Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:48:53.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restoring Native Plant Communities in Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis)–Dominated Grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matt A. Bahm ,
Thomas G. Barnes  and
Kent C. Jensen
Matt A. Bahm*
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Thomas G. Barnes
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Kent C. Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bahm.matt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) is an introduced, cool-season perennial, sod-forming grass that has been shown to invade both native cool-and warm-season grasslands throughout North America. During the fall of 2005 through spring 2007, we implemented a smooth brome removal study at five sites in eastern South Dakota. Sites were selected to represent a range of soil and environmental conditions. Seven fall herbicide treatments, five spring herbicide treatments, an untreated plot that was planted with a native seed mix, and an untreated control that received no herbicide or seed addition were applied at each location in fall 2005/spring 2006 and fall 2006/spring 2007. Based upon first-year results, three fall herbicide treatments and two spring herbicide treatments were added in fall 2006/spring 2007. Sites were seeded with a native plant mix within 2 wk following spring herbicide treatment. Smooth brome cover in untreated plots ranged from 73 to 99% at the conclusion of the study. Smooth brome cover on herbicide-treated plots ranged from 0 to 84% on 2005/2006 plots and 0 to 98% on 2006/2007 plots after three growing seasons. Native plant response varied by site and treatment, possibly due to competition from exotic weeds. Although several herbicides show promise for control of smooth brome, future response of native plants will be important in determining the proper timing and herbicide combination.

Keywords

Smooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss. BROINInvasive plantspostemergence herbicidesperennial grassrestoration
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 239 - 250
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

Adkins, J. 2007. Efficacy of herbicides to restore understory cool season grassland communities in central Kentucky. M.S. thesis. Lexington, KY University of Kentucky. 95 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. 1994. Converting smooth brome pasture to warm-season grass. Pages. 157–160. in Proceedings of the 13th North American Prairie Conference. Windsor, ON. Ontario Department of Parks and Recreation.Google Scholar
Ayeni, A. O., Majek, B. A., and Hammerstedt, J. 1998. Rainfall influence on imazethapyr bioactivity in New Jersey soils. Weed Sci 46:581–586.Google Scholar
Bahm, M. A. 2009. Conversion of Exotic Cool-Season Grasslands to Restored Native Plant Communities Utilizing Herbicide Treatments. Ph.D dissertation, Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 200 p.Google Scholar
Bahm, M. A. 2011. Native Grass and Forb Response to Pre-Emergent Application of Imazapyr and Imazapic. Nat. Areas J 31:75–79.Google Scholar
Bard, E. C., Sheley, R. L., Jacobsen, J. S., and Borkowski, J. J. 2004. Using ecological theory to guide the implementation of augmentative restoration. Weed Technol 18:1246–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, T. G. 2004. Strategies to convert exotic grass pastures to tall grass prairie communities. Weed Technol 18:1364–1370.Google Scholar
Barnes, T. G. 2007. Using herbicides to rehabilitate native grasslands. Nat. Areas J 27:56–65.Google Scholar
Beran, D. D., Masters, R. A., Gaussoin, R. E., and Rivas-Pantoja, F. 2000. Establishment of big bluestem and Illinois bundleflower mixtures with imazapic and imazethapyr. Agron. J 92:460–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. New York J. Wiley. 338 p.Google Scholar
Bryce, S., Omernik, J. M., Pater, D. E., Ulmer, M., Schaar, J., Freeouf, J., Johnson, R., Kuck, P., and Azevedo, S. H. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/ndsdeco.htm. Accessed March 25, 2005.Google Scholar
Dibbern, J. C. 1947. Vegetative responses of Bromus inermis to certain variations in environment. Bot. Gaz 109:44–58.Google Scholar
Dill, T. O., Waller, S. S., Vogel, K. P., Gates, R. N., and Stroup, W. W. 1986. Renovation of seeded warm-season pastures with atrazine. J. Range Manag 39:72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Drewitz, J. J., and Kyser, G. B. 2008. Jubatagrass (Cortaderia jubata) control using chemical and mechanical methods. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 1:82–90.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1960. The Design of Experiments. 7th ed. New York Hafner. 250 p.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1997. Microbial degradation of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci 45:586–591.Google Scholar
Fry, J. D., Gaussoin, R. E., Beran, D. D., and Masters, R. A. 1997. Buffalograss establishment with preemergence herbicides. HortScience 32:683–686.Google Scholar
Gartner, F. R. and Sieg, C. H. 1996. South Dakota rangelands: more than a sea of grass. Rangelands 18:212–216.Google Scholar
James, J. J., Smith, B. S., Vasquez, E. A., and Sheley, R. L. 2010. Principles for ecologically based invasive plant management. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 3:229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. R. and Larson, G. E. 1999. Grassland plants of South Dakota and the northern Great Plains. Brookings, SD South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Pub. B566, South Dakota State University. 288 p.Google Scholar
Judge, C. A., Neal, J. C., and Derr, J. F. 2005. Response of Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) to application timing, rate, and frequency of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 19:912–917.Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Sci 54:597–605.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.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Smith, D., Kulm, R., Doty, D., Kinkaid, D., Goodrich, M., and Stolcpart, R. 2004. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) control with herbicides: single-year application. Weed Technol 18:1255–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knieval, D. P., Jacques, A. V. A., and Smith, D. 1971. Influence of growth stage and stubble height on herbage yields and persistence of smooth bromegrass and timothy. Agron. J 63:430–434.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. and Ashford, R. 1964. Effect of stage and height of cutting on dry matter yield and persistence of intermediate wheatgrass, bromegrass, and reed canary grass. Can. J. Plant Sci 41:321–332.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Beran, D. D., and Gaussoin, R. E. 2001. Restoring tallgrass prairie species mixtures on leafy spurge-infested rangeland. J. Range Manag 54:362–369.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Nissen, S. J., Gaussoin, R. E., Beran, D. D., and Stougaard, R. N. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technol 10:392–403.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR MjM Software. 300 p.Google Scholar
Mead, R., Curnow, R. N., and Hasted, A. M. 2003. Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 488 p.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Osmond, T. M., and Dewey, S. A. 2005. Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol 19:653–658.Google Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002. Native Prairie Restoration Study: Final Report 1998–2002. Bismarck, ND USDA-NRCS Plant Materials Center. 45 p. http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/ndpmcpr4961.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2006.Google Scholar
Paulson, G. M. and Smith, D. 1969. Organic reserves, axillary bud activity, and herbage yields of smooth bromegrass as influenced by time of cutting, nitrogen fixation, and shading. Crop Sci 9:529–534.Google Scholar
Perry, L. G., Galatowitsch, S. M., and Rosen, C. J. 2004. Competitive control of invasive vegetation: a native wetland sedge suppresses Phalaris arundinacea in carbon-enriched soil. J. Appl. Ecol 41:151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J. H. and Smith, D. 1962. Trend of carbohydrate reserves in alfalfa, smooth bromegrass, and timothy grown under various cutting schedules. Crop Sci 2:333–336.Google Scholar
Samson, J. F. and Moser, L. E. 1982. Sod-seeding perennial grasses into eastern Nebraska pastures. Agron. J 74:1055–1060.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 458 p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L. eds. 1991. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 304 p.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2002. The response of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) to imazapic and picloram. Weed Technol 16:366–370.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol 18:60–65.Google Scholar
[Soil Survey Staff NRCS USDA] Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture 2008. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 11, 2009.Google Scholar
Stacy, M. D., Perryman, B. L., Stahl, P. D., and Smith, M. A. 2005. Brome control and microbial inoculation effects in reclaimed cool-season grasslands. Rangeland Ecol. Manag 58:161–166.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S. L., and Butterfield, C. H. 1994. North American Range Plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska Press. 493 p.Google Scholar
Waller, S. S. and Schmidt, D. K. 1983. Improvement of eastern Nebraska tallgrass range using atrazine or glyphosate. J. Range Manag 36:87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, B. E. and Barnes, T. G. 1999. No-till establishment of native warm-season grasses in tall fescue fields. Ecol. Rest 17:144–149.Google Scholar
Washburn, B. E. and Barnes, T. G. 2000. Native warm season grass and forb establishment using imazapic and 2,4-D. Native Plants J 1:61–68.Google Scholar
Washburn, B. E., Barnes, T. G., Rhoades, C. C., and Remington, R. 2002. Using imazapic and fire to enhance native warm-season grasslands in Kentucky, USA. Nat. Areas J 22:20–27.Google Scholar
Willson, G. D. 1991. Morphological characteristics of smooth brome to determine a prescribed burn date. Pages 113–116. In Smith, D. D. and Jacobs, C. A. eds. Proceedings of the 12th North American Prairie Conference. Cedar Falls, IA University of Northern Iowa.Google Scholar
Willson, G. D. and Stubbendieck, J. 1996. Suppression of smooth brome by atrazine, mowing and fire. Prairie Nat 28:13–20.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. D. and Gerry, A. K. 1995. Strategies for mixed-grass prairie restoration: herbicide, tilling, and nitrogen manipulation. Rest. Ecol 3:290–298.Google Scholar