Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:52:30.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance of Native Plant Functional Groups to Invasion by Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley  and
Jeremy James
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture–Agriculture Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Jeremy James
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture–Agriculture Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding authors E-mail: roger.sheley@oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the relative importance of various functional groups in minimizing invasion by medusahead is central to increasing the resistance of native plant communities. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of key functional groups within an intact Wyoming big sagebrush–bluebunch wheatgrass community type on minimizing medusahead invasion. Treatments consisted of removal of seven functional groups at each of two sites, one with shrubs and one without shrubs. Removal treatments included (1) everything, (2) shrubs, (3) perennial grasses, (4) taprooted forbs, (5) rhizomatous forbs, (6) annual forbs, and (7) mosses. A control where nothing was removed was also established. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block with 4 replications (blocks) at each site. Functional groups were removed beginning in the spring of 2004 and maintained monthly throughout each growing season through 2009. Medusahead was seeded at a rate of 2,000 seeds m−2 (186 seeds ft−2) in fall 2005. Removing perennial grasses nearly doubled medusahead density and biomass compared with any other removal treatment. The second highest density and biomass of medusahead occurred from removing rhizomatous forbs (phlox). We found perennial grasses played a relatively more significant role than other species in minimizing invasion by medusahead. We suggest that the most effective basis for establishing medusahead-resistant plant communities is to establish 2 or 3 highly productive grasses that are complementary in niche and that overlap that of the invading species.

Keywords

Medusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski TACA8bluebunch wheatgrass, Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Löve ssp. spicata PSSPSlongleaf phlox, Phlox longifolia Nutt. PHLO2Wyoming big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis Beetle & Young ARTRW8Weed managementinvasive plantweed ecologypreventionrestoration
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 294 - 300
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

Brown, C. S. 1998. Restoration of California Central Valley grasslands: applied and theoretical approaches to understanding interactions among prairie species. Ph.D Dissertation. Davis, CA University of California, Davis. 177 p.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. and Grime, W. J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invisibility. Ecology 77:776–790.Google Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F. 2001. Designing weed-resistant plant communities by maximizing niche occupation and resource capture. Ph.D Dissertation. Bozeman, MT Montana State University. 131 p.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. I. 1993. Functional role of growth forms in ecosystem and global processes. Pages 287–312. In Ehleringerand, J. R. and Field, C. B. eds. Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Daubenmire, R. 1980. The scientific basis for a classification in land-use allocation. Pages 7–10. in. The Scientific and Technical Basis for Land Classification. Spokane, WA Society of American Foresters.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. 2008. Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Range. Ecol. Manag 61:110–115.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Sheley, R. L. 2007. A conceptual framework for preventing the spatial dispersal of invasive plants. Weed Sci 55:178–184.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A. and Pelsor, M. 2001. Experimental support for a resource-based mechanistic model of invasibility. Ecol. Lett 4:421–428.Google Scholar
Diaz, S. and Marcelo, C. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:646–655.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. 2001. Biodiversity and invisibility in grassland microcosms. Oecologia 126:563–568.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions between Animals and Plants. Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press. 196 p.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J. Range. Manag 14:263–267.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. 1998. Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol. Monogr 68:121–149.Google Scholar
James, J. J., Davies, K. W., Sheley, R. L., and Aanderud, Z. T. 2008. Linking nitrogen partitioning and species abundance to invasion resistance in the Great Basin. Oecologia 156:637–648.Google Scholar
James, J. J., Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. 2009. Root plasticity of native and invasive Great Basin species in response to soil nitrogen heterogeneity. Range. Ecol. Manag 202:211–220.Google Scholar
Kennedy, T. A., Naeem, S., Howe, K. M., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., and Reich, P. 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–638.Google Scholar
Lauenroth, W. K., Dodd, J. L., and Sims, P. L. 1978. The effects of water and nitrogen induced stresses on plant community structure in a semiarid grassland. Oecologia 36:211–222.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M. and D'antonio, C. M. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26.Google Scholar
Mack, M. C. and D'antonio, C. M. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol. Evol 13:195–198.Google Scholar
Major, J., Mckell, C. M., and Berry, L. J. 1960. Improvement of Medusahead-Infested Rangeland. Berkeley, CA University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, Leaflet 123. 6 p.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Sheley, R. L. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. J. Range. Manag 54:502–517.Google Scholar
Miller, H. C. 1996. Demography of Medusahead on Two Soil Types: Potential for Invasion into Intact Native Communities. M.S. thesis. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University. 36 p.Google Scholar
Miller, H. C., Clausnitzer, D., and Borman, M. M. 1999. Medusahead. Pages 271–281. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Dewey, S. A., and Osmond, T. M. 2005. Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol 19:653–658.Google Scholar
Naeem, S. and Li, S. B. 1997. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390:507–509.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 85–96. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Orians, G. H. 1984. Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems: Structure and Function—Ecosystems of the World 14A. F. B. Golley, David W. Goodall [book review]. Q. Rev. Biol 59:354.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. T. and Vieglais, D. A. 2001. Predicting species invasions using ecological niche modeling: new approaches from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. Bioscience 51:363–371.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L., Sheley, R. L., Zabinski, C. A., Engel, R. E., Svejcar, T. J., and Borkowski, J. J. 2005. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor. Ecol 13:448–459.Google Scholar
Polley, H. W., Wilsey, B. J., Derner, J. D., Johnson, H. B., and Sanabria, J. 2006. Early successional plants regulate grassland productivity and species composition: a removal experiment. Oikos 113:287–295.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Pokorny, M. L., and Rekaya, R. 2007. Grassland invader responses to realistic changes in native species richness. Ecol. Appl 17:1824–1831.Google Scholar
Robinson, G. R., Quinn, J. F., and Stanton, M. I. 1995. Invasibility of experimental habitat islands in a California winter annual grassland. Ecology 76:786–794.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Bingham, B. S., and Svejcar, A. J. 2008. Crested wheatgrass defoliation intensity and season on medusahead invasion. Weed Technol 61:211–217.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Carpinelli, M. F. 2005. Creating weed-resistant plant communities using niche-differentiated nonnative species. Range. Ecol. Manag 58:480–488.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Carpinelli, M. F., and Morghan, K. J. R. 2007. Effects of imazapic on target and nontarget vegetation during revegetation. Weed Technol 21:1071–1081.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. S., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol 10:766–773.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Vasquez, E., and Hoopes, C. 2009. Functional group responses to reciprocal plant litter exchanges between native and invasive plant dominated grasslands. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 2:158–165.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci 51:247–253.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Barnett, D. T., and Kartesz, J. T. 1999. Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol. Monogr 69:25–46.Google Scholar
Symstad, A. J. 2000. A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. Ecology 81:99–109.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1996. Biodiversity: Population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77:350–363.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 78:81–92.Google Scholar
Turner, R. B., Poulton, C. E., and Gould, W. L. 1963. Medusahead—A Threat to Oregon Rangeland. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 149. 22 p.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A. and Zackrisson, O. 2005. Effects of species and functional group loss on island ecosystem properties. Nature 435:806–810.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and Management of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Nat 52:245–252.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pages 261–300. In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. eds. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar