1 / 37

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities. Caren A. Judge, Joseph C. Neal, Theodore H. Shear, and Jeffrey F. Derr North Carolina State University. Microstegium vimineum. Japanese stiltgrass Summer annual invasive grass (Poaceae) C 4 , shade-tolerant

bryansmith
Télécharger la présentation

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities Caren A. Judge, Joseph C. Neal, Theodore H. Shear, and Jeffrey F. Derr North Carolina State University

  2. Microstegium vimineum • Japanese stiltgrass • Summer annual invasive grass (Poaceae) • C4, shade-tolerant • Wetlands, woodlands, utility easements, lawns, landscapes http://plants.usda.gov

  3. Objectives • To use an biological and ecological based research program to make sound management recommendations for Japanese stiltgrass

  4. Current management guidelines • Prevent seed production (Tu 2000) • Methods (late-season) • Hand-removal • Mechanical (mow) • Nonselective herbicide (Roundup Pro – glyphosate)

  5. Questions and concerns? • Late-season control allows competition to reduce native species • Non-selective methods (Roundup and mowing) kill native species • Management must be timely

  6. Photoperiod and flowering (NC) 1st visible flowers (2002-2004)

  7. Photoperiod and flowering (NC) 1st visible flowers (2002-2004)

  8. Photoperiod and flowering (NC) 1st visible flowers (2002-2004) Approximate floral induction

  9. Photoperiod and flowering (NC) 1st visible flowers (2002-2004) Approximate floral induction

  10. Seed development • Harvest inflorescences at various times in the reproductive cycle Oct. 7 Oct. 21 Nov. 2 Nov. 14

  11. Germination of immature seed

  12. Stiltgrass PRE Control – 8 WAT * ** LSD=15 P=0.05 *** Percent

  13. Stiltgrass & Crabgrass PRE Control Percent

  14. Stiltgrass POST Control – 8 WAT * ** *** LSD=11 P=0.05 *** Percent

  15. Stiltgrass & Crabgrass POST Control Percent

  16. Timing experiment • Herbicides • Acclaim Extra • Vantage • Plateau • Timing • Early season • Mid season • Late season

  17. Data collection & analysis • 2 years (2002 & 2003) • 2 locations (NC and VA) • RCBD, 4 replications, ANOVA • Percent control (’02 and ’03) • Percent seedhead reduction (‘03) • Percent stand reduction (May ‘04)

  18. Timing: Herbicide effect Herbicide NS Timing NS Herbicide NS Timing NS Herbicide 0.0113 Timing NS a ab b

  19. Timing effect – Oct 2003 Acclaim Extra: May Nontreated Acclaim Extra: June Acclaim Extra: August

  20. Herbicide, rate, and frequency • 2 years (NC) • Herbicides • Acclaim Extra • Vantage • Rates - 1/2X, 1X • # Applications • 1 application (mid-season) • 2 applications (4 wk interval) Non-treated Vantage 1X-2 apps

  21. Herbicide, rate, and frequency ANOVA: Year (NS), Herbicide (NS), Rate (P = 0.0133), Frequency (P < 0.0001), Rate*Frequency (P = 0.133)

  22. Herbicide, rate, and frequency Oct 2003 Vantage 1/2X: 1 app Vantage 1/2X: 2 app Nontreated Vantage 1X: 1 app Vantage 1X: 2 app

  23. Summary • All three selective herbicides were effective at each application timing • Multiple applications were more effective than single applications (whether 1/2X or 1X)

  24. Conventional vs. selective Handweed: August Roundup Pro: August Mow: August Acclaim Extra: June x2

  25. Data collection & analysis • Percent cover: 2002 to 2004 • Mid-summer • Late-summer • Soil cores: 2002 to 2004 • 2 per plot (10 x 5 cm) • Identified species • # of individuals • ANOVA (P≤ 0.05)

  26. Selective vs. nonselective 2002 Acclaim Extra Roundup Pro August November

  27. Selective vs. nonselective 2003 Acclaim Extra Roundup Pro July September

  28. Selective vs. nonselective 2004 Acclaim Extra Roundup Pro June September

  29. End of 3rd season comparisons nontreated Acclaim Extra Roundup Pro

  30. Japanese stiltgrass cover: Duke Forest a NS b b bc bc c

  31. Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest a a b ab ab abc bc c c c c c

  32. Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest – 2002

  33. Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest – 2003

  34. Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest – 2004

  35. Summary • Japanese stiltgrass • All treatments effective control & seed bank reduction • Herbaceous dicots • Greater diversity in selective treatment

  36. The future? • What will happen after we control Japanese stiltgrass? • Will re-established plant communities be less susceptible to invasion? • Can we truly exhaust the seed bank?

  37. Questions??

More Related