Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:05:33.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medusahead Control with Fall- and Spring-Applied Herbicides on Northern Utah Foothills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas A. Monaco ,
Travis M. Osmond  and
Steven A. Dewey
Thomas A. Monaco*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Lab., Logan, UT 84322
Travis M. Osmond
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils and Biometerorology Department, Utah State University, Logan UT 84322
Steven A. Dewey
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils and Biometeorology Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medusahead is an aggressive, nonnative, winter annual grass that infests rangelands in the western United States. Its ability to rapidly spread, outcompete native vegetation, and destroy forage potential is a primary concern for landowners and land managers exposed to this weed. Prescribed burns were conducted at a low- and high-litter site in northern Utah prior to conducting experiments to evaluate the effects of fall and spring applications of sulfometuron at 39 or 79 g ai/ha and imazapic at 70 or 140 g ai/ha on medusahead and associated perennial grasses, annual and perennial forbs, and bare ground cover. Large differences in pretreatment medusahead litter between the sites resulted in less surface area burning at the low-litter site (∼10%) compared to the high-litter site (∼80%). Higher herbicide rates significantly increased medusahead control and bare ground cover; however, this rate affect largely depended on site, season, and herbicide. The low- and high-litter sites did not differ significantly in perennial grass cover 2 yr after burning. Annual forb cover was greater, but perennial forb cover was lower at the low-litter site compared to the high-litter site. Several treatment combinations were identified as having the potential to maintain greater than 50% medusahead control in the second year after herbicide applications. These results collectively demonstrate that potential exists to successfully control medusahead and produce a window of opportunity to reintroduce a greater abundance of perennial species back into the plant community via seeding.

Keywords

Imazapicsulfometuronmedusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski, # ELYCMPrescribed fireBromus tectorum L.Aegilops cylindrical Hostinvasive annual grassGreat BasinrevegetationBROTEAEGCY
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 653 - 658
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
Blank, R. R., Allen, F. L., and Young, J. A. 1996. Influence of simulated burning of soil-litter from low sagebrush, squirreltail, cheatgrass, and medusahead on water-soluble anions and cations. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 6:137–143.Google Scholar
Christensen, M. D., Young, J. A., and Evans, R. A. 1974. Control of annual grasses and revegetation in Ponderosa Pine woodlands. J. Range Manage. 27:143–145.Google Scholar
Clausnitzer, D. W., Borman, M. M., and Johnson, D. E. 1999. Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae . Weed Sci. 47:720–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dakheel, A. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Barbour, M. G. 1993. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and interference between Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum asperum . Weed Res. 33:415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. A. and Young, J. A. 1970. Plant litter establishment of alien annual weed species in rangeland communities. Weed Sci. 18:697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1991. Plant litter: light interception and effects on an old-field plant community. Ecology 72:1024–1031.Google Scholar
Furbush, F. 1953. Control of medusahead on California ranges. J. Forest. 51:118–121.Google Scholar
Goebel, C. J., Tazi, M., and Harris, G. A. 1988. Secar bluebunch wheatgrass as a competitor to medusahead. J. Range Manage. 41:88–89.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. 1970. Competition for moisture among seedlings of annual and perennial grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperature. Ecology 51:530–534.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1994. Medusahead: natural successor to the cheatgrass type in the northern Great Basin. in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., eds. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Ogden, UT: USDA For. Serv. Proc. INT-GTR-313. Pp. 89–91.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. and Tisdale, E. W. 1956. A study of the medusahead problem in Idaho. Res. Prog. Rpt. WWCC. Pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
Horton, W. H. 1991. Medusahead: importance, distribution, and control. in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., and Childs, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview. Pp. 394–398.Google Scholar
Interagency Technical Team. 1996. Sampling vegetation attributes. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. National Applied Resource Sciences Center. 172 p.Google Scholar
Kay, B. L. 1963. Effects of dalapon on a medusahead community. Weeds 11:207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, B. L. and McKell, C. M. 1963. Pre-emergence herbicides as an aid in seeding annual rangelands. Weeds 11:260–264.Google Scholar
Lamont, B. B., Witkowski, E. T F., and Enright, N. J. 1993. Post-fire litter microsites: safe for seeds, unsafe for seedlings. Ecology 74:501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, J., McKell, C. M., and Berry, L. J. 1960. Improvement of medusahead infested rangeland. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Leaflet 123. Davis, CA: University of California Davis, California Agricultural Experiment Station. 6 p.Google Scholar
Maret, M. P. and Wilson, M. V. 2000. Fire and seedling population dynamics in western Oregon prairies. J. Veg. Sci. 11:307–314.Google Scholar
McKell, C. M., Wilson, A. M., and Kay, B. L. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125–131.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Johnson, D. A., Norton, J. M., Jones, T. A., Connors, K. J., Norton, J. B., and Redingaugh, M. B. 2003. Contrasting responses of Intermountain West grasses to soil nitrogen. J. Range Manage. 56:282–290.Google Scholar
Robocker, W. C. and Schirman, R. D. 1976. Reseeding trials on Columbia Basin rangelands dominated by winter annual grasses. J. Range Manage. 29:492–497.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead. Great Basin Nat. 52:245–252.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1970. Invasion of medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed Sci. 18:89–97.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Kay, B. L. 1971. Response of medusahead to paraquat. J. Range Manage. 24:41–43.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Trent, J. D., Blank, R. R., and Palmquist, D. E. 1998. Nitrogen interactions with medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum) seedbanks. Weed Sci. 46:191–195.Google Scholar