Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:18:18.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in the Central Rockies: Land Manager Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Windy K. Kelley ,
Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez  and
Cynthia S. Brown
Windy K. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1472
Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1472
Cynthia S. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wkelley1@uwyo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Successful management of downy brome (also known as cheatgrass) requires understanding land managers' perceptions and decisions about whether to invest in its control. We investigated ranchers' and natural resource professionals' (NRPs) perceptions and knowledge about downy brome ecology and its impacts, their current downy brome management practices and satisfaction with those practices, and their information and technical needs using focus groups and a mail survey of ranchers and NRPs in Colorado and Wyoming. Both groups thought downy brome was a problem, and perception of the severity of downy brome corresponded to the level of infestation in the respondent's region. NRPs identified downy brome as a bigger problem than did ranchers from the same area in all but one region. Ranchers were most likely to use early spring grazing to control downy brome, and NRPs were most likely to use seeding, imazapic herbicide, or a combination of methods. Both groups reported that the primary constraint to controlling downy brome was that other weeds were a higher priority. Ranchers and NRPs wanted more information about the control methods they were already likely to use as well as other downy brome control methods. Our findings suggest that (1) listing a species as a noxious weed may provide an important incentive to control it, but trade-offs among control efforts for different species must be carefully considered; (2) managers need to know more about low-cost, low-labor strategies for managing downy brome; and (3) some managers need to be informed about how to identify downy brome, its potential negative effects, and how to prevent its spread. Better quantification of the economic and ecological impacts of downy brome in the Central Rocky Mountains, continued development of effective and economically viable management methods, and improvement in the dissemination of that information to land managers are necessary for successful control of downy brome.

Keywords

Imazapic, downy brome, Bromus tectorum L. BROTEHuman dimensions of invasive plantscheatgrassintegrated pest management
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 521 - 535
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Sustainable Management of Rangeland Resources, University of Wyoming Extension, P.O. Box 542, Pinedale, WY 82941

References

Literature Cited

Andreu, J., Vilá, M., and Hulme, P. 2009. An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environ. Manag. 43:1244–1255.Google Scholar
Aslan, C. E., Hufford, M. B., Epanchin-Niell, R. S., Port, J. D., Sexton, J. P., and Waring, T. M. 2009. Practical challenges in private stewardship of rangeland ecosystems: yellow starthistle control in Sierra Nevadan foothills. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 62:28–37.Google Scholar
Belnap, J. and Phillips, S. L. 2001. Soil biota in an ungrazed grassland: response to annual grass (Bromus tectorum) invasion. Ecol. Appl. 11:1261–1275.Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Phillips, S. L., Sherrod, S. K., and Moldenke, A. 2005. Soil biota can change after exotic plant invasion: does this effect ecosystem processes? Ecology 86:3007–3017.Google Scholar
Berg, B. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 5th ed. Boston Allyn and Bacon. 336 p.Google Scholar
Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 10:141–163.Google Scholar
Blank, R. R. 2008. Biogeochemistry of plant invasion: a case study with downy brome. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 1:226–238.Google Scholar
Bradford, J. and Lauenroth, W. 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: The importance of climate, soil, disturbance and seed availability. J. Veg. Sci. 17:693–704.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3:77–101.Google Scholar
Bremer, A. and Park, K. 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 139:306–314.Google Scholar
Bromberg, J. E., Kumar, S., Brown, C. S., and Stohlgren, T. J. 2011. Distributional changes and range predictions of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in Rocky Mountain National Park. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 4:173–182.Google Scholar
Brunson, M. W. and Tanaka, J. 2011. Economic and social impacts of wildfires and invasive plants in American deserts: lessons from the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 64:463–470.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Agriculture. n.d. Colorado Weed Mapping. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1167928184069&pagename=Agriculture-Main%2FCDAGLayout. Accessed: April 27, 2010.Google Scholar
Coppock, D. and Birkenfeld, A. 1999. Use of livestock and range management practices in Utah. J. Range Manag. 52:7–18.Google Scholar
Daab, M. T. and Flint, C. G. 2010. Public reaction to invasive plant species in a disturbed Colorado landscape. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 3:390–401.Google Scholar
Davison, J., Smith, E., and Beck, G. 2007. Forestry: Cheatgrass and Wildfire. Fort Collins Colorado State University Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley. 464 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J., Masters, R., and Peterson, V. 2010. Rangeland invasive plant management. Rangelands 32:43–47.Google Scholar
Epanchin-Niell, R. S., Hufford, M. B., Aslan, C. E., Sexton, J. P., Port, J. D., and Waring, R. M. 2010. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:210–216.Google Scholar
Eviner, V., Hoskinson, S., and Hawkes, C. 2010. Ecosystem impacts of exotic plants can feed back to increase invasion in Western US Rangelands. Rangelands 32:21–31.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. and Charnley, S. 2012. Private forest owners and invasive plants: risk perception and management. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 5:375–389.Google Scholar
Frasier, G. and Mack, R. 2009. Invasive weeds on range and farmlands—problems, causes, and solutions: an interview with Richard Mack. Rangelands 31:10–13.Google Scholar
Grbich, C. 2007. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Los Angeles Sage. 258 p.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. 1999. Economic evaluation procedures for noxious weed management on rangeland. Pages 44–56 in Sheley, R. and Petroff, J., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Healy, C. 2001. Drought Fuels Loss of U.S. Western Land to Invasive Grass and Wildfires. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0628_drought.html. Accessed: May 20, 2010.Google Scholar
Jerup, A. 2008. Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated List. http://www.wyoweed.org/statelist.html. Accessed: April 8, 2013.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Davies, K., Schrder, P., and Chamberlain, A. M. 2009. The 2007 Southeast Oregon Weed Management Survey: Ranchers' Perceptions of Weeds in Sagebrush Steppe Rangeland. Burns Oregon State University Extension Service, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center Rep. EOARC 2009-632. 32 p.Google Scholar
Kapler, E., Thompson, J., and Widrlechner, M. 2012. Assessing stakeholder perspectives on invasive plants to inform risk analysis. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 5:194–208.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Brunson, M. 2007. Creating a culture of innovation in ranching. Rangelands 29(3):35–40.Google Scholar
Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environ. Chang. 6:37–52.Google Scholar
Mack, R. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165.Google Scholar
Meyer, S. and Leger, E. 2010. Inbreeding, genetic variation, and invasiveness: the strange case of Bromus tectorum . Rangelands 32:6–11.Google Scholar
Mosley, J., Bunting, S., and Manoukian, M. 1999. Cheatgrass. Pages 175–188 in Sheley, R. and Petroff, J., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, U., Mosier, A. R., Morgan, J. A., Derner, J. D., Ingram, L. J., and Stahl, P. D. 2008. Moisture pulses, trace gas emissions and soil C and N in cheatgrass and native grass-dominated sagebrush-steppe in Wyoming, USA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40:1421–1431.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 2011. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal and Microbe Species. 2nd ed. New York CRC. 463 p.Google Scholar
Rimer, R. L. and Evans, R. D. 2006. Invasion of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) causes rapid changes in the nitrogen cycle. Am. Midl. Nat. 156:252–258.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York Free Press. 519 p.Google Scholar
Rowe, H. and Brown, C. 2008. Native plant growth and seedling establishment in soils influenced by Bromus tectorum . Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 61:630–639.Google Scholar
Sell, R., Bangsund, D., and Leistritz, L. 1999. Euphorbia esula: Perceptions by ranchers and land managers. Weed Sci. 47:740–749.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Floyd, J. W. 1996. Noxious weed survey: awareness and attitudes in Montana. Weed Technol. 10:592–598.Google Scholar
Smith, M. and Enloe, S. 2006. Cheatgrass Ecology and Management in Wyoming. Laramie University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Office. 2 p.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. and Shamdasani, P. 1998. Focus group research: Exploration and Discovery. Pages 505–526 in Bickman, L. and Rog, D., eds. Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S., and Landholt, L. 2003. North American Wildland Plants: A Field Guide. 6th ed. Lincoln University of Nebraska. 501 p.Google Scholar
Tidwell, L. S. and Brunson, M. W. 2008. Volunteering to manage rangeland weeds. Rangelands 30:19–24.Google Scholar
Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. State College, PA Venture. 635 p.Google Scholar
Wyoming Pest Detection Program. 2009. Cheatgrass. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/capsweb/info.asp?p=11156. Accessed: April 27, 2010.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Clements, C. D. 2009. Cheatgrass: Fire and Forage on the Range. Reno University of Nevada Press. 348 p.Google Scholar