Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T18:07:08.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imidazolinone Herbicides Improve Restoration of Great Plains Grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert A. Masters ,
Scott J. Nissen ,
Roch E. Gaussoin ,
Daniel D. Beran  and
Robert N. Stougaard
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Lincoln, NE 68583
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Roch E. Gaussoin
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Daniel D. Beran
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Robert N. Stougaard
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The productivity and native species diversity of Great Plains grasslands have been substantially reduced by past management that facilitated the establishment of invasive exotic weeds and displacement of native species. Management strategies are needed to rapidly restore the productive capacity and biological diversity of these degraded grasslands. Critically important phases of the grassland restoration process are the reintroduction and establishment of native species. Weed interference is the primary constraint to successful establishment of native plants. The goal of our research is to develop strategies that use multiple technologies, including herbicides, to expedite grassland revegetation with native grasses and forbs. Imidazolinone herbicides (AC 263,333, imazapyr, and imazethapyr) were used successfully to improve establishment of native perennial grasses (big bluestem, switchgrass, little bluestem) and selected forbs (blackeyed-susan, purple prairieclover, Illinois bundleflower, trailing crownvetch, and upright prairie coneflower) on cropland and as components of a strategy to revegetate leafy spurge-infested rangeland with native tallgrasses. Imazethapyr at 70 or 110 g ai/ha applied at planting resulted in stands of big bluestem and little bluestem that were similar or superior to stands established where atrazine was applied. Seedling grasses were susceptible to imazapyr at two of three study sites. Imazapyr at 560 g ai/ha plus sulfometuron at 100 g ai/ha applied in fall was the optimum treatment for suppression of leafy spurge and exotic cool-season grasses and establishment of big bluestem and switchgrass on degraded rangeland sites. Establishment of selected forbs was improved by PRE treatment with AC 263,222 or imazethapyr at 70 g ai/ha. This research provides evidence that the imidazolinone herbicides can be important components of integrated weed management strategies designed to reverse deterioration of grasslands by reestablishing native species, improving grassland productivity, and decreasing the prevalence of exotic weeds.

Keywords

leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. # EPHESbig bluestem, Andropogon gerardii Vitman ‘Pawnee’ # ANOGEswitchgrass, Panicum virgatum L. ‘Trailblazer,’ # PANIpurple prairieclover, Dalea purpurea Venttrailing crownvetch, Coronilla varia L. # CZRYABiological diversitycool-season grassesforbsAC 263,222glyphosateimazapyrimazethapyrleafy spurgenative plantsprairie restorationrangelandsulfometurontallgrasseswarm-season grasseswildflowersANOGEANOSCCZRYADEMILEPHESPANIRATCORUDHI
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 392 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Archer, S., and Smeins, F. E. 1991. Ecosystem-level process. p. 109–140 in Heitschmidt, R. K. and Stuth, J. W., eds. Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 259 p.Google Scholar
2. Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., and Pitts, W. D. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA. 634 p.Google Scholar
3. Betz, R. F., 1986. One decade of research in prairie restoration at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), Batavia, Illinois. p. 179–185 in Clambey, G. K. and Pemble, R. H., eds. Proc. Ninth North American Prairie Conf., Moorhead, MN.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. D., 1987. Weed control problems, approaches, and opportunities in rangeland. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:57–92.Google Scholar
5. Goldsmith, F. B., and Harrison, C. M. 1976. Description and analysis of vegetation. p. 85–155 in Chapman, S. B., ed. Methods in Plant Ecology. Halstead Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Jordan, W. R., Peters, R. L., and Allen, E. B. 1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environ. Manage. 12:55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kuzila, M., 1989. Soil associations and series. p. 58–66 in Bleed, A. and Flowerday, C., eds. An Atlas of the Sand Hills. Resource Atlas No. 5. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
8. Laycock, W. A., Herbel, C. H., and Barnes, R. F. 1982. SEA-AR range research in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas. p. GPC-1–33 in Range research: An Assessment of Current Problems and a Strategy for the Future. USDA-SEA Admin. Rep. Google Scholar
9. Masters, R. A., 1995. Establishment of big bluestem and sand bluestem cultivars with metolachlor and atrazine. Agron. J. 87:592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Masters, R. A., Stougaard, R. N., and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with fall-applied imazapyr, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Masters, R. A., Vogel, K. P., and Mitchell, R. B. 1992. Response of central plains tallgrass prairie to fire, fertilizer, and atrazine. J. Range Manage. 45:291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Mlot, C., 1990. Restoring the prairie. BioScience 40:804–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Ott, L., 1977. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA. 730 p.Google Scholar
14. Schramm, P., 1992. Prairie restoration: A twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. p. 169–177 in Smith, D. D. and Jacobs, C. A., eds. Proc. 12th North American Prairie Conf. Cedar Falls, IA.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J., 1987. Decision-analysis approach to brush management planning: Ramifications for integrated range resources management. J. Range Manage. 40:482–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Shirley, S., 1994. Restoring the Tallgrass Prairie. Univ. Iowa Press, Iowa City. 330 p.Google Scholar
17. Smith, D. D., 1992. Tallgrass prairie settlement: Prelude to demise of the tallgrass ecosystem. p. 195–199 in Smith, D. D. and Jacobs, C. A., eds. Proc. 12th North American Prairie Conf. Cedar Falls, IA.Google Scholar
18. Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. SAS Inst., Inc. Cary, NC. 956 p.Google Scholar
19. Stougaard, R. N., Masters, R. A., and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 8:494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. USDA-NRCS. 1994. National natural resources inventory database. Misc. Publ.Google Scholar
21. Vogel, K. P., 1987. Seeding rates for establishing big bluestem and switchgrass with preemergence atrazine applications. Agron. J. 79:509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Weaver, J. E., and Fitzpatrick, T. J. 1934. The prairie. Ecol. Monogr. 4:109–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar