Revegetation with Adapted Grasses in Competition with Dalmatian Toadflax and St. Johnswort

Gates, Dillard H.; Robocker, W. C.

doi:10.2307/3894789

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most classes of livestock refuse to eat it. Gates and Robocker (1960) noted that soil disturbance was necessary for establishment of Dalmatian toadflax. Robocker et al (1961) and Robocker (1968) found that combination of 2,3,6trichlorobenzoic acid (2,3,6-TBA) or a mixture of 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid (silvex) and 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram) and disking reduced survival of toadflax and im proved conditions for establishment of Siberian wheatgrass…”

Section: Dalmatian Toadflaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After St. Johnswort has been controlled and desirable plants have increased in density, the rangelands are more productive. How ever, dalmatian toadflax has invaded some of the ranges on which St. Johnswort has been controlled (Gates and Robocker, 1960). The interaction of St. Johnswort and dalmatian toadflax on rangelands illustrates the futility of controlling weeds on rangelands without insuring that desirable vegetation replaces the controlled weed.…”

Section: St Johnswortmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weed and Brush Control for Range Improvement

Morton¹

2015

Range Research and Range Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weeds and brush cause losses on rangelands by reducing forage production, increasing the cost of handling livestock, and increasing death losses of livestock due to poisoning and physical injury from spines and thorns. In addition, weeds and brush reduce water yields 6f watersheds, reduce accessibility of wild lands for recreationists and hunters, reduce the numbers and kinds of wildlife, and cause discom fort and stress to people through allergies and skin rash. Losses from reduced potential production caused by weeds and brush on western rangelands are estimated to total approximately $250,000,000 an nually (USDA, 1965). The weeds and brush occurring on western rangelands are as diverse as the soil types and environments of that area. They are a problem on pastures near sea level, at elevations well above 3,000 m, on very arid areas where rainfall is less than 25 cm and where rainfall is well over 125 cm annually. Although diversity is great, weeds and brush compete for light, fertilizer, and water on rangelands just as they do on cultivated lands. In many cases, competition is so severe that no range improvement can be made until this competition is re moved. This discussion will illustrate this competition, the losses caused by weeds and brush, and methods that can be used to control unwanted vegetation. I. HERBACEOUS WEEDS Herbaceous weeds occur on all rangelands. Relatively few are present on good ranges and dense stands frequently occur on poor ranges. Likewise, the density of herbaceous weeds will vary from season to season and from site to site due to climatic, edaphic, and

show abstract

Section: Dalmatian Toadflaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: St Johnswortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed and Brush Control for Range Improvement

Morton¹

2015

Range Research and Range Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Herbicides and tillage were used to suppress dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica Mill.) and St. Johnswort (Gates and Robocker 1960), cheatgrass (Eckert and Evans et al 1967), and medusahead (Young et al 1969) in early attempts to prepare degraded rangeland sites for revegetation with cool-season grasses.…”

Section: Integrating Multiple Weed Control Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tillage and revegetation Gates and Robocker 1960 Opuntia stricta (Haworth) Haworth Herbicide and biocontrol Hoffman et al 1998 Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski Burning, herbicide, and revegetation Horton 1991 Tillage, herbicide, andrevegetation Young et al 1969 ment strategy, which suppressed leafy spurge and associated vegetation and facilitated planting and establishment of stands of mixture of native warm-season grass and legume species (Masters et al 2001). These multi-species assemblages may more fully use resources on degraded rangeland and preempt resource use by less desirable species, including leafy spurge.…”

Section: Invasive Plant Strategy Components Citationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles and Practices for Managing Rangeland Invasive Plants

Masters¹,

Sheley²

2001

Journal of Range Management

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive plants reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services required by society, alter ecological processes, and can displace desirable species. They can reduce wildlife habitat quality, riparian area integrity, rangeland economic value, and enterprise net returns. The invasion process is regulated by characteristics of the invading plant and the community being invaded. The presence and spread of invasive plants is often symptomatic of underlying management problems that must be corrected before acceptable, long-term rangeland improvement can be achieved. Disturbance appears to be important early in the invasion process because it creates vacant niches that alien plants can occupy. Control of invasive plants may only open niches for establishment of other undesirable plants unless desirable plants are present to fill the vacated niches. In many instances, rangelands have deteriorated to the point that desirable species are either not present, or in such low abundance that plant community recovery is slow or will not occur without revegetation after invasive plants are controlled. Integrated weed management employs the planned, sequential use of multiple tactics (e.g. chemical, biological, cultural, and mechanical control measures) to improve ecosystem function (energy flow and nutrient cycling) and maintain invasive plant damage below economic levels, and emphasizes managing rangeland ecosystem functions to meet objectives rather than emphasizing a particular weed or control method. Sustainable, integrated invasive plant management strategies require assessing plant impacts, understanding and managing the processes influencing invasion, knowledge of invasive plant biology and ecology, and are based on ecological principles. Invasive plant management programs must be compatible with and integrated into overall rangeland resource management objectives and plans. Because of the complexity of managing invasive plants, it is imperative that relevant ecological and economic information be synthesized into user-friendly decision support systems.

show abstract

“…Because Dalmatian toadflax seedlings are not strong competitors, a healthy perennial plant community or a revegetation program with perennial grasses can be an effective approach for preventing its establishment or reinvasion (Gates and Robocker 1960;Rose et al 2001). However, revegetation plantings often establish poorly in the semiarid shrublands typically invaded by Dalmatian toadflax in California.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Timing on Chemical Control of Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) in California

Kyser

DiTomaso

2013

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dalmatian toadflax is listed as a noxious weed in most of the western United States, but control of this species has not been extensively studied in California. Studies in other states show effective control of Dalmatian toadflax with picloram, but this herbicide is not registered for use in California. In addition, reports vary as to the optimal timing for herbicide applications. In this study we evaluated several herbicides with combined foliar and soil-residual activity at two times of application: postsenescence (fall) and rosette (winter to early spring). We applied two series of treatments (2008 and 2009 to 2010) on adjacent sites in high desert scrub of southern California. In the year of treatment and the following year, we evaluated Dalmatian toadflax cover and presence/absence of associated dominant species (≥ 5% cover). Although time of application, treatment, and timing by treatment interaction all produced significant differences in Dalmatian toadflax cover in the 2008 trial, only the high rate of aminocyclopyrachlor (280 g ae ha−1) applied to dormant plants in fall consistently reduced cover through the second year. No treatments at the rosette stage consistently produced 2 yr of control. In 2009 to 2010, treatments were more effective, probably owing to higher precipitation in spring. In both dormant and rosette applications made in 2009 to 2010, aminocyclopyrachlor (140 and 280 g ae ha−1) and aminocyclopyrachlor + chlorsulfuron (140 g ae ha−1+ 53 g ai ha−1) gave second year control; chlorsulfuron at the dormant stage (105 and 158 g ai ha−1) and aminopyralid at the rosette stage (245 g ae ha−1) also gave 2 yr of control. The treatments had only minor effects on grass species. The response of broadleaf species varied among treatments, with aminocyclopyrachlor at the high rate increasingEriogonumspp., but greatly reducing Asteraceae species. These results provide options for the management of Dalmatian toadflax in California and other western states.

show abstract

Revegetation with Adapted Grasses in Competition with Dalmatian Toadflax and St. Johnswort

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Weed and Brush Control for Range Improvement

Weed and Brush Control for Range Improvement

Principles and Practices for Managing Rangeland Invasive Plants

Effect of Timing on Chemical Control of Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) in California

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About