Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-tt6zw Total loading time: 0.338 Render date: 2022-07-06T22:15:27.100Z 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. II. Accuracy evaluation

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

The impact of invasive weed management on plant community composition is highly dependent on location-specific factors. Therefore, treatment means from experiments conducted at a given set of locations will not reliably predict community response to weed management elsewhere. We developed a model that rescales treatment means to better match local conditions. The goal of this paper was to determine if this rescaling improves predictions. We used our model to predict leafy spurge stem length density and grass biomass data from field experiments. The experiments consisted of herbicide-treated plots, untreated controls, and, in some cases, grass seeding treatments. When herbicides suppressed leafy spurge, the model explained 21 to 48% more variation in grass response than did mean grass response to the same or similar herbicide treatments applied at other sites. When herbicides killed grass, the model explained 53% more variation in leafy spurge response than did mean leafy spurge response to the same herbicide treatment applied at other sites. We regressed model predictions against observed data and tested the null hypothesis that resulting slope terms were equal to 1.0. Because the null hypothesis was rejected in two of four tests, the model may systematically over- or underpredict in some situations. However, measurement error in the observed data, unintended herbicide injury, or an inaccurate allometric relationship may account for a major proportion of the systematic deviations, and these factors would not cause prediction error in some management applications. Because the model tends to be better than the means from experiments at predicting plant community composition, we conclude that the model could advance managers' ability to predict plant community responses to invasive weed management.

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
Chow, P. N. P. 1984. Control of leafy spurge in pastures using dicamba and 2,4-D. J. Range Manage 37:159162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1995. Can we determine the intrinsic dynamics of real plant populations? Funct. Ecol 9:1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, A. M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, Great: Britain: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, O. 1989. Seedling dynamics and life histories in clonal plants. Oikos 55:231238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, M. A., Whitson, T. D., and Alley, H. P. 1989. Control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with growth regulator–herbicide combinations. Weed Technol 3:479484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1986. Modelling the population dynamics of an arable weed and its effects upon crop yield. J. Appl. Ecol 23:147159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. Predicting the determinants of weed abundance: a model for the population dynamics of Chenopodium album in sugar beet. J. Appl. Ecol 35:904920.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gylling, S. R. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Efficacy and economics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control in pasture. Weed Sci 33:381385.Google 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
Hjorth, J. S. U. 1994. Computer Intensive Statistical Methods. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. 2001. Competition. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res 28:465471.CrossRefGoogle 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 Messersmith, C. G. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control, forage production, and economic return with fall-applied herbicides. Weed Technol 8:824829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control and improved forage production with herbicides. J. Range Manage 5:386391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Tober, D. A. 1997. Competitive grasses for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) reduction. Weed Technol 11:782792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markle, D. M. and Lym, R. G. 2001. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control and herbage production with Imazapic. Weed Technol 15:474480.CrossRefGoogle 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
Newman, E. I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244:310311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacala, S. W. 1997. Dynamics of plant communities. Pages 532555 in Crawley, M. J. ed. Plant Ecology. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, I. M. 2000. Invasion dynamics of Cytisus scoparius: a matrix model approach. Ecol. Appl 10:726743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. and Sheley, R. L. 2005a. A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics: I. Model development. Weed Sci 53:586593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, M. J. and Sheley, R. L. 2005b. Influence of soil water availability on competition among leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and grasses. West. North Am. Nat 65:233241.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Kelly, D. 2004. Modeling for management of invasive species: musk thistle (Carduus nutans) in New Zealand. Weed Technol 18:13381341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Vore, R. E. 1984. Effect of Herbicide Treatments on Leafy Spurge Shoot and Root Control, Forage Production and Herbicide Residue. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1981. Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostemma githago L. J. Appl. Ecol 18:967976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. A. and Caswell, H. 1977. Population growth rates and age versus stage-distribution models for teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds). Ecology 58:11031111.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
11
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. II. Accuracy evaluation
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. II. Accuracy evaluation
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. II. Accuracy evaluation
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? *