Restoring Native Plant Communities in Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis)–Dominated Grasslands

Abstract

Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) is an introduced, cool-season perennial, sod-forming grass that has been shown to invade both native cool-and warm-season grasslands throughout North America. During the fall of 2005 through spring 2007, we implemented a smooth brome removal study at five sites in eastern South Dakota. Sites were selected to represent a range of soil and environmental conditions. Seven fall herbicide treatments, five spring herbicide treatments, an untreated plot that was planted with a native seed mix, and an untreated control that received no herbicide or seed addition were applied at each location in fall 2005/spring 2006 and fall 2006/spring 2007. Based upon first-year results, three fall herbicide treatments and two spring herbicide treatments were added in fall 2006/spring 2007. Sites were seeded with a native plant mix within 2 wk following spring herbicide treatment. Smooth brome cover in untreated plots ranged from 73 to 99% at the conclusion of the study. Smooth brome cover on herbicide-treated plots ranged from 0 to 84% on 2005/2006 plots and 0 to 98% on 2006/2007 plots after three growing seasons. Native plant response varied by site and treatment, possibly due to competition from exotic weeds. Although several herbicides show promise for control of smooth brome, future response of native plants will be important in determining the proper timing and herbicide combination.

Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: patterns, processes, and management implications

“…However, the increased performance of nonnatives is usually associated with changes in resource availability or disturbance regimes (Daehler, ), which may explain why we found many studies that reported that the removal of nonnative species led to competitive release of other nonnatives. In a few instances, the percent increase in the nonnative species was equivalent to the release of neighboring native species (Alvarez & Cushman, ; Truscott et al ., ; Stephens et al ., ), but in most cases, the increase in nonnative cover significantly exceeded that of native species (Adler et al ., ; Brooks, ; Allen et al ., ; MacDougall & Turkington, ; Ogden & Rejmánek, ; Hulme & Bremner, ; Story et al ., ; Bush et al ., ; Cox & Allen, , ; Ortega & Pearson, ; Bahm et al ., ; Skaer et al ., ).…”

Community‐level effects of herbicide‐based restoration treatments: structural benefits but at what cost?

“…Grassland restoration often solely focuses on broad objectives such as a reduction of invasive species cover (e.g. Bahm et al ) or recuperation of community composition (e.g. Case et al ).…”

“…The ideal timing and concentration of application differ between chemicals and target species (e.g. Bahm et al ), and the choice of chemical and application rate can also impact the non‐target effects to flora and fauna in the community (Olszyk et al ). In many cases, vertebrates, including birds, mammals, and reptiles, are not affected greatly by herbicides (Lindenmayer et al ).…”

A survey of invasive plants on grassland soil microbial communities and ecosystem services

“…Smooth brome invasion into intact native grasslands has been extensively studied [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] . Smooth brome invasion radically changes plant community structure 15,16 , and subsequently causes changes in soil nutrient cycling and soil microbial community structure and function [9][10][11]18,19 .…”