Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:13:09.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other Annual Grasses with Imazapic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Guy B. Kyser ,
Joseph M. Ditomaso ,
Morgan P. Doran ,
Steve B. Orloff ,
Robert G. Wilson ,
Donald L. Lancaster ,
David F. Lile  and
Marni L. Porath
Guy B. Kyser
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Joseph M. Ditomaso*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Morgan P. Doran
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Solano County, 501 Texas Street, Fairfield CA 94533-4498
Steve B. Orloff
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Siskiyou County, 1655 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Lassen County, 707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA 96130
Donald L. Lancaster
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Modoc County, 202 West 4th Street, Alturas, CA 96101
David F. Lile
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Lassen County, 707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA 96130
Marni L. Porath
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Malheur County, 710 Southwest 5th Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jmditomaso@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasive annual grasses, such as medusahead, can reduce forage production capacity and interfere with revegetation projects in California rangelands. Because of the taxonomic similarity to other more desirable grasses, achieving selective control of invasive annual grasses can be difficult. In selectivity trials conducted in Yolo and Siskiyou counties, CA, the herbicide imazapic gave control of many nonnative annual grasses yet provided some level of selectivity to specific perennial grasses used in revegetation projects throughout the western United States. The selectivity difference between newly seeded perennial and annual grasses was greater with PRE applications than with POST treatments. Both perennial and annual grasses within the tribe Hordeae were more tolerant to imazapic than other grass species. In addition, field experiments were conducted at three sites in northern California (Yuba, Yolo, and Lassen counties) and one in southern Oregon (Lake County) to test the response of imazapic to varying management conditions. Imazapic was applied PRE in fall (and also spring in Lake County) at rates from 35 to 210 g/ha on undisturbed rangeland, in comparison with rangeland cleared of standing plant material and thatch by either tillage, mowing and raking, or burning. Imazapic generally showed enhanced weed control when applied following disturbance. Rates as low as 70 g/ha, if combined with thatch removal, provided significant suppression of medusahead. In addition, disturbance alone generally reduced medusahead cover in the following year. Although imazapic showed potential for control of medusahead and other annual grasses, its selectivity window was relatively narrow.

Keywords

Imazapicmedusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski, ELYCMGrasslandintegrated weed managementinvasive weednative speciesrangelandrestorationselectivity
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 66 - 75
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

Barnes, T. G. 2004. Strategies to convert exotic grass pastures to tall grass prairie communities. Weed Technol. 18:1364–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beran, D. D., Gaussoin, R. E., and Masters, R. A. 1999. Native wildflower establishment with imidazolinone herbicides. Hortscience 34:283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beran, D. D., Masters, R. A., Gaussoin, R. E., and Rivas-Pantoja, F. 2000. Establishment of big bluestem and Illinois bundleflower mixtures with imazapic and imazethapyr. Agron. J. 92:460–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, S. A., Mace, R. W., and Osmond, T. M. 2003. Downy brome control with imazapic on arid rangeland. Newark, CA Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Report. 2.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A. and Clark, J. K., eds. 2005. Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 1–7.Google Scholar
Furbush, P. 1953. Control of medusahead on California ranges. J. For. 51:118–121.Google Scholar
George, M. R. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead. Davis, CA Department of Agronomy and Range Science, Agricultural Experiment Station Series 32. 3.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1977. Root phenology as a factor of competition among grass seedlings. J. Range Manag. 30:172–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, W. C., Jones, M. B., Torell, D. T., and McKell, C. M. 1961. Medusahead palatability. J. Range Manag. 14:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R. A., Beran, D. D., and Gaussoin, R. E. 2001. Restoring tallgrass prairie species mixtures on leafy spurge-infested rangeland. J. Range Manag. 54:362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, P. W. Jr and Berry, K. J. 1982. An extended class of permutation techniques for matched pairs. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 11:1197–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Osmond, T. M., and Dewey, S. A. 2005. Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol. 19:653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. H. and Lusk, W. C. 1961. Timing of medusahead burns. Calif. Agric. 15/11:6–7.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. 1993. MANOVA: multiple response variables and multispecies interactions. in Scheiner, S.M., Gurevitch, J., eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York Chapman & Hall. 94–112.Google Scholar
Sebastian, J. R. and Beck, K. G. 2004. Downy brome control on Colorado rangeland with imazapic. Newark, CA Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Report. 1.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2002. The response of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) to imazapic and picloram. Weed Technol. 16:366–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol. 18:60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K., ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 249–250.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
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1969. Wheatgrass establishment with tillage and herbicides in a mesic medusahead community. J. Range Manag. 22:151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Kay, B. L. 1971a. Germination of caryopses of annual grasses in simulated litter. Agron. J. 63:551–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Robison, J. 1971b. Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. J. Range Manag. 25:372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar