Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-dxj8b Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2023-01-28T05:08:02.496Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Managing Invasive Annual Grasses in Partially Invaded Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger Sheley*
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Jordan Sheley
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Brenda Smith
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: roger.sheley@oregonstate.edu. ARS is an equal-opportunity provider and employer.

Abstract

Our objective was to evaluate the cost/benefit of a single herbicide application or targeted grazing of invasive annual grasses during restoration of partially invaded sagebrush steppe ecosystems used for livestock production. The cost/benefit model used is based on estimating the production of vegetation in response to implementing management and modeling cost/benefit economics associated with that prediction. The after-tax present value of added animal unit months (AUMs) obtained was lower than the present value of after-tax treatment costs after 20 yr for a single herbicide treatment, but higher than the present value of after-tax treatment costs for the grazing management scenario. Even at the highest weed utilization level, the value of added AUMs did not offset the cost of the treatment after 20 yr. However, the grazing treatment resulted in a value of added AUMs higher than the costs after 20 yr. Depending on the invasive weed utilization level, break-even points with targeted grazing occurred at anywhere from the first year to 7 yr. This assessment clearly shows that grazing management can be economically viable for managing annual grass-infested rangeland. In the future, models like the one used here can be improved by incorporating the rangeland management and restoration benefits on the wide variety of goods and services gained from rangeland.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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

Balch, JK, Bradley, BA, D'Antonio, CM, Gomez-Dans, J (2013) Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Global Change Biol. 19:173183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangsund, DA, Leitch, JA, Leistritz, FL (1996) Economics of herbicide control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). J Agric Res Econ 21:381395 Google Scholar
Bucher, RF (1984) The Potential Cost of Sspotted Knapweed to Montana range users: Montana Cooperative Extension Service. Report 1316, 18 pGoogle Scholar
Crawford, JA, Olson, RA, West, NE, Mosley, JC, Schroeder, MA, Whitson, TD, Miller, RF, Gregg, MA, Boyd, CS (2004) Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitats. J Range Manag. 57:219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, CM, Vitousek, PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 23:6387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derner, JD, Lauenroth, WK, Stapp, P, Augustine, DJ (2009) Livestock as ecosystem engineers for grassland bird habitat in the Western Great Plains of North America. Rangel. Ecol Manag. 62:111118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, JM, Call, CA, Devoe, N (2012) Effect of targets grazing and prescribed burning on community and seed dynamics of a downy brome (Bromus tectorum) dominated landscape. Inv Plant Sci Mgmt 5:259269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Kyser, GB, George, MR, Doran, MP, Laca, EA (2008) Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) using timely sheep grazing. Inv Plant Sci Mgmt 1:241247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethridge, DE, Dahl, BE, Sosebee, RE (1984) Economic evaluation of chemical mesquite control using 2, 4,5-T. J Range Manag. 37:152156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethridge, DE, Pettit, RD, Neal, TJ, Jones, VE (1987a) Economic returns from treating sand shinnery oak with tebuthiuron in West Texas. J Range Manag. 40:346348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethridge, DE, Pettit, RD, Sudderth, RG, Stoecker, AL (1987b) Optimal economic timing of range improvement alternatives: southern high plains. J Range Manag. 40:555559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, D, Lacey, JR (1991) Economic evaluation of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) control using picloram. J Range Manag. 44:4347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardegree, SP, Jones, TA, Roundy, BA, Shaw, NL, Monaco, TA (2011) Assessment of range planting as a conservation practice. Pages 171212 in Briske, DD, ed. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations and Knowledge Gaps. USDA–Natural Resource Conservation Service. Lawrence, KS. Allen Press.Google Scholar
Havstad, KM, Peters, DC, Skaggs, R, Brown, J, Bestelmeyer, BT, Fredrickson, EL, Herrick, JE, Wright, J (2007) Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol Econ 64:261268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, EA (1984) Data requirements for economic evaluations of a knapweed containment program. Pages 2736 in Proceedings of the Knapweed Symposium, Plant and Soil Science Dept. and Coop. Ext Serv. Bull. 1615, Montana State University Google Scholar
King, RP, Swinton, SM, Lyebecker, DW, Oriade, CA (1998) The economics of weed control and the value of weed management information. Pages 2541 in Hatfield, JL, Buhler, DD, Stewart, BA, eds. Integrated Weed Management. Chelsea, MI Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Knick, ST, Dobkin, DS, Rotenberry, JT, Schroeder, MA, Vander Haegen, WM, van Riper, C (2003) Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, Creech, JE, Zhang, J, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Selective control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California sagebrush scrub using low rates of glyphosate. Inv Plant Sci Manag. 5:18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM, Doran, MP, Orloff, SB, Wilson, RG, Lancaster, DL, Lile, DF, Porath, ML (2007) Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other annual grasses with imazapic. Weed Technol 21:6675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launchbaugh, KL, Daines, RJ, Walker, JW (2006) Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Centennial, CO: American Sheep Industry Association 199 p. Available at http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/rx-grazing/handbook.htm. Accessed June 22, 2012Google Scholar
Love, RM (1944) Preliminary trials on the effect of management on the establishment of perennial grasses and legumes at Davis, California. J Am Soc Agron 36:699703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, WC, Jones, MB, Torell, DT, McKell, CM (1961) Medusahead palatability. J Range Manag. 14:248251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdoo, JK, Schultz, BW, Swanson, SR, Perryman, B, Orr, R (2007) Northeastern Nevada Wildfires 2006. Part 2—Can Livestock Be Used to Reduce Wildfires?. Reno, NV University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 07-214 p.Google Scholar
Megee, CR (1938) Wild oats or downy brome: troublesome weed on sandy land. Mich Agr Exp Sta Occ Bull 20:153156 Google Scholar
Monaco, TA, Dewey, SA, Osmond, TM (2005) Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol 19:653658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C, Monaco, TA, Rigby, CW (2009) Variable impacts of imazapic rate on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and seeded species in two rangeland communities. Inv Plant Sci Manag. 2:110119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, JC (1996) Prescribed sheep grazing to supress cheatgrass: a review. Sheep Goat Res J. 12:7481 Google Scholar
Mosley, JC, Bunting, SC, Manoukian, ME (1999) Cheatgrass. Pages 175188 in Sheley, RL, Petroff, JK, eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Papanastasis, VP (2009) Restoration of degraded grazing lands through grazing management: can it work? Restor Ecol 17:441445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellant, M (1990) The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle—Are there any solutions? Pages 1118 in McArthur, ED, Romney, EM, Smith, SD, Tueller, PT, compilers. Proceedings of Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management, Las Vegas, NV. Ogden, UT USDA Forest Service Pub. GTR-INT-276.Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Smith, BS (2012) Prioritizing invasive plant management strategies. Rangelands 34:1114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, RL, Carpinelli, MF, Reever Morghan, KJ (2007) Effects of imazapic on target and nontarget vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technol 21:10711081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, RL, James, JJ, Rinella, MJ, Blumenthal, D, DiTomaso, JM (2011) Invasive plant management on anticipated conservation benefits: A scientific assessment. in Briske, DD, ed. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations and Knowledge Gaps. USDA–Natural Resource Conservation Service. Lawrence, KS Allen Press. Pp 293336 Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Petroff, JK, eds. (1999) Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 438 pGoogle Scholar
Smith, B, Sheley, R, Svejcar, T (2012) Grazing Invasive Annual Grasses: The Green and Brown Guide. Burns, OR Eastern Agriculture Research Center –Burns. Burns, OR, USA. 36 pGoogle Scholar
Thornes, JB (2007) Modelling soil erosion by grazing: recent developments and new approaches. Geogr Res 45:1316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upadhaya, MK, Turkington, R, McIIyride, D (1986) The biology of Canadian weeds. Can J Plant Sci. 66:689709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vail, D (1994) Management of semiarid rangelands—impacts of annual weeds on resource values. Pages 34 in Monsen, SB, Kitchen, SG, eds. Proceedings of Ecology and Management of Annual rangelands. Washington, DC USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-GTR-313. Pp 3–4Google Scholar
Whisenant, SG (1990) Changing Fire Frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: Ecological and Management Implications. Logan, UT US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Center. General Technical Report INT-276. Pp 410 Google Scholar
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Managing Invasive Annual Grasses in Partially Invaded Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Managing Invasive Annual Grasses in Partially Invaded Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Managing Invasive Annual Grasses in Partially Invaded Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *