Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:54:53.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen Enhances the Competitive Ability of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Relative to Native Grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward Vasquez ,
Roger Sheley  and
Tony Svejcar
Edward Vasquez*
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720
Roger Sheley
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720
Tony Svejcar
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasion by cheatgrass and the associated high fire frequency can displace native plant communities from a perennial to an annual grass driven system. Our overall objective of this study was to determine the potential to favor desired native perennial bunchgrasses over annual grasses by altering plant available mineral nitrogen (N). In the first study, we grew cheatgrass and three native bunch grasses (native grasses were combined in equal proportions) in an addition series experimental design and applied one of three N treatments (0, 137, and 280 mg N/kg soil). Regression models were used to derive the effects of intra- and interspecific competition on individual plant yield of cheatgrass and the native bunch grasses (combined). In our second study, we compared the absolute growth rate of the four plant species grown in isolation in a randomized complete block design for 109 days under the same soil N treatments as the competition study. Predicted mean average weight of isolated individuals increased with increasing soil N concentrations for both cheatgrass and the three native perennials (P < 0.05). Biomass of cheatgrass and its competitive ability increased with increasing soil N concentrations (P < 0.0001) compared to the combined native bunchgrasses. However, the greatest resource partitioning occurred at the 137 mg N/kg soil N treatment compared to the 0 (control) and 280 mg N/kg soil treatments, suggesting there may be a level of N that minimizes competition. In the second study, the absolute growth of cheatgrass grown in isolation also increased with increasing N levels (P = 0.0297). Results and ecological implications of this study suggest that increasing soil N leads to greater competitive ability of cheatgrass, and that it may be possible to favor desired plant communities by modifying soil nutrient levels.

Keywords

Bluebunch wheatgrass, Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Love PSSP6Idaho fescue, Festuca idahoensis Elmer FEIDneedle and thread, Hesperostipa comata (Trin. and Rupr.) Barkworth HECO26cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum L BRTEInvasive plantsplant available nitrogencompetitioninterferencecheatgrass
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 287 - 295
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Arredondo, J. T., Jones, T. A., and Johnson, D. A. 1998. Seedling growth of intermountain perennial and weedy annual grasses. J. Range Manage 51:584–589.Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Phillips, S. L., Sherrod, S. K., and Moldenke, A. 2005. Soil biota can change after exotic plant invasion: does this effect ecosystem processes. Ecology 86:3007–3017.Google Scholar
Berendse, F. and Elberse, W. T. 1990. Competition and nutrient availability in heathland and grassland ecosystems. Pages 93–116. in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., editors. Perspectives on Plant Competition. Caldwell, NJ Blackburn.Google Scholar
Bradley, B. A. and Mustard, J. F. 2006. Characterizing the landscape dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote sensing. Ecol. Appl 16:1132–1147.Google Scholar
Bidwell, S., Attiwill, P. M., and Adams, M. A. 2006. Nitrogen availability and weed invasion in a remnant native woodland in urban Melbourne. Austral. Ecol 3:262–270.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. 2006. Interactions between resource availability and enemy release in plant invasion. Ecol. Lett 9:887–895.Google Scholar
Casals, P., Romanya, J., Cortina, J., Fons, J., Bode, M., and Vellejo, V. R. 1995. Nitrogen supply rate in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forest of contrasting slope aspect. Plant Soil 168–169:67–73.Google Scholar
Casper, B. B. and Jackson, R. B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 28:545–570.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
Crain, J. M. 2006. Competition for nutrients and optimal root allocation. Plant Soil 285:171–185.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst 34:183–211.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycles, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 23:63–87.Google Scholar
Drohan, P. J., Merkler, D. J., and Buck, B. J. 2005. Suitability of the plant root simulator probe for use in the Mojave Desert. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 69:1482–1491.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., Brown, M. L., Carrithers, V. F., Clark, J. K., Ditomaso, J. M., Lym, R. G., McDaniel, K. C., Renz, M. J., and Rice, P. M. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol 18:1411–1416.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.Google Scholar
Fowler, N. 1986. The role of competition in plant communities in arid and semiarid regions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 17:89–110.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. and Barton, A. M. 1992. Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am. Nat 139:771–801.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 2007. Plant strategy theories: a comment on Crain (2005). J. Ecol 95:227–230.Google Scholar
Hangs, R. D., Greer, K. J., and Sulewski, C. A. 2004. The effect of interspecific competition on conifer seedling growth and nitrogen availability measured using ion-exchange membranes. Can. J. For. Res 34:754–761.Google Scholar
Harpole, W. S. 2006. Resource-ratio theory and the control of invasive plants. Plant Soil 280:23–27.Google Scholar
Harrison, S., Inouye, B. D., and Safford, H. D. 2003. Ecological heterogeneity in the effects of grazing and fire on grassland diversity. Conserv. Biol 17:837–845.Google Scholar
Herron, G. J., Sheley, R. L., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability on the interaction between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. Restor. Ecol 9:326–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. J. and Drenovsky, R. E. 2007. A basis for relative growth rate differences between native and invasive forb seedlings. J. Range Manage 60:395–400.Google Scholar
James, J. J. and Richards, J. H. 2007. Influence of temporal heterogeneity in nitrogen supply on competitive interactions in a desert shrub community. Oecologia 152:721–727.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Walker, R. F., and Ball, J. T. 1995. Lessons from lysimeters: soil N release from disturbance compromises controlled environment study. Ecol. Appl 5:395–400.Google Scholar
Kahmen, A., Renker, C., Unsicker, S. B., and Buckman, N. 2006. Niche complementary for nitrogen: an explanation for the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relationship. Ecology 87:1244–1255.Google Scholar
Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environ. Change 6:37–52.Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Sci 54:597–605.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. N., Lauenroth, W. K., and Burke, I. C. 2003. Effects of nitrogen availability on competition between Bromus tectorum and Bouteloua gracilis . Plant Ecol 167:247–254.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasions of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165.Google Scholar
McLendon, T. and Redente, E. F. 1992. Effects of nitrogen limitation on species replacement dynamics during early secondary succession on a semiarid sagebrush site. Oecologia 91:312–317.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Johnson, D. A., Norton, J. M., Jones, T. A., Connors, K. J., Norton, J. B., and Redinbaugh, M. B. 2003. Contrasting responses of intermountain west grasses to soil nitrogen. J. Range Manage 56:282–290.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyke, D. A., McArthur, T. O., Harrison, K. S., and Pellant, M. 2003. Coordinated intermountain restoration project-fire, decomposition and restoration. Pages 1116–1124. in. Proceedings of the VII International Rangelands Congress. Durban, South Africa Publisher.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 2007. Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants. 3rd ed. New York John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Redente, E. F., Friedlander, J. E., and McLendon, T. 1992. Response of early and late seral species to nitrogen and phosphorus gradients. Plant Soil 140:127–135.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1995. Interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle at 3 soil depths. J. Range Manage 48:392–397.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. 2004. Plants coexistence and niche. Trends Ecol. Evol 19:605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, R. L. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 2007. Resource competition and plant traits: a response to Craine et al. 2005. J. Ecol 95:231–234.Google Scholar
Weldon, C. W. and Slauson, W. L. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q. Rev. Biol 61:23–24.Google Scholar
Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive Plants, Changing the Landscape of America: Fact Book. Washington, DC Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 109.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Allen, F. L. 1997. Cheatgrass and range science: 1930–1950. J. Range Manage 50:530–535.Google Scholar
Young, K. and Mangold, J. 2008. Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) outperforms squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) through interference and growth rate. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage 1:73–81.Google Scholar