Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:00:40.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating winter annual grass control and native species establishment following applications of indaziflam on rangeland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2020

Shannon L. Clark Open the ORCID record for Shannon L. Clark [Opens in a new window] ,
Derek J. Sebastian Open the ORCID record for Derek J. Sebastian [Opens in a new window] ,
Scott J. Nissen  and
James R. Sebastian
Shannon L. Clark*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Derek J. Sebastian
Affiliation:
Western Area Sales Manager, Bayer Vegetation Management, Bayer U.S., Cary, NC, USA
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Agricultural Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
James R. Sebastian
Affiliation:
Weed Resource Specialist, Boulder County Parks and Open Space, Longmont, CO, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Shannon L. Clark, Department of Agricultural Biology, Colorado State University, 1177 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO80523. (Email: Shannon. Clark@colostate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indaziflam, a PRE herbicide option for weed management on rangeland and natural areas, provides long-term control of invasive winter annual grasses (IWAGs). Because indaziflam only provides PRE control of IWAGs, POST herbicides such as glyphosate can be mixed with indaziflam to control germinated IWAG seedlings. Field trials were conducted at three sites on the Colorado Front Range to evaluate glyphosate dose required to provide adequate POST IWAG control and compare long-term downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.), Japanese brome (Bromus arvensis L.), and feral rye (Secale cereale L.) control with indaziflam and imazapic. Two of the three sites were void of desirable species, so species establishment through drill seeding was assessed, while the remnant native plant response was assessed at the third site. Herbicide applications were made March 2014 through April 2015, and two sites were drill seeded with native species 9 mo after herbicide application. Yearly visual control evaluations, biomass of all plant species, and drilled species stand counts were collected. Glyphosate at 474 g ae ha−1 reduced B. tectorum biomass to zero, while glyphosate at 631 g ae ha−1 was needed to reduce biomass to near zero at the S. cereale site. At all three sites, only indaziflam treatments had significant reductions in IWAG biomass compared with the nontreated check at 3 yr after treatment (YAT). By 3 YAT in the drill-seeded sites, cool-season grass frequency ranged from 37% to 69% within indaziflam treatments (73 and 102 g ai ha−1), while imazapic treatments ranged from 0% to 26% cool-season grass frequency. In the site with a remnant native plant community, indaziflam treatments resulted in a 3- to 4-fold increase in native grass biomass. These results indicate that the multiyear IWAG control provided by indaziflam can aid in desirable species reestablishment through drill seeding or response of the remnant plant community.

Keywords

Bromus arvensisBromus tectorumdrill seedingrangeland restorationrevegetationSecale cereale
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 199 - 209
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Edith Allen, University of California, Riverside

References

Abatzoglou, JT, Kolden, CA (2011) Climate change in Western US deserts: potential for increased wildfire and invasive annual grasses. Rangeland Ecol Manag 64:471–478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Accord® XRT II herbicide product label. Dow Label Code D02-351-004 Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Glyphosate 5.4® herbicide product label. Opelika, AL: Alligare LLC. 29 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Roundup Weathermax® herbicide product label. Monsanto Publication No. 63003R9-40. St Louis, MO: Monsanto. 24 pGoogle Scholar
Belnap, J, Ludwig, JA, Wilcox, BP, Betancourt, JL, Dean, WRJ, Hoffmann, BD, Milton, SJ (2012) Introduced and invasive species in novel rangeland ecosystems: friends or foes? Rangeland Ecol Manag 65:569–578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabham, C, Lei, L, Gu, Y, Stork, J, Barrett, M, DeBolt, S (2014) Indaziflam herbicidal action: a potent cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor. Plant Physiol 166:1177–1185 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burger, JC, Lee, S, Ellstrand, NC (2006) Origin and genetic structure of feral rye in the western United States. Mol Ecol 15:2527–2539 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, JC, Bradley, BA, Brown, CS, D’Antonio, C, Germino, MJ, Grace, JB, Hardegree, SP, Miller, RF, Pyke, DA (2014) Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems 17:360–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, JC, Roundy, BA, Blank, RR, Meyer, SE, Whittaker, A (2007) What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol Monogr 77:117–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, SL, Sebastian, DJ, Nissen, SJ, Sebastian, JR (2019) Effect of indaziflam on native species in natural areas and rangeland. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 12:60–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Community Collaborative Rain, Snow, and Hail Network (2020) Colorado Station Precipitation Summary. http://www.cocorahs.org/ViewData/StationPrecipSummary.aspx. Accessed: July 27, 2020Google Scholar
Davies, KW (2010) Revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecol Manag 63:564–571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, KW, Boyd, CS (2018) Longer-term evaluation of revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecol Manag 71:292–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, KW, Johnson, DD (2011) Are we “missing the boat” on preventing the spread of invasive plants in rangelands? Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:166–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Masters, RA, Peterson, VF (2010) Rangeland invasive plant management. Rangelands 32:43–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, CA, Jachetta, JJ, Brown, ML, Carrithers, VF, Clark, JK, DiTomaso, JM, Lym, RG, McDaniel, KC, Renz, MJ, Rice, PM (2004) Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol 18:1411–1416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellstrand, NC, Heredia, SM, Leak-Garcia, JA, Heraty, JM, Burger, JC, Yao, L, Nohzadeh-Malakshah, S, Ridley, CE (2010) Crops gone wild: evolution of weeds and invasives from domesticated ancestors. Evol Appl 3:494–504 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ethridge, DE, Sherwood, RD, Sosebee, RE, Herbel, CH (1997) Economic feasibility of rangeland seeding in the arid south-west. J Range Manage 50:185–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, RA, Young, JA (1977) Weed control revegetation systems for big sagebrush-downy brome rangelands. J Range Manage 30:331–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowers, B (2015) Weed Management Options to Improve Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. PhD. dissertation. Laramie: University of Wyoming. 100 pGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Arico, S, Aronson, J, Baron, JS, Bridgewater, P, Cramer, VA, Epstein, PR, Ewel, JJ, Klink, CA, Lugo, AE, Norton, D, Ojima, D, Richardson, DM, Sanderson, EW, Valladares, F, et al. (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, LD, Schupp, EW (2001) Seed banks of Bromus tectorum–dominated communities in the great basin. West N Am Nat 61:85–92 Google Scholar
Kelley, WK, Fernandez-Gimenez, ME, Brown, CS (2013) Managing downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in the central Rockies: land manager perspectives. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:521–535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koby, LE, Prather, TS, Quicke, H, Beuschlein, J, Burke, IC (2019) Management of Ventenata dubia in the inland Pacific Northwest with indaziflam. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 12:223–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, PA (1996) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin desert: history, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environ Change 6:37–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, Creech, JE, Zhang, JM, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Selective control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California sagebrush scrub using low rates of glyphosate. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, Wilson, RG, Zhang, JM, DiTomaso, JM (2013) Herbicide-assisted restoration of Great Basin sagebrush steppe infested with medusahead and downy brome. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66:588–596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, RG, Becker, RL, Moechnig, MJ, Halstvedt, MB, Peterson, VF (2017) Native grass establishment following application of pyridine herbicides. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 10:110–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN, Pyke, DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum: variation in time and space. J Ecol 71:69–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, J, Parkinson, H (2015) Integrating herbicides and re-seeding to restore rangeland infested by an invasive forb-annual grass complex. Restor Ecol 33:16–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, J, Parkinson, H, Duncan, C, Rice, P, Davis, E, Menalled, F (2013) Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control with imazapic on Montana grasslands. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:554–558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManamen, C, Nelson, CR, Wagner, V (2018) Timing of seeding after herbicide application influences rates of germination and seedling biomass of native plants used for grassland restoration. Restor Ecol 26:1137–1148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TA, Mangold, JM, Mealor, BA, Mealor, RD, Brown, CS (2017) Downy brome control and impacts on perennial grass abundance: a systematic review spanning 64 years. Rangeland Ecol Manag 70:396–404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C, Monaco, TA, Rigby, CW (2009) Variable impacts of imazapic rate on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and seeded species in two rangeland communities. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:110–119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C, Morris, LR, Surface, C (2016) Spring glyphosate application for selective control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) on great basin rangelands. Weed Technol 30:297–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Rinella, MJ, Mangold, JM, Espeland, EK, Sheley, RL, Jacobs, JS (2012) Long-term population dynamics of seeded plants in invaded grasslands. Ecol Appl 22:1320–1329 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roerig, KC, Ransom, CV (2017) Expansion of feral cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) on non-crop hillsides in northern Utah. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 10:26–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbatella, GM, Wilson, RG, Enloe, SF, Hicks, C (2011) Propoxycarbazone-sodium and imazapic effects on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and newly seeded perennial grasses. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:78–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastian, DJ, Fleming, MB, Patterson, EL, Sebastian, JR, Nissen, SJ (2017a) Indaziflam: a new cellulose biosynthesis inhibiting herbicide provides long-term control of invasive winter annual grasses. Pest Manag Sci 73:2149–2162 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebastian, DJ, Nissen, SJ, Rodrigues, JD (2016a) Pre-emergence control of six invasive winter annual grasses with imazapic and indaziflam. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 9:308–316 Google Scholar
Sebastian, DJ, Nissen, SJ, Sebastian, JR, Beck, KG (2017b) Seed bank depletion: the key to long-term downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) management. Rangeland Ecol Manag 70:477–483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastian, DJ, Sebastian, JR, Nissen, SJ, Beck, KG (2016b) A potential new herbicide for invasive annual grass control on rangeland. Rangeland Ecol Manag 69:195–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, SL, Thill, DC (2004) Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol 18:60–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, WL, Westra, P (2000) The seedbank dynamics of feral rye Secale cereale . Weed Technol 14:7–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tateno, M, Brabham, C, DeBolt, S (2016) Cellulose biosynthesis inhibitors—a multifunctional toolbox. J Exp Bot 67:533–542 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thill, DC, Beck, KG, Callihan, RH (1984) The biology of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci 32:7–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2014) Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed: August 20, 2018Google Scholar
Weltz, MA, Coates-Markle, L, Narayanan, R (2011) Wildfire and invasive plants in American deserts: a special feature. Rangeland Ecol Manag 64:429–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitson, TD, Koch, DW (1998) Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) with herbicides and perennial grass competition. Weed Technol 12:391–396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RG, Orloff, SB, Lancaster, DL, Kirby, DW, Carlson, HL (2010) Integrating herbicide use and perennial grass revegetation to suppress weeds in noncrop areas. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 3:81–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JA (2000) Cheatgrass control and seeding. Rangelands 22:3–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Clark et al. supplementary material

Figure S3
Download Clark et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 110.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Clark et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Clark et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 191 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Clark et al. supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Clark et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 116 KB