Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:40:00.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jane M. Krueger-Mangold ,
Roger L. Sheley  and
Tony J. Svejcar
Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Tony J. Svejcar
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land managers typically use herbicides, biological controls, fire, grazing, and revegetation to manage and restore rangeland dominated by invasive plants. Without careful planning and implementation, these tools may temporarily control the weeds but may ultimately have minimal influence on ecological processes, fail over the long term, and lead to weed reinvasion. This can result from the lack of a broad ecological perspective. Successional management provides a process-based framework for weed ecologists to develop and test integrated weed management strategies and for land managers to organize implementation of these strategies in a way that adequately addresses ecological processes. This framework offers land managers practical methods for modifying ecological processes to direct plant community composition away from invasive species and toward desired plant assemblages. To date, successional management has not gained widespread application because, in part, it has not been conceptually linked to other successional models. Therefore, we illustrate how other successional models can be incorporated within the framework. Incorporating other prevailing successional models will further elucidate ecological processes, offer additional management strategies, and widen the possibilities for ecologically based management of rangeland weeds. Approaching management of weed-infested rangeland through this process-based framework will enable managers to implement strategies that maximize the likelihood of success because these methods will be integrated based on ecological principles. Successional management should be adjusted as we gain a better understanding of the factors that drive succession.

Keywords

Ecological processesinvasionrestorationsuccessionweeds

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 2006 , pp. 597 - 605
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bard, E. B. 2004. Using ecological theory to guide the implementation of augmentative restoration. , Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Bard, E. B., 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
Bazzaz, F. A. 1986. Life history of colonizing plants: Some demographic, genetic and physiological features. Pages 96–110 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Billings, W. D. 1990. Bromus tectorum, a biotic cause of ecosystem impoverishment in the Great Basin. Pages 301–322 in Woodwell, G. M. ed. The Earth in Transition: Patterns and Processes of Biotic Impoverishment. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Bleak, A. T. and Keller, W. 1974. Emergence and yield of six range grasses planted on four dates using natural and treated seed. J. Range Manag 27:225–227.Google Scholar
Blicker, P. S., Olson, B. E., and Engel, R. 2002. Traits of the invasive Centaurea maculosa and two native grasses: effect of N supply. Plant Soil 247:261–269.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. M., Jordan, N. R., and Russelle, M. R. 2003. Soil carbon addition controls weeds and facilitates prairie restoration. Ecol. Appl 13:605–615.Google Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci 50:2–13.Google Scholar
Bowns, J. E. and Bagley, C. F. 1986. Vegetation responses to long-term sheep grazing on mountain ranges. J. Range Manag 39:431–34.Google Scholar
Brockington, M. R. 2003. Soil nutrient availability as a mechanistic assessment of carbon addition and biological control of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.). . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. W. and Grime, J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Aschehoug, E. T. 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M., Ridenour, W. M., Laboski, T., Weir, T., and Vivanco, J. M. 2005. Natural selection for resistance to allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J. Ecol 93:576–583.Google Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F. 2000. Designing weed-resistant plant communities by maximizing niche occupation and resource capture. Ph.D. dissertation. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F., Maxwell, B. D., and Sheley, R. L. 2004. Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species. J. Range Manag 57:97–105.Google Scholar
[CIPM] Center for Invasive Plant Management. 2005. Restoration Resource Database. ag.mus.montana.edu/cipmresource/projects/MTCheyenneClayMarlowFinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. 2000. Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol. Appl 10:1400–1413.Google Scholar
Chicoine, T. K., Fay, P. K., and Neilsen, G. A. 1985. Predicting weed migration from soil and climate maps. Weed Sci 34:57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 242.Google Scholar
Clements, F. E. 1936. Nature and structure of the climax. J. Ecol 24:252–284.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. and Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat 111:1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corak, S. J., Frye, W. W., and Smith, M. S. 1991. Legume mulch and nitrogen fertilizer effects on soil water and corn production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 55:1395–1400.Google Scholar
Cox, R. D. and Anderson, V. J. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession. J. Range Manag 57:203–210.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst 23:63–87.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dersheid, L. A., Wallace, K. E., and Nash, R. L. 1960. Leafy spurge control with cultivation, cropping and chemicals. Weeds 8:115–127.Google Scholar
Dersheid, L. A., Wicks, G. A., and Wallace, W. H. 1963. Cropping, cultivation, and herbicides to eliminate leafy spurge and prevent reinfestation. Weeds 11:105–111.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342–444 in Cody, M. L. and Diamond, J. M. eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1999. Poison-Hemlock. Pages 290–298 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265.Google Scholar
Eddleman, L. 2002. Broadcast seeding and site preparation in western juniper woodlands. Pages 48–54 in Range Field Day 2002 Research and Management: Management of Western Juniper on Rangelands. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Department of Rangeland Resources, Range Sciences Series Report 5.Google Scholar
Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts, I: initial floristic composition-a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4:412–417.Google Scholar
Evans, R. A., Holbo, H. R., Eckert, J. R. E., and Young, J. A. 1970. Functional environment of downy brome communities in relation to weed control and revegetation. Weed Sci 18:154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargione, J., Brown, C. S., and Tilman, D. 2003. Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 100:8916–8920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, R. A. and Renney, A. J. 1963. A growth inhibitor found in Centaurea spp. Can. J. Plant Sci 43:475–481.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Harvey, S. J. 1983. Eurasian weed infestation in western Montana in relation to vegetation and disturbance. Madroño 30:102–109.Google Scholar
Frost, R. A. and Launchbaugh, K. L. 2003. Prescription grazing for rangeland weed management. Rangelands 25:43–47.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. 1917. The structure and development of the plant association. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 44:463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, K., Sheley, R., and Marks, G. 2006. Revegetation Guidelines for Western Montana: Considering Invasive Weeds. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Ext. Serv. Bull.Google Scholar
Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D. 2003. Perspectives on Plant Competition. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. London: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Half, M. L. 2004. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture. . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. G., Holzapfel, C., and Mahall, B. E. 1999. Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and non-native annual grasses in California. Oecologia 121:518–526.Google Scholar
Hardegree, S. P. 1994. Drying and storage effects on germination of primed grass seeds. J. Range Manag 47:196–199.Google Scholar
Hardegree, S. P. 1996. Optimization of seed priming treatments to increase low temperature germination rate. J. Range Manag 49:87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardegree, S. P., Van Vactor, S. S., and Jones, T. A. 2002. Variability of thermal response of primed and non-primed seeds of squirreltail [Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey and Elymus multisetus (J.G. Smith) M.E. Jones]. Ann. Bot 89:311–319.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartwig, N. L. 1988. Crownvetch and min- or no-tillage crop production for soil erosion control. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer 28:29.Google Scholar
Hartwig, N. L. and Ammon, H. U. 2002. Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci 50:688–699.Google Scholar
Herron, G. J., Sheley, R. L., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability on the interaction between Centaurea maculosa and Pseudoroegneria spicata . Ecol. Restor 9:326–331.Google Scholar
Hierro, J. L. and Callaway, R. M. 2003. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 256:29–39.Google Scholar
Huenneke, L. F., Hamburg, S. P., Koide, R., Mooney, H. A., and Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. S. and Sheley, R. L. 1998. Observation: life history of spotted knapweed. J. Range Manag 51:665–673.Google Scholar
Jones, T. A. 1997. Genetic considerations for native plant materials. Pages 22–25 in Shaw, N. L. and Roundy, B. A., comps. Proceedings on Using Seeds of Native Species on Rangelands. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-372.Google Scholar
Kriticos, D., Nicholas, M., Radford, I., and Brown, J. 1999. Plant population ecology and biological control: Acacia nilotica as a case study. Biol. Control 16:230–239.Google Scholar
Lacey, J. R., Marlow, C. B., and Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol 3:627–631.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., Vila, M., D'Antonio, C. M., Dukes, J. S., Grigulis, K., and Lavorel, S. 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. Ser. B 270:775–781.Google Scholar
Lozon, J. D. and MacIsaac, H. J. 1997. Biological invasions: Are they dependent on disturbance? Environ. Rev 5:131–144.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1993. Fall cultivation and fertilization to reduce winter hardiness of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci 41:441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. 1962. Generalized theorems of natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 48:1893–1897.Google Scholar
Maron, J. L. and Connors, P. G. 1996. A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105:302–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, B. D., Wilson, M. V., and Radosevich, S. R. 1988. Population modeling approach for evaluating leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) development and control. Weed Technol 2:132–138.Google Scholar
McLendon, T. and Redente, E. F. 1991. Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on secondary successional dynamics on a semi-arid sagebrush steppe. Ecology 72:2016–2024.Google Scholar
Miller, H. C., Clausnitzer, D., and Borman, M. M. 1999. Medusahead. Pages 272–281 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. P. 1994. Soil impoverishment. Restor. Manag. Notes 12:1:55–56.Google Scholar
Mosely, J. C., Bunting, S. C., and Manoukian, M. E. 1999. Cheatgrass. Pages 175–188 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Navie, S. C., Penetta, F. D., McFadyen, R. E., and Adkins, S. W. 2004. Germinable soil seedbanks of central Queensland rangelands invaded by the exotic weed Parthenium hysterophorus L. Weed Biol. Manag 4:154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, I. R. and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999a. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 19–36 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999b. Grazing and weeds. Pages 85–96 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, R. and Peabody, D. 1983. Yellow toadflax and Dalmatian toadflax. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Extension Bull. 135.Google Scholar
Paschke, M. W., McLendon, T., and Redente, E. F. 2000. Nitrogen availability and old-field succession in a shortgrass steppe. Ecosystems 3:144–158.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. 1982. Population patterns through twenty years of oldfield succession. Vegetatio 49:45–59.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A., Collins, S. L., and Armesto, J. J. 1987. Models, mechanisms and pathways of succession. Bot. Rev 53:335–371.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L. 2002. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Poulsen, C. L., Walker, S. C., and Stevens, R. 1999. Soil seed banking in pinyon-juniper areas with differing levels of tree cover, understory density and composition. Pages 141–154 in Monsen, S. B. and Stevens, R., comps. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities Within the Interior West. Ogden, UT.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology, 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1999. Sulfur cinquefoil. Pages 382–387 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Roundy, B. A., Shaw, N. L., and Booth, D. T. 1997. Using native seeds on rangelands. Pages 1–8 in Shaw, N. L. and Roundy, B. A., comps. Proceedings on Using Seeds of Native Species on Rangelands. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-372.Google Scholar
Sagar, G. R. and Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol 1:1–47.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Denny, M. K. 2006. Community response of nontarget species to herbicide application and removal of the nonindigenous invader Potentilla recta L. West. N. Am. Nat 66:55–63.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Sci 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manag 47:470–474.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Rinella, M. J. 2001. Incorporating biological control into ecologically based weed management. Pages 211–228 in Wajnberg, E., Scott, J. K., and Quimby, P. C. eds. Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. New York: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Svejcar, T. J. 2005. Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. Weed Sci 53:307–314.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1999a. Yellow starthistle. Pages 408–416 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Manoukian, M., and Marks, G. 1999b. Preventing noxious weed invasion. Pages 69–72 in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google 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 10:766–773.Google Scholar
Symstad, A. J. 2000. A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. Ecology 81:99–109.Google Scholar
Thoreau, H. D. 1860. Succession of forest trees. in New York Weekly Tribune. October 6.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1977. Resource competition between planktonic algae: An experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58:338–348.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1984. Plant dominance along an experimental nutrient gradient. Ecology 65:1445–1453.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turk, K. J. 1983. Greenhouse alfalfa germination/water trial. Manteca, CA: CelPril Industries Research Development Report 5:101–103.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. H. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grassland: An ecological assessment. Northwest Sci 62:151–160.Google Scholar
Velagala, R. P., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Interference between spotted knapweed and intermediate wheatgrass at low versus high densities. J. Range Manag 50:523–529.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. F. and Turk, K. J. 1988. Multifunctional seed coatings as an aid in plant establishment. Pages 216–220 in Proceedings of the 1988 Forage Grassland Conference, Baton Rouge, LA. Belleville, PA: American Forage and Grassland Council.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A. 2002a. Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Components. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A. 2002b. Plant species control of soil biota and processes. Pages 56–105 in Levin, S. A. and Horn, H. S. eds. Communities and Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Westoby, M., Walker, B., and Noy-Meir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manag 42:266–274.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4–10 in Proceedings on the Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. Washington, D.C.: USFS General Technical Report INT-276.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, P. S. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. Pages 3–13 in Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P. S. eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wright, H. A. and Bailey, A. W. 1982. Fire Ecology. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Zabinski, C. A., Quinn, L., and Callaway, R. M. 2002. Phosphorus uptake, not carbon transfer, explains arbuscular mycorrhizal enhancement of Centaurea maculosa in the presence of native grassland species. Funct. Ecol 16:758–765.Google Scholar