Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T10:44:56.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wildfire Suppression—A Paradigm for Noxious Weed Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven A. Dewey ,
Michael J. Jenkins  and
Robert C. Tonioli
Steven A. Dewey
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils and Biometeorology Dep., Utah State Univ., Logan, UT 84322-4820
Michael J. Jenkins
Affiliation:
For. Res. Dep., Utah State Univ., Logan, UT 84322-5215
Robert C. Tonioli
Affiliation:
Ogden Ranger District, Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 507 25th St, Ogden, UT 54401-2406
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spread of noxious weeds on rangeland and forests in the United States has been described as a raging biological wildfire. This analogy applies to aspects of spread, impact, and control of weeds. Patterns and means of spread are similar. Noxious weeds and wildfires can dramatically change natural plant communities, alter distribution and species composition of wildlife populations, damage watersheds and increase soil erosion, and adversely affect recreation and aesthetic values. Wildfire management involves prevention, early detection, timely control, and site rehabilitation; elements which are also the foundation of sound weed management. Principles and practices associated with wildfire suppression can be used to illustrate many weed science fundamentals, and to improve weed management programs. Federal land management agencies are directed to train employees in effective weed management and to increase public awareness about noxious weeds. Most agency employees are familiar with wildfire management; knowledge which could be useful in teaching weed management principles. Fire prevention could serve as a model to promote greater public awareness of the impact of noxious weeds and the need for weed prevention and early detection.

Keywords

Educationextension
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 621 - 627
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1994. Smokey Bear turns 50. Parade magazine, Feb. 6. p. 6.Google Scholar
2. Asher, J. E. 1993. Noxious weeds in eastern Oregon. U.S. Dep. of Interior, Bureau of Land Manage., Oregon State Off. Rep., Oct. 5. Portland, OR. 80 p.Google Scholar
3. Asher, J. E. 1994 Rapid expansion of noxious weeds on BLM rangeland: impacts and solutions. Proc. Idaho Weed Control Assoc., Boise, ID. p. 63–64.Google Scholar
4. Bedunah, D. J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, grazing, and wildlife. West. Wildlands 18(2):6–11.Google Scholar
5. Bedunah, D. J. and Carpenter, J. 1989. Plant community response following spotted knapweed control on three elk winter ranges in western Montana. Knapweed Symp. Proc., Montana State Univ. Ext. Bull. 45. p. 205–212.Google Scholar
6. Cheater, M. 1992. Alien invasion. Nat. Conserv. Sept./Oct. p. 24–29.Google Scholar
7. Dewey, S. A., Price, K. P., and Ramsey, D. 1991. Satellite remote sensing to predict potential distribution of dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria). Weed Technol. 5:479–484.Google Scholar
8. Everitt, J. H., and Deloach, C. J. 1990. Remote sensing of Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) and associated vegetation. Weed Sci. 38:273–278.Google Scholar
9. Everitt, J. H., Pettit, R. D., and Alaniz, M. A. 1987. Remote sensing of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) and spiny aster (Aster spinosus). Weed Sci. 35:295–302.Google Scholar
10. Forcella, F. 1992. Invasive weeds in the Northern Rocky Mountains. West. Wildlands 18(2):2–5.Google Scholar
11. Johnson, K. H., Olson, R. A., Whitson, T. D., and Swearington, R. J. 1994. Biodiversity associated with various tebuthiuron application rates in selected northcentral Wyoming sagebrush communities. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 46:67–72.Google Scholar
12. Johnson, K. H., Olson, R. A., Whitson, T. D., Swearington, R. J., and Kurz, G. L. 1994. Ecological implications of Russian knapweed infestations: small mammal and habitat associations. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 46:98–101.Google Scholar
13. Kummerow, M. 1992. Weeds in wilderness: a threat to biodiversity. West. Wildlands 18(2):12–17.Google Scholar
14. Lacey, J. R. and Olson, B. E. 1991. Environmental and economic impacts of noxious range weeds. p. 5–16 in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds: Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
15. Lacey, J. R., Marlow, C. B., and Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed on runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol. 3:627–631.Google Scholar
16. Mack, R. N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the Intermountain West: a case history. p. 192–213 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
17. Moody, M. E. and Mack, R. N. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nacent foci. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:1009–1021.Google Scholar
18. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 1986. Firefighters Guide. USDA-FS Bull. NFES 1571, USDI-BLM Bull. PMS 414-1. Boise Interagency Fire Center, ID. 213 p.Google Scholar
19. Rice, P. M., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1992. Plant community diversity after herbicide control of spotted knapweed. USDA-FS Res. Pap. INT-460, Intermountain Res. Stn., Ogden, UT. 6 p.Google Scholar
20. Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA-FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143, Intermountain Res. Stn., Ogden, UT. 161 p.Google Scholar
21. Rothermel, R. C., Hartford, R. A., and Chase, C. H. 1994. Fire growth maps for the 1988 Greater Yellowstone Area fires. USDA-FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-304, Intermountain Res. Stn., Ogden, UT. 64 p.Google Scholar
22. Spoon, C. W., Bowles, H. R., and Kulla, A. 1983. Noxious weeds on the Lolo National Forest: a situation analysis staff paper. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 11 p.Google Scholar
23. Stroh, R. K., Bangsund, D., and Leitch, J. A. 1990. Leafy spurge patch expansion. Agric. Econ. Paper No. 90001, Agric. Exp. Stn., N. Dakota State Univ., Fargo. 17 p.Google Scholar
24. U.S. Dep. of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1986. Intermountain region noxious weed and poisonous plant control program; final environmental impact statement. J. L. Foss, EIS Team Leader. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 489 p.Google Scholar
25. U.S. Dep. of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1993. Noxious weed management policy. Fed. Reg. 56(232):64289–64293.Google Scholar
26. U.S. Dep. of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1993. Fire management analysis and planning handbook. FSH-5109.19, Ch 60. p. 1–5.Google Scholar
27. U.S. Dep. of Interior-Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Northwest area noxious weed control program final environmental impact statement. R. G. Simmons, Team Leader. BLM State Office, Portland, OR. 295 p.Google Scholar
28. U.S. Dep. of Interior-Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Final environmental impact statement, vegetation treatment on BLM lands in thirteen western states. J. Melton, Team Leader. BLM-WY-ES-91-022-4320. BLM State Office, Casper, WY. 316 p.Google Scholar
29. U.S. Dep. of Interior-Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Partners Against Weeds—An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management Fiscal Year 1995 and Beyond. BLM State Office, Billings, MT. 39 p.Google Scholar
30. U.S. Dep. of Interior-National Interagency Fire Center. 1994. National Interagency Coordination Center Statistics and Summary. NIFC, Boise, ID. 54 p.Google Scholar
31. Wallace, N. M., Leitch, J. A., and Leistritz, F. L. 1992. Economic impact of leafy spurge on North Dakota Wildland. N.D. Farm Res. 49(5):9–13.Google Scholar