Native Warm-Season Grass and forb establishment using imazapic and 2, 4-D

Washburn, Brian E.; Barnes, Thomas G.

doi:10.3368/npj.1.1.61

Cited by 30 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher germination rates of green needlegrass, slender wheatgrass, showy tick trefoil, and groundplum milkvetch observed in the 0.035 kg ai/ha imazapic treatment and showy tick trefoil in the 0.07 kg ai/ha imazapyr treatment could be due to lower weed competition as compared to untreated plots (Masters et al 1996;Beran et al 1999a;Washburn and Barnes 2000).…”

Section: Weed Covermentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Imazapic is used for both pre-and postemergent control of annual and perennial grasses and some broadleaf weeds, while imazapyr is used for pre-and post-emergent control of a broad range of weeds including grasses, broadleaf weeds, woody species, and riparian and emergent aquatic species (Senseman 2007). The ability of many native grassland species found in eastern North American grasslands to grow after a pre-emergence application of imazapic has been studied (Masters et al 1996;Beran et al 1999a;Beran et al 1999b;Beran et al 2000;Washburn and Barnes 2000;Norcini et al 2003), but the effects of imazapic on species found in the central and western United States is less documented (Bekedam 2005). Furthermore, there has been little work on which native plant species can grow after a pre-emergent application of imazapyr (Shaw et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Some of the restorations are more successful than others and success or failure often depends on how well weed competition is suppressed (Martin et al 1982;Masters et al 1996) -typically through the use of herbicides (Masters et al 1996;Beran et al 1999a; Barnes 2004). The imidazolinone herbicides have been shown to reduce weed competition and enhance native species stand establishment in the eastern United States (Washburn and Barnes 2000) and in the Great Plains (Masters et al 1996;Beran et al 1999a;Beran et al 1999b;Beran et al 2000). This family of herbicides controls a wide range of grassy and broadleaf weeds (Little and Shaner 1991;Shaner and Mallipudi 1991), with imazapic being widely used in restoration plantings (Barnes 2004;Barnes 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Native Grass and Forb Response to Pre-Emergent Application of Imazapic and Imazapyr

Bahm

Barnes

2011

Natural Areas Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grassland restoration attempts to rehabilitate and/or re-create biologically diverse native plant communities using a variety of management techniques including seeding, burning, grazing, and most recently using herbicides. Herbicides are an important tool for suppressing weed competition for initial seedling growth and removing exotic species in native plant communities. Little information is available on which species of native plants can endure a pre-emergent application of the imidazolinone herbicides. In spring 2006, we initiated a study testing responses of three native grasses and three native forbs to pre-emergent treatments of 0.035 kg ai/ha imazapic, 0.07 kg ai/ha imazapic, and 0.07 kg ai/ha imazapyr. Seedling establishment was monitored at 5 and 14 months after treatment and weed cover was monitored at 2.5, 5 and 14 months after treatment. There were no differences in the number of seedlings found in the untreated plots compared to all the herbicide-treated plots and there were no differences in seedling densities of green needlegrass (Nassella viridula) with the exception of the high imazapic treatment. Showy tick trefoil (Desmodium canadense) and Canada milk vetch (Astragalus crassicarpus) also appear to be able to tolerate applications of all herbicide treatments. There was less weed cover in the herbicide-treated plots when compared to the untreated control plots. This information provides managers options to include these species in initial seeding or restoration projects using these herbicides which may increase diversity and reduce restoration projects cost in the long term.

show abstract

Section: Weed Covermentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Native Grass and Forb Response to Pre-Emergent Application of Imazapic and Imazapyr

Bahm

Barnes

2011

Natural Areas Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prescribed fire alone is ineffective at reducing tall fescue in Kentucky (Madison et al 2001;Ruffner 2004;Washburn et al 2002). In contrast, herbicides are an effective method for controlling tall fescue (Barnes 2005(Barnes , 2007Madison 1994;Madison et al 2001;Ruffner and Barnes 2004;Washburn and Barnes 2000a, b;Washburn et al 2000). Imazapic (PlateauH) is an acetolactate synthase inhibitor that is commonly utilized for grassland restoration to control annual and perennial grasses (DiTomaso et al 2008;Kyser et al 2007;Monaco et al 2005, Shaner andConner 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Imazapic (PlateauH) is an acetolactate synthase inhibitor that is commonly utilized for grassland restoration to control annual and perennial grasses (DiTomaso et al 2008;Kyser et al 2007;Monaco et al 2005, Shaner andConner 1991). Researchers have documented that imazapic provides excellent tall fescue control (Ruffner and Barnes 2004;Washburn et al 1999;Washburn and Barnes 2000a), provides preemergent weed control which reduces competition during native warm-season grass (NWSG) seedling establishment, and increases NWSG abundance and cover in established stands (Barnes 2005(Barnes , 2007Beran et al 2000;Masters et al 1996;Ruffner 2004;Vollmer and Vollmer 1999;Washburn et al 2000). Despite the tolerance of many native grasses and forbs to imazapic (see Barnes 2005Barnes , 2007, it may still target many desirable native plant species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Natural Grassland Response to Herbicides and Application Timing for Selective Control of Tall Fescue, an Invasive Cool-Season Grass

Ruffner

Barnes

2010

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural grasslands are one of the most threatened ecosystems in North America. Conservation efforts are often hampered by exotic plant invasions in existing remnant natural grasslands. Tall fescue [Schedonorus phoenix(Scop.) Holub.] is an introduced cool-season (C3) forage/turf grass which readily invades natural grasslands in Kentucky and neighboring states. Our study objectives were to (1) compare the efficacy and application timing effect of clethodim to that of imazapic to selectively remove tall fescue from natural grasslands and (2) evaluate the response of the nontarget grassland plant community (i.e., native grass and forb canopy cover) following herbicide treatments. Clethodim and imazapic treatments consisted of early (April 4, 2001) and late (April 20, 2001) applications, and these were applied at 0.23 and 0.21 kg ai ha−1, respectively. Both herbicides reduced tall fescue cover (P ≤ 0.05); herbicide application timing had no effect on herbicide efficacy to control tall fescue. Native grass cover was higher (P ≤ 0.05) in all herbicide-treated plots compared to the untreated controls, except for the late clethodim-treated plots. All herbicide treatments increased forb abundance compared to controls. Spring applications of clethodim were equally effective to those of imazapic at controlling tall fescue in natural grasslands. Imazapic released native grasses better than clethodim, whereas clethodim was better at increasing forb abundance. Furthermore, early clethodim treatments had fewer nontarget effects on native C4grasses compared to late clethodim treatments. Overall, clethodim shows promise as a beneficial management tool for tall fescue control in C4-dominated natural grasslands.

show abstract