Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-9th95 Total loading time: 0.253 Render date: 2022-12-03T10:45:30.241Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James S. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Tony J. Svejcar
Affiliation:
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720

Abstract

Developing ecological principles applicable to invasive plant management is central to implementing sustainable strategies. We tested portions of a potentially useful successional-based management framework to further our understanding of the relationship between disturbance and colonization during revegetation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. We hypothesized (1) intermediate wheatgrass density and biomass would be greatest at highest seeding rates, (2) control and tillage procedures that increase the availability of safe sites would increase wheatgrass abundance, and (3) spotted knapweed density and biomass would be lowest in treatments with highest wheatgrass density and biomass. Treatments included three disturbance levels: (1) no disturbance, (2) application of glyphosate, and (3) fall tillage. Colonization treatments were seeding intermediate wheatgrass of 0, 500, 2,500, and 12,500 seeds m−2. Treatments were factorially applied in a randomized complete-block design with four replications at each of two sites located in Montana. Density and biomass of intermediate wheatgrass and spotted knapweed were sampled in 1997 and 2001. At both sites, seeding 2,500 or 12,500 seed m−2 increased wheatgrass density over that of the nonseeded control in 1997. The highest seeding rate produced almost three times as many wheatgrass plants as 2,500 seeds m−2 that year. By 2001, only the highest seeding rate produced wheatgrass densities greater than that of the nonseeded control at Bozeman. Seeding rates higher than 500 seeds m−2 yielded greater wheatgrass biomass than the nonseeded control with or without either tillage or glyphosate. At the highest seeding rate, tillage or glyphosate doubled intermediate wheatgrass biomass compared with no disturbance. Spotted knapweed generally had lower biomass where intermediate wheatgrass density and biomass was highest. One approach to rehabilitation is to design disturbances that favor desired species and then use high seeding rates that overwhelm the pool of available propagules and occupy a high percentage of safe sites.

Type
Weed Management
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

Bard, E. C., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2003. Using ecological theory to guide augmentative restoration. Ecol. Restor 21:143144.Google Scholar
Bard, E. C., Sheley, R. L., Jacobsen, J. S., and Borkowski, J. J. 2002. Using Ecological Theory to Guide the Implementation of Augmentative Restoration. Ecological Society of America 2002, Annual Meeting Abstracts. Tucson, AZ: Ecological Society of America. 70 p.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1983. Characteristics of populations in relation to disturbance in natural and man modified ecosystems. Pages 259275 in Mooney, H. A. and Godron, M. eds. Disturbance and Ecosystems. Components of Response. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1984. Dynamics of wet tropical forests and their species strategies. Pages 233243 in Medina, E., Mooney, H. A., and Vazquez-Yanes, C. eds. Physiological Ecology of Plants in Wet Tropics. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, C. A. and Roundy, R. A. 1991. Perspectives and processes in revegetation of arid and semiarid rangelands. J. Range Manag 44:543549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 2004. Revegetating weed-infested rangeland by maximizing niche occupation by desirable species. J. Range Manag 57:97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, B. S., Dunne, K. P., and Pickett, S. T. A. 1985. Response of forest herbs to canopy gaps. Pages 218234 in Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P. S. eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbances and Patch Dynamics. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol 88:528534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts I. Initial floristic composition-a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetation 4:412417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, K. and Sheley, R. L. 2002. Revegetation Guidelines for Western Montana. Missoula County Extension Special Paper. Missoula County, MT: Missoula County. 72 p.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L. 1980. Colonization by Verbascum thapsus (Mullein) in an old field in Michigan: experiments on the effects of vegetation. J. Ecol 68:919927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, K. L. 1999. Mechanisms of colonization and species persistence in plant communities. Pages 171188 in Jordan, William R. III, Gilpin, Michael E., and Aber, John D. eds. Restoration Ecology. A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L. and Werner, P. A. 1982. Colonization abilities of “biennial” plant species in relation to ground cover: implications for their distribution in a successional sere. Ecology 62:921931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev 52:247270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1986. Problems posed by sparse and patchily distributed species-rich plant communities. Pages 207225 in Diamond, J. and Case, T. J. eds. Community Ecology. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L., Williams, J. T., and Sagar, G. R. 1965. The behavior of seeds in the soil; I. The heterogeneity of soil surfaces and its role in determining the establishment of plants from seed. J. Ecol 53:273286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, G. J., Sheley, R. L., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability on the interaction between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. Restor. Ecol 9:326332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzworth, L. and Lacey, J. 1991. Species Selection Criteria for Seeding Dryland Pastures in Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension Bull. 19. 18 p.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. S., Carpinelli, M. F., and Sheley, R. S. 1998. Revegetation of weed-infested rangeland: what we've learned. Rangelands 20:1015.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. S., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. The effects of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the interference between bluebunch wheatgrass and spotted knapweed. Weed Technol 10:1321.Google Scholar
James, D. 1992. Some principles and practices of desert revegetation seeding. Arid Lands Newslett 32:2227.Google Scholar
Kocher, E. and Stubbendieck, J. 1986. Broadcasting grass seed to revegetate sandy soils. J. Range Manag 39:555557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. London, UK: Chapman and Hall. 264 p.Google Scholar
McLendon, T. and Redente, E. F. 1991. Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on secondary succession dynamics on a semi-arid sagebrush steppe. Ecology 72:20162024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. and Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of Western Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. Int-66. 154 p.Google Scholar
Oomes, M. J. and Elberse, W. Th. 1976. Germination of six grassland herbs in microsites with different water contents. J. Ecol 64:743755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York: Marcel Dekker. 401 p.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A., Collins, S. L., and Armesto, J. J. 1987. Models, mechanisms and pathways of succession. Bot. Rev 53:335371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. and White, P. S. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Orlando, FL: Academic. Pp. 371384.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L. 2002. Plant Functional Group Diversity As a Mechanism for Invasion Resistance. . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 130 p.Google Scholar
Runkle, J. R. 1985. Disturbance regimes in temperate forests. Pages 1734 in Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P. S. eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbances and Patch Dynamics. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Velagala, R. P. 1999. High seeding rates enhance intermediate wheatgrass establishment in spotted knapweed infested rangeland. J. Range Manag 52:6773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol 10:712720.Google Scholar
Velagala, R. P., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Influence of density on intermediate wheatgrass and spotted knapweed interference. J. Range Manag 50:523529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19
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.

Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands
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.

Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands
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.

Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands
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? *