Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHulet, April
dc.contributor.authorRoundy, Bruce A.
dc.contributor.authorJessop, Brad
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-05T06:52:51Z
dc.date.available2020-09-05T06:52:51Z
dc.date.issued2010-07-01
dc.identifier.citationHulet, A., Roundy, B. A., & Jessop, B. (2010). Crested wheatgrass control and native plant establishment in Utah. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 63(4), 450-460.
dc.identifier.issn0022-409X
dc.identifier.doi10.2111/REM-D-09-00067.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/642806
dc.description.abstractEffective control methods need to be developed to reduce crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum [L.] Gaertner) monocultures and promote the establishment of native species. This research was designed to determine effective ways to reduce crested wheatgrass and establish native species while minimizing weed invasion. We mechanically (single- or double-pass disking) and chemically (1.1 L ha-1 or 3.2 L ha-1 glyphosate-Roundup Original Max) treated two crested wheatgrass sites in northern Utah followed by seeding native species in 2005 and 2006. The study was conducted at each site as a randomized block split plot design with five blocks. Following wheatgrass-reduction treatments, plots were divided into 0.2-ha subplots that were either unseeded or seeded with native plant species using a Truax Rough Rider rangeland drill. Double-pass disking in 2005 best initially controlled wheatgrass and decreased cover from 14% to 6% at Lookout Pass and from 14% to 4% at Skull Valley in 2006. However, crested wheatgrass recovered to similar cover percentages as untreated plots 2-3 yr after wheatgrass-reduction treatments. At the Skull Valley site, cheatgrass cover decreased by 14% on herbicide-treated plots compared to an increase of 33% on mechanical-treated plots. Cheatgrass cover was also similar on undisturbed and treated plots 2 yr and 3 yr after wheatgrass-reduction treatments, indicating that wheatgrass recovery minimized any increases in weed dominance as a result of disturbance. Native grasses had high emergence after seeding, but lack of survival was associated with short periods of soil moisture availability in spring 2007. Effective wheatgrass control may require secondary treatments to reduce the seed bank and open stands to dominance by seeded native species. Manipulation of crested wheatgrass stands to restore native species carries the risk of weed invasion if secondary treatments effectively control the wheatgrass and native species have limited survival due to drought. 
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSociety for Range Management
dc.relation.urlhttps://rangelands.org/
dc.rightsCopyright © Society for Range Management.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectAgropyrum cristatum
dc.subjectassisted succession
dc.subjectbridging communities
dc.subjectmechanical and chemical control
dc.subjectRoundup Original Max
dc.titleCrested Wheatgrass Control and Native Plant Establishment in Utah
dc.typetext
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.journalRangeland Ecology & Management
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Rangeland Ecology & Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact lbry-journals@email.arizona.edu for further information.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.description.admin-noteMigrated from OJS platform August 2020
dc.source.volume63
dc.source.issue4
dc.source.beginpage450-460
refterms.dateFOA2020-09-05T06:52:51Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
20054-34903-1-PB.pdf
Size:
1.694Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record