Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:01:51.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Using Timely Sheep Grazing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph M. DiTomaso ,
Guy B. Kyser ,
Melvin R. George ,
Morgan P. Doran  and
Emilio A. Laca
Joseph M. DiTomaso*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Mail Stop 4, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Guy B. Kyser
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Mail Stop 4, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Melvin R. George
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Mail Stop 4, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Morgan P. Doran
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, Solano County, 501 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533
Emilio A. Laca
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Mail Stop 4, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jmditomaso@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medusahead is among the most invasive grasses in the western United States. Selective control of this noxious winter annual grass is difficult in California grasslands, as many other desirable annual grasses and both native and nonnative broadleaf forbs are also important components of the rangeland system. Intensive grazing management using sheep is one control option. This study was designed to determine the optimal timing for sheep grazing on heavily infested medusahead sites, and to evaluate the changes in species composition with different grazing regimes. Midspring (April/May) grazing reduced medusahead cover by 86 to 100% relative to ungrazed plots, regardless of whether it was used in combination with early spring or fall grazing. Early spring (March) or fall (October to November) grazing, alone or in combination, was ineffective for control of medusahead. In addition, midspring grazing increased forb cover, native forb species richness, and overall plant diversity. At the midspring grazing timing, medusahead was in the “boot” stage, just prior to exposure of the inflorescences. The success of this timely grazing system required high animal densities for short periods. Although this approach may be effective in some areas, the timing window is fairly narrow and the animal stocking rates are high. Thus, sheep grazing is unlikely to be a practical solution for management of large medusahead infestations

Keywords

MedusaheadTaeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski ELYCACultural controlgrasslandrangelandtiming
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bentley, J. R. and Talbot, M. W. 1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle range in the California foothills. USDA Circ. 870. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture. 52.Google Scholar
Biswell, H. H. 1956. Ecology of California grasslands. J. Range Manage 9:19–24.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W., LeTourneau, D., and Erickson, L. C. 1961. The chemical composition of medusahead and downy brome. Weeds 9:307–311.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. L. and Clark, J. K., editors. 2005. Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 222.Google Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1991. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev 57:1–32.Google Scholar
Freckman, D. W., Duncan, D. A., and Larson, J. R. 1979. Nematode density and biomass in an annual grassland ecosystem. J. Range Manage 32:418–422.Google Scholar
Furbush, P. 1953. Control of medusahead on California ranges. J. For 51:118–121.Google Scholar
George, M. R. 1994. Annual rangeland management principles and practices. The California experience. Pages 392–395. in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology, Management and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
George, M. R., Knight, R. S., Sands, P. B., and Demment, M. W. 1989. Intensive grazing increases beef production. Calif. Agric 43:16–19.Google Scholar
Hayes, G. F. and Holl, K. D. 2003. Cattle grazing impacts on native forbs and vegetation composition of mesic grasslands in California. Conserv. Biol 17:1694–1702.Google Scholar
Heady, H. F. 1956. Vegetational changes in the California annual type. Ecology 39:402–415.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1961. The relative rate of root development of cheat grass and medusahead. J. Range Manage 14:263–267.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1994. Medusahead: natural successor to the cheatgrass type in the Northern Great Basin. Pages 89–91. in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology, Management and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
Jones, M. B. and Evans, R. A. 1960. Botanical composition changes in annual grassland as affected by fertilization and grazing. Agron. J 52:459–461.Google Scholar
Kyser, G. B., DiTomaso, J. M., Doran, M. P., Orloff, S. B., Wilson, R. G., Lancaster, D., Lile, D., and Porath, M. 2007. Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other annual grasses with imazapic. Weed Technol 21:66–75.Google Scholar
Lusk, W. C., Jones, M. B., Torell, D. T., and McKell, C. M. 1961. Medusahead palatability. J. Range Manage 14:248–251.Google Scholar
McDougald, N. K., Clawson, W. J., Bartolome, J. W., and Frost, W. E. 1991. Estimating livestock grazing capacity on California annual rangeland. University of California Davis Range Science Report #29.Google Scholar
McKell, C. C., Wilson, A. M., and Kay, B. L. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125–131.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. A., Osmond, T. M., and Dewey, S. A. 2005. Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides on Northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol 19:653–658.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. H. and Lusk, W. C. 1961. Timing of medusahead burns. Calif. Agric 15:6–7.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol 7:234–237.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Nat 52:245–252.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Robison, J. 1972. Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. J. Range Manage 25:372–375.Google Scholar