Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T19:23:11.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Picloram Application on Community Dominants Vary With Initial Levels of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) Invasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Yvette K. Ortega  and
Dean E. Pearson
Yvette K. Ortega*
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 800 E. Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801
Dean E. Pearson
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 800 E. Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: yortega@fs.fed.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broadleaf herbicides are commonly used to suppress exotic weeds with the intent of releasing native species from negative impacts of invasion. However, weed control measures can also have unintended consequences that should be considered along with intended effects. We conducted a controlled field experiment within bunchgrass communities of western Montana to examine if broadcast application of the broadleaf herbicide, picloram, may mitigate impacts of the exotic forb, spotted knapweed, on the dominant native grass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and forb, arrowleaf balsamroot. Local-scale relationships between native species and spotted knapweed cover served as a baseline for evaluating treatment effects at differing spotted knapweed invasion levels. To examine secondary invasion, we also measured treatment effects on the exotic grass, downy brome, relative to initial levels of spotted knapweed cover. Picloram application suppressed spotted knapweed cover by 70 to 80%. Treatment appeared to release cover and seed production of bluebunch wheatgrass, causing increases that varied positively with initial spotted knapweed cover. Bluebunch wheatgrass measures were elevated by as much as fourfold in treated vs. control plots, exceeding baseline levels in noninvaded plots. For arrowleaf balsamroot, negative effects of treatment prevailed, particularly where initial spotted knapweed cover was low. Arrowleaf balsamroot cover and fecundity variables were reduced by as much as 60% in treated vs. control plots, to levels typifying baseline conditions in highly invaded plots. In addition, treatment released downy brome, with cover increases from 2- to 20-fold. A controlled experiment selectively removing spotted knapweed showed similar release of downy brome. Our results show that picloram effects can depend on initial levels of weed invasion and may include substantial side effects, particularly when broadcast applications are used. Integrated approaches that include seeding of desirable species may be needed to enhance plant community resistance to secondary invaders and reinvasion by the target weed.

Keywords

Picloramdowny brome, Bromus tectorum L. BRTEspotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe L. CEST8arrowleaf balsamroot, Balsamorhiza sagittata (Pursh) Nutt. BASA3bluebunch wheatgrass, Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Löve PSSP6Cheatgrasscompetitive releaseexotic plantsinvader impactsnontarget effectsrestorationsecondary invasion

Information

Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 70 - 80
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

Buckley, Y. M., Bolker, B. M., and Rees, M. 2007. Disturbance, invasion and re-invasion: managing the weed-shaped whole in disturbed ecosystems. Ecol. Lett 10:809–817.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M., DeLuca, T. H., and Belliveau, W. M. 1999. Biological-control herbivores may increase competitive ability of the noxious weed Centaurea maculosa . Ecology 80:1196–1201.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C., Roundy, B. A., Blank, R. R., Meyer, S. E., and Whittaker, A. 2007. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol. Monogr 77:117–145.Google Scholar
Crone, E. E., Marler, M., and Pearson, D. E. 2009. Non-target effects of broadleaf herbicide on native perennial forbs: a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts. J. Appl. Ecol 46:673–682.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M., Jackson, N. E., Horvitz, C. C., and Hedberg, R. 2004. Invasive plants in wildland ecosystems: merging the study of invasion processes with management needs. Front. Ecol. Environ 2:513–521.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 23:63–87.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265.Google Scholar
Dow AgroSciences, , 2001. Tordon 22K. Specimen Label. New York C & P. 7.Google Scholar
Endress, B. A., Parks, C. G., Naylor, B. J., and Radosevich, S. R. 2008. Herbicide and native grass seeding effects on sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)-infested grasslands. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage 1:50–58.Google Scholar
Freville, H. and Silvertown, J. 2005. Analysis of interspecific competition in perennial plants using Life Table Response Experiments. Plant Ecol 176:69–78.Google Scholar
Grabe, D. F. 1970. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook for Agricultural Seeds. Lincoln, NE Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62.Google Scholar
Hillebrand, H. H., Bennett, D. M., and Cadotte, M. W. 2008. Consequences of dominance: a review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes. Ecology 89:1510–1520.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol 9:761–770.Google Scholar
Kedzie-Webb, S. A., Sheley, R. L., and Borkowski, J. J. 2002. Predicting plant community response to picloram. J. Range Manage 55:576–583.Google Scholar
Lesica, P. and Shelly, J. S. 1996. Competitive effects of Centaurea maculosa on the population dynamics of Arabis fecunda . Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 123:111–121.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. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci 270:775–781.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Marler, M. J., Zabinski, C. A., and Callaway, R. M. 1999. Mycorrhizae indirectly enhance competitive effects of an invasive forb on a native bunchgrass. Ecology 80:1180–1186.Google Scholar
Maron, J. L. and Marler, M. J. 2007. Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88:2652–2661.Google Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. and Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of Western Montana. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-66. 151.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd ed. Burr Ridge, IL Irwin. 1181.Google Scholar
Ortega, Y. K., McKelvey, K. S., and Six, D. 2006. Invasion of an exotic forb impacts reproductive success and site fidelity of a migratory songbird. Oecologia 149:340–351.Google Scholar
Ortega, Y. K. and Pearson, D. E. 2005. Strong versus weak invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecol. Appl 15:651–661.Google Scholar
Pearson, D. E. and Fletcher, R. J. Jr. 2008. Mitigating exotic impacts: restoring native deer mouse populations elevated by an exotic food subsidy. Ecol. Appl 18:321–334.Google Scholar
Pearson, D. E. and Ortega, Y. K. 2009. Managing invasive plants in natural areas: moving beyond weed control. Pages 1–21. in Columbus, F. Weeds: Management, Economic Impacts and Biology. New York Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L., Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Engel, R. E. 2004. Plant species diversity in a grassland plant community: evidence for forbs as a critical management. West. N. Am. Nat 64:219–230.Google Scholar
Reever Morghan, K. J., Leger, E. A., and Rice, K. J. 2003. Clopyralid effects on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and nontarget species. Weed Sci 51:596–600.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. and Toney, J. C. 1998. Exotic weed control treatments for conservation of fescue grassland in Montana. Biol. Conserv 85:83–95.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M., Toney, J. C., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa . J. Appl. Ecol 34:1397–1412.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., Weaver, T., and Sheley, R. L. 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecol. Appl 19:155–162.Google Scholar
Seastedt, T. R., Hobbs, R. J., and Suding, K. N. 2008. Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Front. Ecol. Environ 6:547–553.Google 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 53:176–182.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mangold, J. M., and Anderson, J. L. 2006. Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant dominated rangeland. Ecol. Monogr 76:365–379.Google Scholar
Shepard, J. P., Creighton, J., and Duzan, H. 2004. Forestry herbicides in the United States: an overview. Wildl. Soc. Bull 32:1020–1027.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., Parker, I. M., and Windle, P. N. 2005. Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:12–20.Google Scholar
Smith, M. D. and Knapp, A. K. 2003. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss. Ecol. Lett 6:509–517.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., Menalled, F. D., and Rew, L. J. 2006. Lessons from agriculture may improve the management of invasive plants in wildland systems. Front. Ecol. Environ 4:428–434.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1989. Using Multivariate Statistics. New York HarperCollins. 746.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W., Asebrook, J. M., Potter, R. W., and Kurth, L. L. 1998. Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park, USA: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restor. Ecol 6:197–206.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001. Big Game Winter Range and Burned Area Weed Management on the Lolo National Forest. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, MT USDA U.S. Forest Service, Lolo NF. 391.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2008. Integrated Weed Management on the Lolo National Forest. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, MT USDA U.S. Forest Service, Lolo NF. 304.Google Scholar
Vasquez, E., Sheley, R., and Svejcar, T. 2008. Nitrogen enhances the competitive ability of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) relative to native grasses. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage 1:287–295.Google Scholar