Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-6g96d Total loading time: 0.29 Render date: 2022-07-04T16:53:21.679Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics. I. Model development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720

Abstract

Invasive weed managers are presented with a complicated and ever-enlarging set of management alternatives. Identifying the optimal weed management strategy for a given set of conditions requires predicting how candidate strategies will affect plant community composition. Although field experiments have advanced our ability to predict postmanagement composition, extrapolation problems limit the prediction accuracy achieved by interpreting treatment means as predictions. Examples of extrapolation problems include nonlinear relationships between competing plants, site-to-site variation in plant population growth rates, and the carrying capacities of desired species and weeds. Our objective was to develop a model that improves predictions of weed management outcomes by overcoming a subset of these problems. To develop the model, we used data from two field experiments in which four Kentucky bluegrass, six western wheatgrass, and six invasive plant (i.e., leafy spurge) densities were combined in field plots. Graphs of our model's predictions vs. observed field experiment data indicate that the model predicted the data accurately. Our model may improve predictions of plant community response to invasive weed management actions.

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

Aguiar, M. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Peters, D. P. 2001. Intensity of intra- and interspecific competition in coexisting shortgrass species. J. Ecol 89:4047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briones, O., Montana, C., and Ezcurra, E. 1998. Competition intensity as a function of resource availability in a semiarid ecosystem. Oecologia 116:365372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 28:258262.Google Scholar
Call, C. A. and Roundy, B. A. 1991. Perspectives and processes in revegetation of arid and semiarid rangelands. J. Range Manage 44:543549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, S. E., Van Driesche, R. G., Sturdevant, N., Elkinton, J., and Buonaccorsi, J. P. 2001. Effects of site characteristics and release history on establishment of Agapeta zoegana (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae) and Cyphocleonus achates (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), root-feeding herbivores of spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa . Biol. Control 22:122130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 26:556559.Google Scholar
Compaq Computer Corporation. 2000. Digital Visual Fortran. Houston, TX: Compaq.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, P. K., Davis, E. S., Lacey, C. A., and Chicoine, T. K. 1991. Chemical control of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in Montana. Pages 303315 in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D. eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ferrell, M. A., Whitson, T. D., Koch, D. W., and Gade, A. E. 1998. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with several grass species. Weed Technol 12:374380.Google Scholar
Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. Predicting competitive ability from plant traits: a comparative approach. Nature 334:242243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. 1987. Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 68:12111223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. 2001. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties. 2nd ed. West Sussex, Great Britain: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. and Hunt, R. 1975. Relative growth rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. J. Ecol 63:393422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haining, R. P. 1990. Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge, Great: Britain: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, D. G. 1988. Single and Repetitive Picloram Treatments on Leafy Spurge and Resulting Changes in Shoot Density, Canopy Cover, Forage Production and Utilization by Cattle. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.Google Scholar
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hjorth, J. S. U. 1994. Computer Intensive Statistical Methods. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Huston, M. A. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat 113:81101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, P. 2001. Competition. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keddy, P., Gaudet, C., and Fraser, L. H. 2000. Effects of low and high nutrients on the competitive hierarchy of 26 shoreline plants. J. Ecol 88:413423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, D. R., Carlson, R. B., Krabbenhoft, K. D., Mundal, D., and Kirby, M. M. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge with introduced flea beetles (Aphthona spp). J. Range Manage 53:305308.CrossRefGoogle 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 11:586590.Google Scholar
Kronberg, S. L. and Walker, J. W. 1999. Sheep preference for leafy spurge from Idaho and North Dakota. J. Range Manage 52:3944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, Hd, Plaisier, A., and van Groenendael, J. 1987. Density dependent simulation of the population dynamics of a perennial grassland species, Hypochaeris radicata . Oikos 50:312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajeunesse, S., Sheley, R., Duncan, C., and Lym, R. 1999. Leafy spurge. Pages 249260 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Landgraf, B. K., Fay, P. K., and Havstad, K. M. 1984. Utilization of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) by sheep. Weed Sci 32:348352.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 2000. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D. J. Range Manage 53:6872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Kirby, D. R. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge-infested rangeland. Weed Technol 1:314318.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control with herbicides in North Dakota: 20-year summary. J. Range Manage 38:149154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control, forage production, and economic return with fall-applied herbicides. Weed Technol 8:824829.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G., Sedivec, K. K., and Kirby, D. R. 1997. Leafy spurge control with angora goats and herbicides. J. Range Manage 50:123128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Tober, D. A. 1997. Competitive grasses for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) reduction. Weed Technol 11:782792.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Nissen, S. J. 1998. Revegetating leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland with native tallgrasses. Weed Technol 12:381390.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. 1984. Changes in an Infested Plant Community after an Application of Picloram, the Effect of Glyphosate on Bud Dormancy, the Effect of Pulling and the Fuel Potential of Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J., Zutter, B. R., Gjerstad, D. H., Glover, G. R., and Wood, C. W. 1999. Competition among secondary-successional pine communities. A field study of effects and responses. Ecology 80:857872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moloney, K. A. 1990. Shifting demographic control of a perennial bunchgrass along a natural habitat gradient. Ecology 71:11331143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, E. I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244:310311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowierski, R. M. and Harvey, S. J. 1988. Vegetation Composition at Four Rangeland Sites Infested by Leafy Spurge. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Rep. 40.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. and Wallander, R. T. 1998. Effect of sheep grazing on a leafy spurge-infested Idaho fescue community. J. Range Manage 51:247252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, R. and Reed, L. J. 1920. On the rate of growth of the population of the United States since 1790 and its mathematical representation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 6:275288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peltzer, D. A. and Kochy, M. 2001. Competitive effects of grasses and woody plants in mixed-grass prairie. J. Ecol 89:519527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricker, W. 1954. Stock and recruitment. J. Fish. Res. Board Can 11:559623.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 Manage 54:5256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, M. J. and Sheley, R. L. 2005a. Influence of soil water availability on competition among leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and grasses. West. North Am. Nat 65:233241.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J. and Sheley, R. L. 2005b. A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics: II. Accuracy evaluation. Weed Sci 53:605614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robocker, W. C., Gates, D. H., and Kerr, H. D. 1965. Effects of herbicides, burning and seeding date in reseeding an arid range. J. Range Manage 18:114118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Duncan, C. A., Halstvedt, M. B., and Jacobs, J. S. 2000. Spotted knapweed and grass response to herbicide treatments. J. Range Manage 53:176182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single entry. J. Range Manage 54:144151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvertown, J. and Charlesworth, D. 2001. Introduction to Plant Population Biology. Williston, VT: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition coefficients. Neth. J. Agric. Sci 31:111.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. E. and Lacey, J. R. 1994. Range Plants of Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension Service, Extension Bull. 122.Google Scholar
Turchin, P. 2003. Complex Population Dynamics: A Theoretical/Empirical Synthesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Velagala, R. P., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Influence on intermediate wheatgrass and spotted knapweed interference. J. Range Manage 50:523529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visual Numerics. 1997. International Mathematical and Statistical Library routine. Houston, TX: IMSL.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1981. Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostemma githago L. J. Appl. Ecol 18:967976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. D. and Tilman, D. 1991. Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72:10501065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
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.

A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics. I. Model development
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.

A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics. I. Model development
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.

A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics. I. Model development
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? *