Invasive Plants Case Study: Cheatgrass
Taxonomy Bromus tectorum L. = Anisantha tectorum Nevski Family – Poaceae Subfamily – Pooideae Tribe – Poeae Common names:Related invasive species: cheatgrass B. madritensis ssp. rubens (red brome) downy brome B. diandrus (rip-gut brome) downy chess B. inermis (smooth brome) broncograss
Description Awned lemma Mid-sized lemmas & awns Pubescent stems, sheaths, & blades Open, flexulous, drooping panicle Often dense & purple Cronquist et al. (1977) Intermountain Flora
Geographic range: Native Native to: Plains of central Asia; common in Middle East & Arabian Peninsula Western edge of distribution: Balkan peninsula with utlying populations in Spain Northern edge: Moscow Likely sources for North American invaders: Lower Volga, northern Caucasus, Ukraine, Balkan Peninsula Kostivkovsky & Young (2000) Rangelands
Geographic range: Worldwide Today is found in: Most of Europe Most of North America Japan South Africa Australia & New Zealand Iceland & Greenland Carpenter & Murray (2001) TNC Stewardship Abstract
Geographic range: United States plants.usda.gov
Habitat Cheatgrass habitat in Nevada Cheatgrass habitat in Turkmenistan
How did it get here? (Knapp 1994) Accidental introduction – packing material, crop seed and ballast soil Intentional introduction at expt farm in Pullman: forage (‘100-day grass’) Intro to Eastern US (first record 1859) and PNW in 1889 By 1916 was widespread in west By 1930 was dominant & reached current extent Dispersed along rail lines, in animal bedding, packing material, and feed; also by grazing animals
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Hogal & Sandford (2004): Root exudates from cheatgrass reduced growth of Hilaria jamesii by ~60% Kulmatski & Beard (2006) Restoration Ecol: Activated charcoal reduced cheatgrass growth and increased native grass growth in field
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Smith et al. (1987) Functional Ecology Smith et al. (2000) Nature
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability
Bilbrough & Caldwell (1997) Ecology
Evans et al. (2001) Ecological Applications
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Melgoza et al. (1990) Oecologia
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Melgoza et al. (1990) Oecologia
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Melgoza et al. (1990) Oecologia
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Harris (1967) Ecological Monographs
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Melgoza & Nowak (1991) J Range Management
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition BurnedUnburned Frequency Young & Evans (1978) J Range Management
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes
Novak et al. (1993) Can J Botany
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes Novak & Mack: Founder effects, but high intra- population diversity from multiple introductions and novel genotypes Longland & Ashley (2007): evidence for local adaptation
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes Escape from biotic constraints
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes Escape from biotic constraints Biodiversity
Anderson & Inouye (2001) Ecological Monographs
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes Escape from biotic constraints Biodiversity Disturbance / land use
Knapp (1998) Global Ecology & Biogeography Letters
What makes it invasive? Vacant niche Allelopathy Global change Resource availability Competition Microevolutionary changes Escape from biotic constraints Biodiversity Disturbance / land use Humans
Introduction corresponded with dramatic overgrazing across the Great Basin Spread through introduced range due to humans Excessive grazing reduces perennial vegetation AND disseminates cheatgrass seed (awns adhere to animal coats and hooves) Plant is native in the ‘cradle of human civilization’ – long history with humans!
Impacts Ecological o Increased fire frequency o Conversion of native perennial plant community to cheatgrass monoculture o Change in N cycle: lower C:N ratios, faster N cycling, more available N o Effects on wildlife: reduced ground squirrels, reduced preditors
Impacts Ecological Economic o Fire fighting: estimated at $10 million per year o Fire rehabilitation costs o Some early spring value, but generally forage losses (perennials have 2-12X greater production & is more consistent among years; injury from awns o Erosion o TES o Reduced carbon sequestration
Impacts Ecological Economic Social o Rural economy & lifestyle o Wildland – urban interface
Management Assessment E. Peterson, NV Natural Heritage Program
Management Assessment OregonIdaho Nevada Utah Cheatgrass dominated Cheatgrass invading Cheatgrass susceptible Pellant & Hall (1994) INT-GTR-313
Management Assessment Prevention – too late!
Management Assessment Prevention Control o Chemicals: variety of herbicides effective Roundup (glyphosate) in early-mid spring Plateau (imazapic) in fall
Management Assessment Prevention Control o Chemicals: variety of herbicides effective, but herbicides can damage natives Carpenter & Murray (2001) TNC Stewardship Abstract
Management Assessment Prevention Control o Chemicals: variety of herbicides effective, but herbicides can damage natives o Burning timed to reduce seed production, but don’t burn partially infested sites o Continuous grazing timed to ↓seed production but don’t over-graze partially infested sites o Repeated mowing (every 3 weeks), otherwise plants generate new culms & seeds Carpenter & Murray (2001) TNC Stewardship Abstract
Management Assessment Prevention Control Eradication
Management Assessment Prevention Control Eradication
Summary Key biological characteristics – uses every tool in the book. But strongest characters include: Competitiveness Prolific seed production Control strategies Grazing/fire to reduce seed production Restore with competitive natives Soil N manipulations Herbicide treatments