Pages 382–388 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR : Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J. and Hileman, B. J. 2009. Efficacy of prescribed grazing depends on timing, intensity and frequency. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Jacobs, J. S., Sheley, R. L., and Borkowski, J. J. 2001. Spotted knapweed response to season and frequency of mowing. J. Range Manag. 54:52–56.Google Scholar
Roeder, B. L., Mosley, J. C., and Brewer, T. K. 2007. Winter supplements for goats when browsing ponderosa pine encroachment. Society for Range Management Annual Meeting, Reno, NV. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Roeder, B. L., Mosley, J. C., Brewer, T. K., and Kott, R. W. 2005. Prescribed sheep and goat grazing for controlling conifer encroachment. Society for Range Management Annual Meeting. Fort Worth, TX. [Abstract]Google Scholar
SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC : SAS Institute, Inc. 5136 p.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effect of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weeds 15:138–142.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Denny, M. K. 2006. Community response of nontarget species to herbicide application and removal of the nonindigenous invader Potentilla recta L. West. N. Am. Nat. 66:55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneva, F. and Britton, C. M. 1983. Adjusting and Forecasting Herbage Yields in the Intermountain Big Sagebrush Region of the Steppe Province. Corvallis, OR : Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin 659. 61 p.Google Scholar
Sneva, F. A. and Hyder, D. N. 1962. Estimating herbage production on semiarid ranges in the Intermountain Region. J. Range. Manag. 15:88–93.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York : McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
USDA, NRCS. 2007. Web soil survey of Gallatin County area, MT. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed: December 1, 2010.Google Scholar
USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: December 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Banner, R. E. 2002a. Influence of macronutrients and activated charcoal on intake of sagebrush by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:2099–2109.Google ScholarPubMed
Villalba, J. J., Provenza, F. D., and Banner, R. E. 2002b. Influence of macronutrients and polyethylene glycol on intake of a quebracho tannin diet by sheep and goats. J. Anim. Sci. 80:3154–3164.Google Scholar
Wallander, R. T., Olson, B. E., and Lacey, J. R. 1995. Spotted knapweed seed viability after passing through sheep and mule deer. J. Range Manag. 48:145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. K. and Renney, A. J. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa . Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. A. and Soule, J. D. 1976. The biology of Canadian weeds, 18: Potentilla recta L., P. norvegica L., and P. argenta L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:591–603.Google Scholar
West, N. E. and Farah, K. O. 1989. Effects of clipping and sheep grazing on dyers woad. J. Range Manag. 42:5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WRCC] Western Regional Climate Center. 2007. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana (241044). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu. Accessed: December 1, 2010.Google Scholar