Hostname: page-component-6b88cc9666-vdgfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-15T19:44:00.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Restoration Methods across a Range of Plant Communities Dominated by Invasive Annual Grasses to Native Perennial Grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017

Priscilla A. Nyamai*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Timothy S. Prather
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
John M. Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
*
Corresponding author's E-mail:pnyamai@vandals.uidaho.edu

Abstract

Prairies are imperiled habitats, with remnants being generally small and often existing in isolation. Invasive plants have the potential to invade not just the edge of small remnants but also the interior because smaller remnants experience greater edge effects than do large, contiguous prairies. Additionally, invasive plants limit recruitment of native plants, which can arrest secondary succession. We proposed to assess techniques for restoration that included removing annual grasses and supplementing native species recruitment with seeding of native grass and forb species. We also assessed the effect of specific factors affecting recruitment: soil moisture and seed predation. Treatments included broadcast, spot, or no application of the herbicides imazapic and glyphosate and with or without seeding plus mulch. With treatments nested within each of three plant communities, ranging from annual- to perennial-dominated communities, in four blocks per community, plant characteristics (percentage of cover and plant density), soil moisture availability, and seed-predation losses were measured along a plant community gradient within one season at two locations. A combination of broadcast herbicide application and seeding with mulching was found to be more effective in reducing annual grasses and enhancing the establishment of native grass species in predominately annual and mixed communities (annuals and perennials). Spot herbicide application was effective in predominately perennial communities, whereas only seeding native species did not improve recruitment. Although seed predation reduced seedling recruitment, mulch provided seed protection and enhanced soil moisture retention. Plant community response to imposed treatments differed among communities, suggesting that a decision support tool would facilitate management decisions tailored for each plant community. The decision tool would be useful to ensure that appropriate treatments are applied and that specific factors affecting recruitment, such as seed predation and soil moisture, are addressed.

Information

Type
Research
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

Footnotes

Current address: School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 400 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210

References

Literature Cited

Anderson,C. J. andMacMahon,J. A.2001.Granivores, exclosures and seed banks: harvester ants and rodents in sagebrush-steppe.J. Arid Environ.49:343–355.Google Scholar
Bakker,J. D.,Wilson,S. D.,Christian,J. M.,Li,X.,Ambrose,L. G., andWaddington,J.2003.Contingency of grassland restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses.Ecol. Appl.13:137–153.Google Scholar
Bakker,J. D. andWilson,S. D.2004.Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion.J. Appl. Ecol.41:1058–1064.Google Scholar
Barnes,T. G.2007.Using herbicides to rehabilitate native grasslands.Nat. Areas J.27:56–65.Google Scholar
Blumenthal,D. M.,Jordan,N. R., andSvenson,E. L.2003.Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the example of Tallgrass Prairie.Conserv. Ecol.7(1):6.Google Scholar
Bochet,E.,Garcia-Fayos,P.,Alborch,B., andTormo,J.2007.Soil water availability effects on seed germination account for species segregation in semiarid road slopes.Plant Soil295:179–191.Google Scholar
Brown,C. S.,Anderson,V. J.,Claassen,V. P.,Stannard,M. E.,Wilson,L. M.,Atkinson,S. Y.,Bromberg,J. E.,Grant,T. A.III, andMunis,M. D.2008.Restoration ecology and invasive plants in the semiarid west.Invasive Plant Sci. Manag.1:399–413.Google Scholar
Carpinelli,M. F.,Sheley,R. L., andMaxwell,B. D.2004.Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species.J. Range Manag.57:97–105.Google Scholar
Chambers,J. C.2000.Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration.Ecol. Appl.10:1400–1413.Google Scholar
Corbin,J. D. andCarla,M. D.2004.Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: Implications for an historical invasion.Ecology85:1273–1283.Google Scholar
Cox,C.2003.Imazapic: herbicide factsheet.J. Pestic. Reform23(3):1–5.Google Scholar
Cully,A. C.,Cully,J. F.Jr, andHiebert,R. D.2003.Invasion of exotic plant species in tallgrass prairie fragments.Conserv. Biol.17:990–998.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
Dickson,T. L. andBusby,W. H.2009.Forb species establishment increases with decreased grass seeding density and with increased forb seeding density in a northeast Kansas experimental prairie restoration.Restor. Ecol.17:597–605.Google Scholar
Enloe,S. F.,DiTomaso,J. M.,Orloff,S. B., andDrake,D. J.2004.Soil water dynamics differ among rangeland plant communities dominated by yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses or perennial grasses.Weed Sci.52:929–935.Google Scholar
Ewing,K.2002.Effects of initial site treatments on early growth and three year survival of Idaho fescue.Restor. Ecol.10:282–288.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick,G.2004.Techniques for restoring native plant communities in upland and wetland prairies in the Midwest and West Coast regions of North America.Eugene, ORNature Conservancy report prepared for City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division.Google Scholar
Foster,B. L.,Murphy,C. A.,Keller,K. R.,Aschenbach,T. A.,Questad,E. J., andKindscher,K.2007.Restoration of prairie community structure and ecosystem function in an abandoned hayfield: a sowing experiment.Restor. Ecol.15:652–661.Google Scholar
Hanson,T.,Sanchez-de Leon,Y.,Johnson-Maynard,J., andBrunsfeld,S.2008.Influence of soil and site characteristics on Palouse Prairie plant communities.West. N. Am. Nat.68(2):231–240.Google Scholar
Huddleston,R. T. andYoung,T. P.2005.Weed control and soil amendment effects on restoration plantings in an Oregon grassland.West. N. Am. Nat.65:507–515.Google Scholar
Hulme,P. E.1998.Post-dispersal seed predation: consequences for plant demography and evolution.Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst.1:32–46.Google Scholar
Humphrey,L. D. andSchupp,E. W.2002.Seedling survival from locally and commercially obtained seeds on two semiarid sites.Restor. Ecol.10(1):88–95.Google Scholar
Johnson,C. G. andSimon,S. A.1987.Plant Associations of the Wallowa–Snake Province.Portland, ORUSDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region.400 p.Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold,J. M.,Sheley,R. L., andSvejcar,T. J.2006.Toward ecologically based invasive plant management on rangelands.Weed Sci.54:597–605.Google Scholar
Montalvo,A. M.,McMillan,P. A., andAllen,E. B.2002.The relative importance of seeding method, soil ripping, and soil variables on seeding success.Restor. Ecol.10:52–67.Google Scholar
Orrock,J. L.,Danielson,B. J.,Burns,M. J., andLevey,D. J.2003.Spatial ecology of predator–prey interactions: corridors and patch shape influence seed predation.Ecology84:2589–2599.Google Scholar
Orrock,J. L.,Witter,M. S., andReichman,O. J.2008.Native consumers and seed limitation constrain the restoration of a native perennial grass in exotic habitats.Restor. Ecol.17:148–157.Google Scholar
Predavec,M.1997.Seed removal by rodents, ants and birds in the Simpson Desert, Central Australia.J. Arid Environ.36:327–332.Google Scholar
Rice,P. M. andToney,J. C.1998.Exotic weed control treatments for conservation of fescue grassland in Montana.Biol. Conserv.85:83–95.Google Scholar
Ruijven,J.,Deyn,D.,Gerlinde,B., andBerendse,F.2003.Diversity reduces invisibility in experimental plant communities: the role of plant species.Ecol. Lett.6:910–918.Google Scholar
Scheinost,P.,Stannard,M., andPrather,T.2009.USDA NRCS Plant Guide: Ventenata dubia.Pullman, WAPullman Plant Materials Center.Google Scholar
Seabloom,E. W.,Borer,E. T.,Boucher,V. L.,Burton,R. S.,Cottingham,K. L.,Goldwasser,L.,Gram,W. K.,Kendall,B. E., andMicheli,F.2003a.Competition, seed limitation, disturbance, and reestablishment of California native annual forbs.Ecol. Appl.13(3):575–592.Google Scholar
Seabloom,E. W.,Harpole,W. S.,Reichman,O. J., andTilman,D.2003b.Invasion, competitive dominance and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species.Ecology100:13384–13389.Google Scholar
Sheley,R. L. andKrueger-Mangold,J.2003.Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland.Weed Sci.51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sheley,R. L. andMelissa,L. H.2006.Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using rich seed mixture.Restor. Ecol.14:627–635.Google Scholar
Sheley,R. L.,Mangold,J. M., andAnderson,J. L.2006.Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant–dominated rangelands.Ecol. Monogr.76:365–379.Google Scholar
Sheley,R. L.,Svejcar,T. J.,Maxwell,B. D., andJacobs,J. S.1996.Successional rangeland weed management.Rangelands18:155–159.Google Scholar
Stanley,A. G.,Kaye,T. N., andDunwiddie,P. W.2008.Regional strategies for restoring invaded prairies: observations from a multisite collaborative research project.Native Plants J.9:247–254.Google Scholar
Strand,E.,Black,A. E.,Scott,J. M.,Wright,R. G.,Morgan,P., andWatson,C.1998.Biodiversity and land-use history of the Palouse bioregion: pre-European to present. Pages85–89 inSisk,T. D., ed.Perspectives on the Land Use History of North America: A Context for Understanding Our Changing Environment.Reston, VAU.S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-1998-0003.Google Scholar
Tilman,D.1997.Community invasibility, recruitment limitation and grassland biodiversity.Ecology78:81–92.Google Scholar
Tunnell,S. J.,Stubbendieck,J.,Palazzolo,S., andMasters,R. A.2006.Forb response to herbicides in a degraded tallgrass prairie.Nat. Areas J.26:72–77.Google Scholar
Weddell,B. J. andLichthardt,J.2001.Restoration of Palouse and Canyon grasslands: a review. Pages1–12 inWeddell,B. J., ed.Restoring Palouse and Canyon Grasslands: Putting Back the Missing Pieces.Cottonwood, IDIdaho Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 01-15.Google Scholar
Zeiter,M.,Stampfli,A., andNewbery,D. M.2006.Recruitment limitation constrains local species richness and productivity in dry grassland.Ecology87:942–951.Google Scholar