Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T22:36:55.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Himalaya Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) Response to Goat Browsing and Mowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Claudia S. Ingham
Claudia S. Ingham*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Rangeland Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Himalaya blackberry is a nonnative shrub that has invaded sites throughout the Pacific Northwest. Its persistent canopy and large underground crowns create a competitive environment that prevents desirable species from germinating, establishing, or both. Cutleaf blackberry grows in association with Himalaya blackberry, and control efforts frequently target these two species. Control of Himalaya blackberry is complicated by vigorous vegetative regrowth after mechanical control, including mowing, and variable response to chemical methods. Recent interest in the use of goat browsing for invasive plant control has led land managers to use a variety of browsing regimes to control unwanted species through disturbance by herbivory. This study examined changes in functional group percent cover in a perennial grass pasture invaded by Himalaya blackberry and cutleaf blackberry in the southern Willamette Valley of Oregon. The appearance of species and their functional group membership after three treatment protocols are evaluated. Changes in the percentage of cover by Himalaya and cutleaf blackberries, annual grasses, perennial grasses, annual forbs, and perennial forbs were examined after two annual treatments with (1) high-intensity–short-duration goat browsing, (2) mowing, and (3) high-intensity–short-duration goat browsing followed by mowing. These data were then compiled by functional group to assess trends in the plants' revegetating the pasture after treatment. All treatments caused a significant decline in the percent cover of the invasive blackberries (P < 0.0001), but differences among treatments were not significant. The increase in the percent cover of perennial forbs for plots treated with goat browsing followed by mowing was significantly greater (P = 0.008) than it was in plots browsed only and those mowed only. Changes in percent cover of other functional groups were not significantly different with browsing or mowing treatments. Individual species within the perennial grass and perennial forb groups are discussed.

Keywords

Cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus Willd.)Himalaya blackberry (Rubus armeniacus Focke)Functional grouppastureperennial grassesrestoration
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 532 - 539
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

Amor, RL (1974) Ecology and control of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L. agg.), III: response of R. procerus to mechanical removal of top growth and to foliage applied herbicides. Weed Res 14:239–243.Google Scholar
Bestelmeyer, BT, Brown, JR, Havstad, KM, Alexander, R, Chavez, G, Herrick, JE (2003) Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. J Range Manag 56:114–126.Google Scholar
Borman, MM (1989) Growth Characteristics and Site Potentials of Perennial Grass Species. Ph.D Dissertation. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Google Scholar
Borman, MM, Krueger, WC, Johnson, DE (1990) Growth patterns of perennial grasses in the annual grassland type of southwest Oregon. Agron J 82:1093–1098.Google Scholar
Borman, MM, Krueger, WC, Johnson, DE (1991) Effects of established perennial grasses on yields of associated annual weeds. J Range Manag 44:318–322.Google Scholar
Bruzzese, E, Lane, M (1996) The Blackberry Management Handbook. Melbourne, Australia Keith Turnbull Research Institute, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 49 pGoogle Scholar
Campbell, E, Taylor, CA (2006) Targeted grazing to manage weedy brush and trees. Pages 78–88 in Launchbaugh, K, ed. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Centennial, CO American Sheep Industry Association Google Scholar
Caplan, J, Yeakley, J (2010) Water relations advantages for invasive Rubus armeniacus over two native ruderal congeners. Plant Ecol 210:169–179.Google Scholar
Evans, MW (1958) Growth and Development in Certain Economic Grasses. Wooster, OH Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Agronomy Series 147. 112 pGoogle Scholar
Fierke, MK, Kauffman, JB (2006) Invasive species influence riparian plant diversity along a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Nat Areas J 26:376–392.Google Scholar
Gilkey, HM, Dennis, LR (1980) Handbook of Northwestern Plants. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University. 208 pGoogle Scholar
Grime, JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194.Google Scholar
Harper, JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. New York Academic Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Huenneke, LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337.Google Scholar
Hoffman, AA, Parsons, PA (1991) Evolutionary Genetics and Environmental Stress. Oxford Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Mathews, D (1992) Wild Blackberry. Pages 84 in Cascade-Olympic Natural History: A Trailside Reference. Portland, OR Raven Editions Google Scholar
McDowell, SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89:1431–1438.Google Scholar
National Climatic Data Center (2012) Comparative Climatic Data: For the United States through 2012. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ccd-data/CCD-2012.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2013Google Scholar
Oregon Department of Agriculture Plant Programs (2013) Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/docs/pdf/Policy2013.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2013Google Scholar
Pojar, J, MacKinnon, A, eds. (1994) Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Vancouver, BC, Canada Lone Pine. 78 pGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, ML, Sheley, RL, Zabinski, CA, Engel, RE, Svejcar, TE, Borkowski, JJ (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor Ecol 13:448–459.Google Scholar
Popay, I, Field, R (1996) Grazing animals as weed control agents. Weed Technol 10:217–231.Google Scholar
Radosevich, SR, Holt, JS, Ghersa, CM (2007) Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants: Relationship to Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Hoboken, NJ Wiley-Interscience. 121 pGoogle Scholar
Rapp, V (2005) Invasive Plants in 21st Century Landscapes. Portland, OR Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M (2000) Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Austral Ecol. 25:497–506.Google Scholar
SAS 9.1.3 Service Pack 4, 2003. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
Sheley, RL, Krueger-Mangold, J (2003) Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Sci 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sheley, R, Manoukian, M, Marks, G (2002) Preventing Noxious Weed Invasion. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension Service MT199517 AG8/2002Google Scholar
Sindel, BM (2000) Weeds and their impact. Pages 3–16 in Sindel, BM, ed. Australian Weed Management Systems. Melbourne, Australia RG & FJ Richardson Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (2006) Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 12, 2014Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J, Hatch, SL, Landholt, LM (2003) North American Wildland Plants. 6th edn. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska Press. 161 pGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M, Walker, B, Noy-Meir, I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manag 42:266–274.Google Scholar
Whisenant, SG (2002) Repairing Damaged Wildlands: A Process-Oriented, Landscape-Scale Approach. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 312 pGoogle Scholar
Woodward, FI, Smith, TM, Shugart, HH (1997) Defining plant functional types: the end view. Pages 355–359 in Smith, TM, Shugart, HH, Woodward, FI, eds. Plant Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Wright, JP, Naeem, S, Hector, A, Lehman, C, Reich, PB, Schmid, B, Tilman, D (2006) Conventional functional classification schemes underestimate the relationship with ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 9:111–120.Google Scholar