Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-vkn6t Total loading time: 0.354 Render date: 2022-08-09T14:09:59.139Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

A Theoretical Framework for Developing Successional Weed Management Strategies on Rangeland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Tony J. Svejcar
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Eastern Oregon Agric. Center, Burns, OR 97220
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717

Abstract

Sustainable rangeland management will require successional strategies to deal with the expanding weed problem. These strategies must be consistent with the view that plant communities are dynamic and technology is used to enhance the natural processes and mechanisms that direct vegetation change. The goal is to shift the dynamics toward a desired plant community. A unified conceptual model is necessary to direct the development and application of successional weed management systems. We propose using a resource management model as a conceptual basis for successional weed management. This model is based on the primary causes of succession: site availability, differential species availability, and differential species performance. This model provides the mechanistic framework necessary for developing successional weed management systems and it is meant to enhance communication among rangeland weed managers and scientists.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Allen, E. B. and Allen, M. F. 1988. Facilitation of succession by the nonmycotrophic colonizer Salsola kali (Chenopodiaceae) on harsh site: Effects of mycorrhizal fungi. Am. J. Bot. 75:257266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Allen, M. F. 1988. Below ground structure: A key to reconstructing a productive arid system, p. 113135 in Allen, E. B., ed. The reconstruction of disturbed arid lands: An ecological approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
3. Archer, S. 1989. Have southern Texas savannas been converted to woodlands in recent history? Am. Nat. 134:545561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bowes, G. C. and Thomas, A. G. 1978. Longevity of leafy spurge seeds in the soil following various control programs. J. Range Manage. 31:137140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Chapin, F. S. III., Schulze, E. D., and Mooney, H. A. 1992. Biodiversity and ecosystem process. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7:89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 242:1512.Google Scholar
7. Connell, S. L. and Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat. 111:11191144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Crawley, J. J. 1983. Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif.Google Scholar
10. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington, Washington Agric. Exp. Stm. Tech. Bull. No. 62.Google Scholar
11. De Pietri, D. E. 1992. Alien shrubs in a national park: Can they help in the natural degraded forest. Biol. Conserv. 62:127130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative ecology. J. Range Manage. 2:104115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Fay, P., Whitson, T., Dewey, S., and Sheley, R. 1995. Weed Management Handbook. Montana State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. EB23.Google Scholar
14. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
15. Harris, P. 1980. Effects of Urophora affinis Frfld. and U. quadrifasciata (Meig.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Centaurea diffusa L. and C. maculosa Lam. (Compositae). Z. Angew. Entomol. 90:190201.Google Scholar
16. Huffaker, C. B. 1967. A comparison of the status of biological control of St. Johnswort in California and Australia. Mushi 29: (Suppl.) 5173.Google Scholar
17. Johnston, A. and Peake, R. W. 1960. Effect of selective grazing by sheep on the control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). J. Range Manage. 13:192195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Lacey, C. A., Kott, R. W., and Fay, P. K. 1984. Ranchers control leafy spurge. Rangelands 6:202204.Google Scholar
19. 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. 3:627631.Google Scholar
20. Lacey, J. R. and Sheley, R. L. 1996. Leafy spurge and grass response to picloram and intensive grazing. J. Range Manage. 49:311314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Larson, L. L. and McInnis, M. L. 1989. Impact of grass seedlings on establishment and density of diffuse knapweed and yellow starthistle. Northwest Sci. 63:162166.Google Scholar
22. Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: A viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44:427433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Louda, S. M., Keeler, K. H., and Holt, R. D. 1990. Herbivore influences on plant performance and competitive interactions. p. 413444 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
24. Luken, J. O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. Chapman and Hill, London.Google Scholar
25. MacArthur, R. H. 1962. Generalized theorems of natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 48:18931897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. MacMahon, J. A. 1987. Disturbed lands and ecological theory: An essay about a mutualistic association. p. 221237 in Jordan, W. R., Gilpin, M. E., and Aber, J. D., eds. Restoration ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge Univ. Press, NY.Google Scholar
27. 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
28. Nobel, I. R. and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbance. Vegetation 43:521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Olson, B. E., Wallander, R. T., and Lacey, J. R. 1997. Effects of sheep grazing on a spotted knapweed-infested Idaho fescue community. J. Range Manage. (in press).Google Scholar
30. Oomes, M.J.M. 1990. Changes in dry matter and nutrient yields during the restoration of species-rich grasslands. J. Vegetation Sci. 1:333338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Pickett, S.T.A., Collins, S. L., and Armesto, J. J. 1987. Models, mechanisms and pathways of succession. Bot. Rev. 53:335371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P. S. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
33. Provenza, F. D. 1991. Range management and range science. Rangelands 13:101103.Google Scholar
34. Pyke, D. A. and Archer, S. 1991. Plant-plant interactions affecting plant establishing and persistence on revegetated rangeland. J. Range Manage. 44:550557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Rosenberg, D. B. and Freedman, S. M. 1984. Application of a model of ecological succession to conservation and land-use management. Environ. Conserv. 11:323329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Sampson, A. W. 1917. Succession as a factor in range management. J. For. 15:593596.Google Scholar
37. Sampson, A. W. 1919. Plant succession in relation to range management. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 791.Google Scholar
38. Schlatterer, E. F. 1989. Toward a user-friendly ecosystem: myth or mirth? p. 223227 in Ferguson, D. E., Morgan, P., and Johnson, F. D., eds. Proc: Land Classifications Based on Vegetation: Applications for Resource Management. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-257. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
39. Sheley, R. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Response of spotted knapweed and grass to picloram and fertilizer combinations. J. Range Manage. (in press).Google Scholar
40. Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Observation: Comparative life-histories of cheatgrass and yellow starthistle. J. Range Manage. 47:450456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manage. 47:470474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1996. Emergence date effects on the resource partitioning among diffuse knapweed seedlings. J. Range Manage. 49:241244.Google Scholar
43. Sheley, R., Manoukian, M., and Marks, G. 1995. Preventing noxious weed invasion. Montana State Univ. Coop. Ext. MontGuide MT9517AG.Google Scholar
44. Sheley, R. L., Olson, B. E., and Larson, L. L. 1997. Effect of weed seed rate and grass defoliation on diffuse knapweed. J. Range Manage. (in press).Google Scholar
45. Svejcar, T. and Tausch, R. 1991. Anaho Island, Nevada: A relict area dominated by annual invader species. Rangelands 13:233236.Google Scholar
46. Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: A hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7:286297.Google Scholar
47. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
48. Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Dynamics of nitrogen competition between successional grasses. Ecology 72:10381049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. H. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Sci. 62:151160.Google Scholar
51. Wallander, R. T., Olson, B. E., and Lacey, J. R. 1995. Spotted knapweed seed viability after passing through sheep and mule deer. J. Range Manage. 48:145149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Westoby, M., Walker, B., and Noy-Meir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42:266274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Zamora, D. L. and Olivarez, J. P. 1994. The viability of seeds in feed pellets. Weed Technol. 8:148153.Google Scholar
59
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 Theoretical Framework for Developing Successional Weed Management Strategies on Rangeland
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 Theoretical Framework for Developing Successional Weed Management Strategies on Rangeland
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 Theoretical Framework for Developing Successional Weed Management Strategies on Rangeland
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? *