Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:39:34.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Invasive grasses in South Texas rangelands: historical perspectives and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2020

Justin P. Wied
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA
Humberto L. Perotto-Baldivieso*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Research Scientist, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA
April A. T. Conkey
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Research Scientist, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA
Leonard A. Brennan
Affiliation:
C.C. “Charlie” Winn Endowed Chair for Quail Research, Professor, and Research Scientist, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA
José M. Mata
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Humberto L. Perotto-Baldivieso, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, 700 University Boulevard, MSC 218, Kingsville, TX78363. (Email: humberto.perotto@tamuk.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

South Texas is home to a high diversity of species due to its location at the confluence of subtropical, desert, and coastal ecoregions. Historical overgrazing of South Texas rangelands transformed the savanna and prairie to a landscape dominated by woody plants and shrubs interspersed with low seral grass species and bare ground. During the first half of the 20th century, exotic grass species, coupled with the application of industrial agricultural practices appeared to be the future of forage production in South Texas and elsewhere. Several of these exotic species, namely King Ranch bluestem [Bothriochloa ischaemum (L.) Keng], Kleberg bluestem [Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf], Angelton bluestem [Dichanthium aristatum (Poir.) C.E. Hubbard], buffelgrass [Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link], guineagrass [Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) R. Webster], Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees), and Bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], have escaped pasture cultivation. Additionally, the native grass tanglehead [Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult.] has begun displaying invasive behaviors. The monoculture growth habit of these species simplifies vegetation structure, reduces biodiversity, and decreases habitat for many species of wildlife. These grasses also alter natural fire regimes and nutrient cycling. This landscape-level transformation of vegetation composition and structure requires monitoring to quantify and assess the spatial and temporal distributions of invasive species as a basis to inform management practices. Current advances in remote sensing technologies, such as very high spatial resolution coupled with daily satellite imagery and unmanned aerial vehicles, are providing tools for invasive vegetation monitoring. We provide a synthesis of the natural history of these grasses, including their introductions, an overview of remote sensing applications in South Texas, and recommendations for future management practices.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

Introduction

Throughout the world, invasive plant species decrease biodiversity and alter ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, hydrology, and disturbance regimes, cumulatively decreasing the proper function of ecosystems (D’Antonio and Vitousek Reference D’Antonio and Vitousek1992; Richardson et al. Reference Richardson, Pyšek, Rejmánek, Barbour, Panetta and West2000; Simberloff et al. Reference Simberloff, Martin, Genovesi, Maris, Wardle, Aronson, Courchamp, Galil, García-Bertou, Pascal, Pyšek, Sousa, Tabacchi and Vilà2013; Vitousek Reference Vitousek1990). Some species are accidental introductions, but many have been introduced for agronomic and erosion control purposes before becoming a nuisance in their new environments (Fulbright et al. Reference Fulbright, Hickman and Hewitt2013; Simberloff et al. Reference Simberloff, Martin, Genovesi, Maris, Wardle, Aronson, Courchamp, Galil, García-Bertou, Pascal, Pyšek, Sousa, Tabacchi and Vilà2013). Drought tolerance and high productivity make species attractive candidates for introduction and are the same traits that promote invasiveness (Fulbright et al. Reference Fulbright, Hickman and Hewitt2013).

South Texas (Figure 1) includes the area south of the Edwards Plateau from the Rio Grande at Del Rio east to San Antonio and southeast to the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of Lavaca Bay (Carter Reference Carter1958; Fulbright and Bryant Reference Fulbright and Bryant2002). The region historically consisted of midgrass coastal plains and inland savanna with the now-prevalent honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr. var. glandulosa) relegated to riparian areas, washes, and other upland sites (Griffith et al. Reference Griffith, Bryce, Omernik and Rogers2007; Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie Reference Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie1988). South Texas’s variation in edaphic, geologic, and climatic factors, as well as the convergence of subtropical, eastern deciduous, and Chihuahuan desert species, creates a hyperdiverse region (Fulbright and Bryant Reference Fulbright and Bryant2002). The South Texas plains, exclusive of the coastal counties, are home to 514 resident native vertebrate species: 40 amphibians, 109 reptiles, 283 birds, and 82 mammals (Holt et al. Reference Holt, Allen, Parker and Baker2000). Alone, the 76,006 ha of the South Texas Refuge Complex in the Lower Rio Grande Valley host 31 species of fish, 115 species of herpetofauna, 429 species of bird, and 44 species of mammal at some time during the year (Leslie Reference Leslie2016).

Figure 1. South Texas ecoregions based on Griffith et al. (Reference Griffith, Bryce, Omernik and Rogers2007).

Overstocking of sheep during the second half of the 19th century degraded range conditions and contributed to woody plant encroachment (Fulbright Reference Fulbright, Webster and Bahre2001; Lehmann Reference Lehmann1969). Cattle ranching replaced sheep, but low carrying capacities required large tracts of rangeland (Fulbright Reference Fulbright, Webster and Bahre2001; Griffith et al. Reference Griffith, Bryce, Omernik and Rogers2007). In the early 20th century, a search for grass species for forage and erosion control on degraded rangelands led to the introduction of several grass species to southern Texas (Fulbright et al. Reference Fulbright, Hickman and Hewitt2013). The extended droughts in the 1930s and 1950s in particular drove this search (Todd and Ogren Reference Todd and Ogren2016). Today, conservation of natural resources in South Texas is critical for property owners who increasingly earn their livelihood through outdoor recreation and are interested in wildlife management (Brennan et al. Reference Brennan, Hernández, Bryan and Brennan2007; Fulbright and Bryant Reference Fulbright and Bryant2002; Smith Reference Smith2010). Management strategies include brush management, decreased stocking rates, and restoration of pastures with native grass species. The increase of several invasive species (Table 1), such as tanglehead [Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult.], King Ranch bluestem [Bothriochloa ischaemum (L.) Keng; also known as yellow bluestem] (NRCS 2019), Kleberg bluestem [Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf], Angleton bluestem [Dichanthium aristatum (Poir.) C.E. Hubbard], buffelgrass [Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link], guineagrass [Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) R. Webster], Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees), and Bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], has become problematic for outdoor enthusiasts and conservationists (Smith Reference Smith2010). Pennisetum ciliare and C. dactylon remain commonly planted exotic pasture grasses; however, the greater economic returns provided by fee-lease hunting are prompting landowners to provide suitable areas for wildlife habitat through conservation and ecological restoration. Restoration of native shrub species on abandoned cropland is impeded by the colonization of these grass species; this can be exacerbated by oil and gas infrastructure such as pad sites, pipelines, and rights-of-way (Cobb et al. Reference Cobb, Smith and Stuver2016; Goertz Reference Goertz2013). Existing research has shown that grass invasions are likely to occur within 60 m of the abovementioned infrastructure. Changes in herbaceous vegetation restoration strategies with native ecotypic seed can provide resistance to exotic ingress (Falk et al. Reference Falk, Fulbright, Smith, Brennan, Ortega-Santos and Benn2013; Twedt and Best Reference Twedt and Best2004). In this review, we outline how these species have spread across South Texas. For each, we describe its natural history, uses, and impacts on rangelands and wildlife. Finally, we describe how we can use remote sensing methods to quantify the amount and spatial distribution of these species and monitor their spread across the landscape, as well as their potential effects on wildlife management in rangelands.

Table 1. Summary of key biological and ecological characteristics of the most common invasive grass species in South Texas.

Natural Histories of Invasive Grasses

Heteropogon contortus (Tanglehead)

Heteropogon contortus is described as native in the southern Texas plains where midgrass prairies were common (Carter Reference Carter1958; Johnston Reference Johnston1963). Its worldwide distribution is pantropical, with clusters in the southwestern United States, Central America, Hawai‘i, the Indonesian archipelago, Australia, the Indian subcontinent, Madagascar, and southern Africa, which has led some to question its native status within North America (Correll and Johnston Reference Correll and Johnston1970; Tothill and Hacker Reference Tothill and Hacker1976). Tothill and Hacker (Reference Tothill and Hacker1976) consider it a successful species based on its ability to thrive across varying habitats.

Heteropogon contortus is a C4 perennial bunchgrass of the Andropogoneae tribe with erect culms typically growing to 1 m (Reilly et al. Reference Reilly, Maher and Duvauchelle2002; Soreng et al. Reference Soreng, Peterson, Romaschenko, Davidse, Zuloaga, Judziewicz, Filgueiras, Davis and Morrne2015). Leaves occur along the length of culms, which end in inflorescences of spikate racemes. A long, twisted awn arises from each upper floret (Everitt et al. Reference Everitt, Drawe, Little and Londard2011). These awns collectively twist together along the raceme, giving the grass its common name. The florets are easily detachable, and the stiff awns attach to fur, clothing, and vehicles, which transport the seeds and facilitate dispersal. Reproduction is primarily apomictic, although sexual reproduction is known to occur (Reilly et al. Reference Reilly, Maher and Duvauchelle2002; Tothill and Hacker Reference Tothill and Hacker1976). Flowering typically occurs from summer to early fall in southern Texas (Johnston Reference Johnston1963), but Tothill and Hacker (Reference Tothill and Hacker1976) suggested that flowering response may be adaptive due to the instability in subtropical climates. Because it takes in soil nutrients at a slower rate than other associated plant species, H. contortus can spread into areas with lower soil productivity (Bielfelt and Litt Reference Bielfelt and Litt2016). Slow absorption also allows established stands of H. contortus growing on more nutritive soils to persist longer than other herbaceous species that deplete soil nutrients more quickly (Bielfelt and Litt Reference Bielfelt and Litt2016). Thus, where H. contortus has become invasive, it is associated with a monoculture growth of closed canopy (Figure 2), which may decrease bare ground and light availability for other plants (Bielfelt and Litt Reference Bielfelt and Litt2016).

Figure 2. Monoculture of Heteropogon contortus in a ranch pasture in Jim Hogg County, TX.

Heteropogon contortus has been considered a good native forage for livestock production during its growth phase; however, upon maturity, the coarse culms and decreased palatability reduce its preference among grazers (Reilly et al. Reference Reilly, Maher and Duvauchelle2002). Additionally, the stiff tangle of awns may cause physical injury to animals. Historically, H. contortus was a minor component of rangeland in southern Texas (Carter Reference Carter1958), and likely not a major component of livestock diets. Johnston’s (Reference Johnston1963) data show a marked decrease in H. contortus abundance on grazed sites, indicating palatability to livestock. The decrease in grazing within South Texas has likely led to the proliferation of H. contortus (Wester et al. Reference Wester, Bryant, Tjelmeland, Grace, Mitchell, Edwards, Hernández, Lyons, Clayton, Rideout-Hanzak, Machen and Ortega-S2018). Many ranchers in South Texas have observed declining grazing preference by cattle when the plants reach maturity, which contrasts to other areas in western Texas and worldwide, where increasing grazing pressure decreases H. contortus abundance, regardless of its growth stage (Tjelmeland Reference Tjelmeland2011).

Wester et al. (Reference Wester, Bryant, Tjelmeland, Grace, Mitchell, Edwards, Hernández, Lyons, Clayton, Rideout-Hanzak, Machen and Ortega-S2018) proposed that changing land-use practices contributed to an increase of H. contortus. Early research on grazing reduction in southern Arizona likewise showed an increase in H. contortus production after removal of grazing pressure (Canfield Reference Canfield1948). Prescribed fire is a common tool for improving range through herbaceous renewal and brush removal, but H. contortus is naturally fire tolerant (Goergen and Daehler Reference Goergen and Daehler2001; Tjelmeland Reference Tjelmeland2011). Prescribed fire studies conducted in Jim Hogg County, TX, showed that small patches (<6.97 m2) of H. contortus increased in both burned and unburned patches 1 yr following a spring fire, but the increase was faster (50%) on burned sites compared with unburned plots (17%) (Wester et al. Reference Wester, Bryant, Tjelmeland, Grace, Mitchell, Edwards, Hernández, Lyons, Clayton, Rideout-Hanzak, Machen and Ortega-S2018). The resulting regrowth of surviving plants increased in crude protein 16% and decreased in crude fiber a month after burning, before decreasing with 52% livestock utilization in the burned patches compared with 1.8% in unburned patches (Wester et al. Reference Wester, Bryant, Tjelmeland, Grace, Mitchell, Edwards, Hernández, Lyons, Clayton, Rideout-Hanzak, Machen and Ortega-S2018). The use of prescribed burning can therefore make H. contortus a more desirable forage. However, Grace et al. (Reference Grace, Tjelmeland, Smith, Mitchell, Rideout-Hanzak, Lloyd-Reilley, Maher and Wester2016) found that fire can promote output up to 1,500 seedlings m−2.

Few studies have been conducted on the effects of H. contortus on wildlife in southern Texas. Bielfelt (Reference Bielfelt2013) reported that increasing density of H. contortus increased density of breeding pairs among three obligate grassland species: Cassin’s sparrow (Peucaea cassinii Woodhouse), Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna Linnaeus), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum J. F. Gmelin). Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura Linnaeus) density increased with rising H. contortus density, though the presence of scissor-tailed flycatchers (Tyrannus forficatus Gmelin) decreased. The growth form of H. contortus likely provides some ground-foraging and ground-nesting bird species improved protection from predation (Bielfelt Reference Bielfelt2013). Buelow et al. (Reference Buelow, Brennan, Hernández and Fulbright2011) found that northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus Linnaeus) used sites dominated by H. contortus for nesting in similar proportion (i.e., without preference) to available patches across the landscape; however, they avoided H. contortus patches during times spent off-nest. Presumably, the dense nature of H. contortus monocultures hampers the movement of ground foragers and may decrease the availability of a diverse diet (Buelow et al. Reference Buelow, Brennan, Hernández and Fulbright2011). Similarly, Edwards et al. (Reference Edwards, Hernández, Wester, Brennan, Parent and Bryant2017) detected fewer coveys of C. virginianus where invasive grasses, including H. contortus, reached >20% canopy cover. This correlated to areas of decreased bare ground and forb production. Where H. contortus is prevalent, grassland birds seem to be trapped in a trade-off between improved nesting conditions and less diverse food resources.

Old World Bluestems

The term “Old World bluestems” is applied to agronomic grasses in the Americas imported from Eurasia and Africa. These species belong to a monophyletic, agamic complex of species within the genera Bothriochloa, Dichanthium, and Capillipedium (Harlan et al. Reference Harlan, Celarier, Richardson, Brooks and Mehra1958; Mathews et al. Reference Mathews, Sprangler, Mason-Gamer and Kellogg2002; Soreng et al. Reference Soreng, Peterson, Romaschenko, Davidse, Zuloaga, Judziewicz, Filgueiras, Davis and Morrne2015). Specifically, the species encountered in South Texas are B. ischaemum (King Ranch bluestem, also known as yellow bluestem), D. annulatum (Kleberg bluestem), and D. aristatum (Angleton bluestem) (NRCS 2019). They are distantly related to the native bluestem species within the Andropogon and Schizachyrium genera with which they form sister clades (Arthan et al. Reference Arthan, McKain, Traiperm, Welker, Teisher and Kellogg2017; Mathews et al. Reference Mathews, Sprangler, Mason-Gamer and Kellogg2002). The native range of B. ischaemum is temperate and subtropical Eurasia (Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955; Todd and Ogren Reference Todd and Ogren2016). Dichanthium annulatum and D. aristatum are both found from India to southeast and eastern Asia, with D. annulatum also occurring in tropical Africa (Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955; Bhat et al. Reference Bhat, Mahalakshmi, Saran, Raina and Kole2011; Todd and Ogren Reference Todd and Ogren2016).

The Old World bluestems are C4 perennial species (Soreng et al. Reference Soreng, Peterson, Romaschenko, Davidse, Zuloaga, Judziewicz, Filgueiras, Davis and Morrne2015). Hybridization can occur between species in Dichanthium and Bothriochloa (Singh Reference Singh1965). Diploids of each species reproduce sexually, whereas polyploids are facultative or obligate apomicts (Harlan and de Wet Reference Harlan and de Wet1963). Apomictic reproduction is common within both genera and among their hybrids, though vegetative reproduction by stolons occurs (Gould and Shaw Reference Gould and Shaw1983; Harlan et al. Reference Harlan, Brooks, Borgaonkar and de Wet1964; Hatch et al. Reference Hatch, Schuster and Drawe1999). A plasticity in growth form coupled with hybridization makes identification to the species level difficult, though a groove on the pedicellate spikelets is a defining character of Bothriochloa (Best Reference Best2006; Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955).

In the United States, several species of Dichanthium and Bothriochloa were investigated for use in forage production beginning in the early 20th century. Dichanthium aristatum and hurricane grass [Bothriochloa pertusa (L.) A. Camus] appear to have been accidental introductions to the Western Hemisphere, via the Caribbean Islands (Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955). Dichanthium annulatum also appears to have been an accidental introduction (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Novosad and Pratt Reference Novosad and Pratt1959). Caucasian bluestem [Bothriochloa bladhii (Retz.) S.T. Blake] and B. ischaemum arrived in the New World for use as potential forage producers (Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955).

Bothriochloa ischaemum is usually recorded as an accidental introduction to the United States (Harlan Reference Harlan1951). The earliest record of B. ischaemum in the United States was traced back to a shipment from the U.S. consulate in Amoy (modern Xiamen), Fujian, China, to the California Agriculture Experiment Station in Berkeley (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1955). Similar material was shipped to the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station in Angleton in 1914 by the U.S. Bureau of Plant Industry (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994). This species was found growing unexpectedly in a pasture of the King Ranch (Nueces County, TX) by Soil Conservation Service agronomist Nick Díaz in 1939 (Lea Reference Lea1957). From this material, 34 kg of seed was sent to the Soil Conservation Service nursery in San Antonio, TX, for production investigations (Nixon Reference Nixon1949). Commercial release of B. ischaemum began in 1949 (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994). This year also marks the first accession to a herbarium of a B. ischaemum sample collected in Kleberg County (South Texas) and not associated with experiment stations or grass nurseries (Gabbard and Fowler Reference Gabbard and Fowler2007).

Dichanthium annulatum was noticed growing on King Ranch by agronomist Nick Díaz (Lea Reference Lea1957). The original source of this population is unknown. Beginning around 1915, the King Ranch began experimental plantings of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana Kunth) with an eventual 12,282 ha in production by 1940 (Lea Reference Lea1957). It is possible seeds or stolons of D. annulatum were accidentally mixed with the C. gayana material, as both occur in South Africa. Seeds were collected from this population and sent to the Soil Conservation Service nursery in San Antonio, where the grass was increased for production with an informal release of grass seed to producers in the 1940s (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994).

Dichanthium aristatum plants were donated to the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station in Angleton in 1915 by the USDA Office of Forage-Crop Investigation from materials sent from the Poona Agriculture College (modern Pune Agriculture University) in India (Hafner Reference Hafner1926; Novosad and Pratt Reference Novosad and Pratt1959). By the 1950s, two cultivars of D. aristatum, ‘Gordo’ and ‘Medio’, were created from source plants from South Africa and Bee County, TX, respectively, at the Soil Conservation Service nursery in San Antonio. A third cold-hardy cultivar named ‘T-587’ was released in 1981 from worldwide-sourced stock in the 1950s (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994).

By the late 1940s, the desire for improved pasture grasses grew, and Old World bluestem production increased, with nearly 55,000 kg of B. ischaemum seed harvested for sale in Texas and Oklahoma (Nixon Reference Nixon1949). The Old World bluestems were seen as superior to the native bluestem species due to their grazing resistance and ability to thrive under high fertilizer regimens (Ahring et al. Reference Ahring, Taliaferro and Russell1978). In the 1950s, work to create improved varieties was undertaken by the Oklahoma Agriculture Experiment Station (Celarier and Harlan Reference Celarier and Harlan1956). King Ranch instituted a seeding program of planting B. ischaemum and D. annulatum, among other introduced grasses such as P. ciliare and C. dactylon, in pastures cleared of brush (Lea Reference Lea1957; Schnupp and DeLaney Reference Schnupp, DeLaney, Sands, Brennan, DeMaso and Schnupp2012). By the 1970s, Old World bluestems were investigated for erosion and weed control along highway rights-of-way by the Texas Highway Department (later Texas Department of Transportation; McCully et al. Reference McCully, Bowmer and Stubbendieck1970). In addition, trials were conducted on B. ischaemum to test its use as a reclamation grass on former oil well reserve pits in the 1980s (McFarland et al. Reference McFarland, Ueckert and Hartmann1987). An estimated 1 million ha of Texas and Oklahoma rangeland has been seeded with nonnative bluestems since the mid-1980s (Ruffner and Barnes Reference Ruffner and Barnes2012).

Ecosystem disturbances appear to have neutral to positive feedbacks to the spread of these grass species. Root growth is deep, especially in B. ischaemum; Allred and Nixon (Reference Allred and Nixon1955) note that roots reached a depth of 2 to 3 m in a heavy clay soil with roots comprising two times the vegetation growth, improving drought resistance. The exotic bluestems are highly tolerant of grazing, especially in comparison to native grass species (Gabbard and Fowler Reference Gabbard and Fowler2007; Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Avila-C, Gonzalez-V and Gonzalez-P2007). Bothriochloa bladhii, B. ischaemum, and D. annulatum appear to tolerate prescribed fire applications (Gabbard and Fowler Reference Gabbard and Fowler2007; Grace et al. Reference Grace, Smith, Grace, Collins and Stohlgren2001). Fires occurring in the mid-growing season have shown negative effects on B. ischaemum, notably when tillers are composed of pre-reproductive and reproductive tillers (Ruckman et al. Reference Ruckman, Schwinning and Lyons2012; Simmons et al. Reference Simmons, Windhager, Power, Lott, Lyons and Schwope2007). Similarly, postdrought fires during the growing season were found more successful than dormant-season fires in promoting growth of native forbs without increasing spread of B. ischaemum (Twidwell et al. Reference Twidwell, Rogers, McMahon, Thomas, Kreuter and Blankenship2012). Encroachment of woody plants appears to indirectly facilitate establishment of B. ischaemum by creating disturbances, and thus pathways for invasion within the landscape (Alofs and Fowler Reference Alofs and Fowler2013).

Shaw (Reference Shaw2012) classified D. annulatum as poor livestock forage, and Pacheco et al. (Reference Pacheco, Brown and Bingham1983) found it has a low nutritive value with low protein content and high levels of fiber and silica. It is palatable to cattle and important in late summer when other grasses become dormant (Meyer and Brown Reference Meyer and Brown1985). Bothriochloa ischaemum is listed as fair forage for livestock and wildlife (Shaw Reference Shaw2012). Palatability of this species is high, though stems cure quickly late in the growing season, thus deterring grazing (Davis Reference Davis2011; Powell Reference Powell1994). Old World bluestem forage is capable of supporting gains in livestock weight early in the summer, but this capability declines by August (Coleman and Forbes Reference Coleman and Forbes1998). Crude protein content of B. ischaemum can decrease from 19% with immature growth to 3.7% with mature growth (National Research Council 1971). Crude protein can be increased in Old World bluestems by maintaining pasture at a short height and applying nitrogen fertilizer (McCollum Reference McCollum2000).

The effects that Old World bluestems have on wildlife have been studied for a wide variety of species and topics. As a component of herbivore diets, B. ischaemum and D. annulatum have been analyzed for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) in Texas. Odocoileus virginianus are primarily browsing animals, but use of grass increases when the quality of other components decrease or when fresh regrowth occurs after grazing by livestock (Arnold and Drawe Reference Arnold and Drawe1979; Bryant et al. Reference Bryant, Kothmann and Merrill1979; Chamrad and Box Reference Chamrad and Box1968; Everitt and Drawe Reference Everitt and Drawe1974). Bryant et al. (Reference Bryant, Taylor and Merrill1981) confirmed this seasonal use of B. ischaemum in central Texas O. virginianus. Bothriochloa ischaemum is consumed by O. virginianus as succulent growth or when woody browse is not preferred, but its preference index values are low compared with other available grass species. Similarly, Meyer et al. (Reference Meyer, Brown and Graham1984) found O. virginianus used D. annulatum in the summer, accounting for 14% of their seasonal diet. Despite the high usage, the in vitro digestible energy of D. annulatum was among the lowest at 1.85 kcal g−1 which would require 246 g to provide a daily maintenance level of digestible energy of 3,252 kcal g−1 to a 55-kg lactating doe (Meyer et al. Reference Meyer, Brown and Graham1984). Mean percent crude protein values of D. annulatum samples are 6.7% (SE = 0.7%) and only provide sufficient protein >13% for O. virginianus growth and reproduction during spring and autumn (Meyer and Brown Reference Meyer and Brown1985). These results indicate a low utility of these exotic bluestem grasses by O. virginianus.

The tendencies (Figure 3) of Bothriochloa and Dichanthium to develop monocultures create changes in habitat suitability for various wildlife species. For example, mounds of maritime pocket gophers (Geomys personatus maritimus Davis) are less likely to be found on sites containing D. annulatum (Cortez et al. Reference Cortez, Henke, Wiemers, Fulbright, Wester and Riddle2015). A study of B. ischaemum impacts on rodent communities in the Edwards Plateau of Texas found hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord) densities to be similar between native vegetation and invaded sites, but fulvous harvest mice (Reithrodontomys fulvescens J.A. Allen) and northern pygmy mice (Baiomys taylori Thomas) were only captured in native vegetation (Sammon and Wilkins Reference Sammon and Wilkins2005). Similarly, the species richness of a rodent community decreased in north-central Oklahoma grasslands with 40% to 60% Old World bluestem cover compared with native grassland controls, with S. hispidus again becoming the most prevalent species (Greer et al. Reference Greer, Noland, Hickman and Wilson2014). Kamler et al. (Reference Kamler, Ballard, Fish, Lemons, Mote and Perchellet2003) and Pavur (Reference Pavur2016) hypothesized that swift foxes (Vulpes velox Say) avoided Conservation Reserve Program grasslands seeded to Old World bluestems where taller and denser vegetation decreased prey abundance and reduced vision, which increases susceptibility to predation by coyotes (Canis latrans Say).

Figure 3. Characteristic yellow color of reproductive stage of Bothriochloa ischaemum in Nueces County, TX.

Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Ridgway) hens require areas of abundant bare ground for brood rearing, while males require short vegetation for lek sites, both of which can be lacking within Old World bluestem–dominated grasslands (Ripper et al. Reference Ripper, McLachlan, Toombs and VerCauteren2008). As with V. velox, Conservation Reserve Program fields planted with exotic species did not provide more benefit to T. pallidicinctus over native prairie (Wolfe et al. Reference Wolfe, Larsson, Patten, Haukos and Boal2016). Where the structure and plant diversity between native prairie and Conservation Reserve Program grassland greatly differs, a smaller abundance of grassland songbirds are benefited (Chapman et al. Reference Chapman, Engle, Masters and Leslie2004). Ammodramus savannarum are one of the few grassland songbirds whose breeding density increased in Old World bluestem fields, though high breeding densities have been negatively correlated with individual reproductive success (George et al. Reference George, O’Connell, Hickman and Leslie2009, Reference George, O’Connell, Hickman and Leslie2013a). The vegetation structure between native prairie and B. ischaemum–dominated grasslands were similar enough to support dickcissel (Spiza americana J. F. Gmelin) and S. magna nesting sites (George et al. Reference George, O’Connell, Hickman and Leslie2009). While wintering birds may use Old World bluestem fields for structural cover, there may exist a trade-off for lower food abundance in these fields (George et al. Reference George, O’Connell, Hickman and Leslie2013b). Dense growth of Old World bluestems on Conservation Reserve Program fields provided scaled quail (Callipepla squamata Vigors) with some cover, but they avoided dense vegetation and favored more diverse structure and plant species composition (Kuvlesky et al. Reference Kuvlesky, Fulbright and Engel-Wilson2002). Similarly, C. virginianus was less abundant in Conservation Reserve Program fields (George et al. Reference George, O’Connell, Hickman and Leslie2013a), although, Arredondo et al. (Reference Arredondo, Hernández, Bryant, Bingham and Howard2007) found that C. virginianus did use D. annulatum for nesting cover, though at lower percentages compared with other grass species.

Old World bluestems simplify arthropod diversity, which decreases nutrient cycling, prey abundance, and pollination services (Kuvlesky et al. Reference Kuvlesky, Brennan, Fulbright, Hernández, DeMaso, Sands, Perez and Hardin2012; Litt and Steidl Reference Litt and Steidl2010). Biomass of arthropods was significantly lower (Kruskal-Wallis H = 307, P < 0.001) in B. ischaemum sites (0.3 g sample−1) compared with native prairies (1.3 g sample−1; Hickman et al. Reference Hickman, Farley, Channell and Steier2006). Arthropod abundance in D. annulatum grasslands remained similar to that of native grasslands but differed by species richness (Cord Reference Cord2011; Mitchell and Litt Reference Mitchell and Litt2016; Woodin et al. Reference Woodin, Skoruppa, Pearce, Ruddy and Hickman2010). The Shannon diversity index for insects on a native grassland site was 1.4 with evenness of 0.7, whereas these values were 1.0 and 0.5, respectively, on a D. annulatum–dominated site in Nueces County, TX (Woodin et al. Reference Woodin, Skoruppa, Pearce, Ruddy and Hickman2010). Exotic bluestems had a simplifying effect on several arthropod functional guilds, including herbivorous, predatory, and detritivorous groups. Relative abundances of hemipteran and homopteran species increased relative to other herbivorous species such as orthopterans (Cord Reference Cord2011; McIntyre and Thompson Reference McIntyre and Thompson2003; Mitchell and Litt Reference Mitchell and Litt2016; Woodin et al. Reference Woodin, Skoruppa, Pearce, Ruddy and Hickman2010). Detritivorous insects were least abundant among D. annulatum (Cord Reference Cord2011), and isopods decreased on exotic grasslands, presumably due to changes in amounts and composition of litter (Mitchell and Litt Reference Mitchell and Litt2016). The simplification of these arthropod groups appears to affect the distributions of predatory arthropod species, namely arachnids (Cord Reference Cord2011; Woodin et al. Reference Woodin, Skoruppa, Pearce, Ruddy and Hickman2010). Ants were absent from Old World bluestem sites, particularly harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp. Mayr), which are a primary prey species for the threatened Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum Harlan; McIntyre Reference McIntyre2003). Grassland birds are typically granivorous but include arthropods in their diets, especially during breeding and brood rearing, with insects from the orders Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, and Coleoptera being most important to their diets (McIntyre and Thompson Reference McIntyre and Thompson2003; Wiens Reference Wiens1973). These orders decreased in abundance in Old World bluestem sites.

Pennisetum ciliare (Buffelgrass)

Pennisetum ciliare is native to tropical and subtropical Africa and southwestern Asia, with South Africa being the likely geographic origin of the species (Burson et al. Reference Burson, Actkinson, Hussey and Jessup2012; Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). It was initially introduced to four sites in Texas for investigation as a pasture grass; however, soil conditions in Angleton and cold winters in Temple, Chillicoathe, and Tyler prevented survival of these plantings (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1988; Pinkerton and Hussey Reference Pinkerton and Hussey1985). A second accession of plant material, this time from the Turkana Basin of Kenya and Ethiopia, was successfully established at the Soil Conservation Service nursery in San Antonio in 1946 (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a). The USDA Soil Conservation Service has success with field trials in southern Texas and informally released a variety for production in 1949 (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a; Hanselka Reference Hanselka1988). Commercial production began in the 1950s, coinciding with a period of severe drought in Texas (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). Several cultivars were developed during this period through the 1980s (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994). By 1985, P. ciliare was established on over 4 million ha in southern Texas, accounting for 90% of seeded pasture in the state south of San Antonio (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a; Mayeux and Hamilton Reference Mayeux and Hamilton1983). Overall it is the dominant herbaceous cover on 10 million ha in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico (Williams and Baruch Reference Williams and Baruch2000). It was similarly promoted in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, for improved pastures in the 1940s and 1950s, respectively (Franklin et al. Reference Franklin, Lyons, Nagler, Lampkin, Glenn, Molina-Fraener, Markow and Huete2006; Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012; Martin-R et al. Reference Martin-R, Cox and Ibarra-F1995). The spread in Sonora has reached more than 1 million ha (Arriaga et al. Reference Arriaga, Castellanos-V, Moreno and Alarcón2004).

Pennisetum ciliare is a perennial within the Paniceae taxonomic tribe that uses C4 carbon fixation in photosynthesis (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012; Shaw Reference Shaw2012). Plants grow tufted to 120 cm in height with spikelets subtended by soft hairs on a spike-like panicle (Everitt et al. Reference Everitt, Drawe, Little and Londard2011). The species is highly plastic in its growth form (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). It is an aposporous apomict, with tetraploidy being the most common genotype; sexual reproduction is known in some genotypes (Akiyama et al. Reference Akiyama, Hanna and Ozias-Akins2005; Burson et al. Reference Burson, Actkinson, Hussey and Jessup2012; Ozias-Akins and Van Dijk Reference Ozias-Akins and Van Dijk2007). Seed dormancy appears to change according to the provenance of the parent material (Hacker and Ratcliff Reference Hacker and Ratcliff1989). Winkworth (Reference Winkworth1971) found 10% of sown seed remained viable after 2 yr, while seed maintained in dry storage appeared to enter a second dormancy and emerge with 60% germination. Pennisetum ciliare can also reproduce vegetatitvely via rhizomes and stolon production (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). Seed is spread via attachment to animal fur, vehicles, runoff, and wind (Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Ibarra-Flores, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Martin-Rivera, Ávila-Curiel, Ayala-Alvares, Pinedo and Rivero2013). Some studies suggest P. ciliare may have allelopathic qualities (Franks Reference Franks2002; Fulbright and Fulbright Reference Fulbright and Fulbright1990).

Persistence of P. ciliare stands requires frost-free winters and medium-textured, low-salinity soils (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1988). Roots can grow to 2.4 m deep in the soil, but the low and high water-holding capacities of coarse- and fine-textured soils, respectively, retard growth, as do high water tables (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1988; Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). There is comparable production of aboveground biomass on sandy- and loamy-textured soils, but P. ciliare becomes a predominant species and spreads more easily on loams and sandy clays (Johnson and Fulbright Reference Johnson and Fulbright2008). Establishment occurs more readily on more alkaline soils than acidic soils (Johnson and Fulbright Reference Johnson and Fulbright2008). Wet winters can destroy seed released during the growing season, and hard freezes can damage established plants (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a). Pennisetum ciliare, especially the cultivar ‘T-446’, most commonly grown in North America, persists where precipitation ranges from 330 to 550 mm but dies when precipitation reaches >600 mm (Ibarra-F et al. Reference Ibarra-F, Cox, Martin-R, Crowl and Call1995). Despite these limitations, cultivars have been produced that better tolerate unfavorable conditions by breeding an apomict with desirable traits with a sexual reproductive plant (Burson et al. Reference Burson, Actkinson, Hussey and Jessup2012; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a; Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012).

When mature plants are removed from a site, seedlings can quickly reestablish themselves if seed vigor is high (Tjelmeland et al. Reference Tjelmeland, Fulbright and Lloyd-Reilley2008). Lyons et al. (Reference Lyons, Maldonado-Leal and Owen2013) demonstrated that removal of P. ciliare increased cover of native herbaceous species in the Sonoran Desert in northern Mexico. The species is fire adapted, with a combination of a deep root system, the capacity for rapid regrowth after defoliation, and responsiveness to nitrogen addition in the soil (Lyons et al. Reference Lyons, Maldonado-Leal and Owen2013, Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). Unlike most native grass species, following defoliation, P. ciliare regrows from nodes along lower stems rather than from the crown (Van Devender et al. Reference Van Devender, Felger and Búrquez-M.1997). Pennisetum ciliare has been shown to alter soil carbon and nitrogen across multiple climate regions across Mexico and has been demonstrated to significantly contribute to aboveground carbon losses in the Sonoran Desert (Abella et al. Reference Abella, Chiquoine and Backer2012; Williams and Baruch Reference Williams and Baruch2000). However, Lyons et al. (Reference Lyons, Maldonado-Leal and Owen2013) found that replacing nitrogen through fertilizer supplementation improved the response of P. ciliare over native vegetation cover in test plots.

Pennisetum ciliare responds better to grazing pressure than most native grass species, a factor that is likely due to lateral growth of tillers (Fensham et al. Reference Fensham, Donald and Dwyer2013). Its drought tolerance and response to grazing has made it an attractive livestock forage (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Lewis and Ostendorf2012). Within Tamaulipan brushland, aboveground primary production was reported to be 7,025 kg ha−1 (Martin-R et al. Reference Martin-R, Cox and Ibarra-F1995). Pennisetum ciliare is a preferred grass species for both cattle and domesticated sheep (Everitt et al. Reference Everitt, Gonzalez, Scott and Dahl1981; Ramírez et al. Reference Ramírez, Mireles, Huerta and Aranda1995). Nutritional values of P. ciliare often outperform those of native grasses (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1989). Temporary increases in crude protein and phosphorus were noted after prescribed burning of P. ciliare, and burned patches were grazed more heavily due to improvements in palatability and forage quality (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1989). Cattle-stocking rates increased in South Texas from approximately 12 ha AU−1 (animal unit) on native range to 4 ha AU−1 on P. ciliare pasture (Hanselka Reference Hanselka1988). Similarly, Sonoran Desert stocking rates increased from 27 to 40 ha AUY−1 (animal unit year) on native range to 9 to 15 ha per AUY−1 on P. ciliare pasture (Martin-R et al. Reference Martin-R, Cox and Ibarra-F1995). However, high stocking rates may weaken stands of P. ciliare and decrease its spread (Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Ibarra-Flores, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Martin-Rivera, Ávila-Curiel, Ayala-Alvares, Pinedo and Rivero2013).

Pennisetum ciliare has been studied as a forage component of O. virginianus and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus Rafinesque) diets. Both deer species were shown to use the grass, mostly fresh green growth, as forage in Sonora (Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Ibarra-Flores, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Martin-Rivera, Ávila-Curiel, Ayala-Alvares, Pinedo and Rivero2013). Additionally, O. hemionus used P. ciliare sites in a manner similar to native range as long as water and thermal cover were provided (Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Ibarra-Flores, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Martin-Rivera, Ávila-Curiel, Ayala-Alvares, Pinedo and Rivero2013). Levels of crude protein were below winter requirements of O. virginianus in South Texas, but the grass contributed significantly to winter diets (Everitt and Gonzalez Reference Everitt and Gonzalez1979). Lagomorphs in Sonora showed between 70% and 80% use of P. ciliare in areas where native grasses were available (Ortega-S et al. Reference Ortega-S, Ibarra-Flores, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Martin-Rivera, Ávila-Curiel, Ayala-Alvares, Pinedo and Rivero2013).

The presence of stands of P. ciliare (Figure 4) appears to decrease the usable space of habitat for several species of birds (Grahmann et al. Reference Grahmann, Fulbright, Hernández, Hehman, Wester, Ortega-Santos and Martin2018). Food production is lower on these sites, with a decrease in the cover, density, and diversity of forbs and decreased abundance and diversity of arthropods (Flanders et al. Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006; Sands et al. Reference Sands, Brennan, Hernández, Kuvlesky, Gallagher, Ruthven and Pittman2009). Specifically, arthropods from the orders Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Araneae, all important protein components of brooding birds, were less abundant (Flanders et al. Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006). The trophic structure appears to be simplified through simplified vegetation communities (Sands et al. Reference Sands, Brennan, Hernández, Kuvlesky, Gallagher, Ruthven and Pittman2009). Flanders et al. (Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006) discovered that the abundance of lark sparrows (Chondestes grammacus Say), black-throated sparrows (Amphispiza bilineata Cassin), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos Linnaeus), C. virginianus, and P. cassinii were all greater on sites with native vegetation. Species that form resident breeding populations preferred native vegetation to P. ciliare–dominated sites (Flanders et al. Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006). In South Texas, C. virginianus abundance decreases with increases in the percentage of P. ciliare, and quail use declines where the grass composes >20% of cover (Hernández and Guthery Reference Hernández and Guthery2012). Colinus virginianus do use the grass as screening cover and nesting sites, but this may be an artifact of lack of preferred vegetation; however, the lack of bare ground produces a barrier to brood use (Hernández and Guthery Reference Hernández and Guthery2012). Grahmann et al. (Reference Grahmann, Fulbright, Hernández, Hehman, Wester, Ortega-Santos and Martin2018) found that cool-season prescribed burns combined with continuous grazing improved usable space for C. virginianus. Masked quail (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi Brewster) in Sonora, Mexico, used P. ciliare as cover during a drought, but their use of these sites declined once native herbaceous vegetation recovered (Kuvlesky et al. Reference Kuvlesky, Fulbright and Engel-Wilson2002). Overall, Flanders et al. (Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006) found that pastures dominated by P. ciliare supported only about half of the biomass of arthropods and half the density of C. virginianus compared with pastures dominated by native grasses. Thus, P. ciliare has the potential to reduce carrying capacity for C. virginianus by about 50%.

Figure 4. Early spring growth of Pennisetum ciliare on a pipeline right-of-way in Jim Hogg County, TX.

The frequent management practices of cool-season prescribed burns and disking to increase forb production for quail may increase the density of a stand of P. ciliare (Kuvlesky et al. Reference Kuvlesky, Fulbright and Engel-Wilson2002; Tjelmeland et al. Reference Tjelmeland, Fulbright and Lloyd-Reilley2008). The species is a noted colonizer of disturbed areas, and these disturbances increase the recruitment of seedlings whose success is contingent on bare ground (McIvor Reference McIvor2003; Sands et al. Reference Sands, Brennan, Hernández, Kuvlesky, Gallagher, Ruthven and Pittman2009). Disking may be a method of spreading P. ciliare into areas with loamy soils, and root-plowing brush in southern Texas increased the frequency of P. ciliare compared with control sites (Johnson and Fulbright Reference Johnson and Fulbright2008; Ruthven et al. Reference Ruthven, Fulbright, Beasom and Hellgren1993). On infertile, arid sites, fire itself may not expand P. ciliare so much as the lack of native vegetation (Fensham et al. Reference Fensham, Donald and Dwyer2013). The intensity at which the species burns is high (Cohn Reference Cohn2005). Fires do not occur frequently on the Hawaiʽian Islands or in the Sonoran Desert, and as a result, the native vegetation lacks adaptations to fire (McDonald and McPherson Reference McDonald and McPherson2011; Simonson et al. Reference Simonson, Barnett and Stohlgren2004). Pennisetum ciliare creates a landscape more akin to subtropical grasslands than a desert, and the fuel load induces fires in the Sonoran Desert that are more severe; this places species such as saguaro [Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britton & Rose] and organpipe cactus [Stenocereus thurberi (Engelm.) Buxbaum] at a higher risk of mortality (McDonald and McPherson Reference McDonald and McPherson2011). Similarly, Hawaiʽian grasslands of H. contortus burned more slowly with a small spread compared with areas invaded by P. ciliare (Daehler and Carino Reference Daehler and Carino1998). The greatest risk to biodiversity in Mexico posed by P. ciliare may be anthropogenic; for example, conversion of native rangeland to improved pasture has been implicated in the clearing of >100,000 ha of land (Brenner Reference Brenner2010, Reference Brenner2011).

Urochloa maxima (Guineagrass)

Urochloa maxima is native to tropical and subtropical Africa with a longer history of establishment in the Americas than the other species described here (Akiyama et al. Reference Akiyama, Yamada-Akiyama, Yamanouchi, Takahara, Ebina, Takamizo, Sugita and Nakagawa2008; Parsons Reference Parsons1972). In its native range, it inhabits conditions from grasslands to open woodlands, with tolerance for shady conditions (Duke Reference Duke1983; Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). The species was first recorded in the Caribbean Islands in the late 17th century, presumably introduced from ships engaging in the slave trade between western Africa and European colonies (Parsons Reference Parsons1972). It was present in Mississippi by the 1810s and southern Mexico by the 1860s, where it increased the productivity of grazing lands (Parsons Reference Parsons1972). Urochloa maxima had become naturalized in Hawaiʽi by 1871 and spread throughout the islands’ H. contortus grasslands (Ammondt et al. Reference Ammondt, Litton, Ellsworth and Leary2013; Daehler and Carino Reference Daehler and Carino1998). Production was investigated near Wollangbar, New South Wales, Australia, in the 1890s and spread north along the coast to tropical areas of Queensland (McCosker and Teitzel Reference McCosker and Teitzel1975). The grass was studied at a Soil Conservation Service Plant Materials Center in Wailuku, Hawaiʽi, in 1957, and though a cultivar was not released publicly, it was distributed for field trials across the state (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994). The arrival of U. maxima in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico is relatively recent, with a rapid expansion evident from the 1970s; however, repeated introductions before 1970 did not result in lasting populations (Best Reference Best2006; Correll and Johnston Reference Correll and Johnston1970). The current range is approximately from the central Gulf Coast near Victoria, TX, to Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico (Best Reference Best2006). This population is presumed to have escaped from an unauthorized planting of U. maxima in the Rio Grande Valley with seeds obtained from the agriculture experiment station in Weslaco, TX (Best Reference Best2006). The species has now been identified rapidly expanding along the southern reach of the San Antonio River within the city limits of San Antonio (KG Lyons, personal communication).

Urochloa maxima is a member of the Paniceae tribe that uses the C4 photosynthetic pathway (Reinheimer et al. Reference Reinheimer, Pozner and Vegetti2005; Shaw Reference Shaw2012). The species is a caespitose perennial, generally growing up to 2.5 m with a many-branched panicle inflorescence (Shaw Reference Shaw2012). Two phenotypes appear in southern Texas: one of tropical provenance with an upright growth habit and a second of subtropical provenance with geniculate growth and shade tolerance (Best Reference Best2006). Reproduction may occur apomictically or sexually (Akiyama et al. Reference Akiyama, Yamada-Akiyama, Yamanouchi, Takahara, Ebina, Takamizo, Sugita and Nakagawa2008). Sexual reproduction occurs among diploid individuals, with apomixis occurring in polyploid individuals (Savidan Reference Savidan1980). Propagation is primarily through seed dispersal by wind, water, and animal movements (Ansari et al. Reference Ansari, Hirsh and Thair2008; Best Reference Best2006). Veldman and Putz (Reference Veldman and Putz2010) demonstrated that motor vehicles carry the seeds, which established on disturbed logging sites in a tropical dry forest in Bolivia. The species tolerates a variety of soil types, though production decreases on less fertile soils (Duke Reference Duke1983; Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). Water-logged soils, saline soils, and hard frost damage the plant (Duke Reference Duke1983; Langeland et al. Reference Langeland, Cherry, McCormick and Craddock Burks2008). A variety of cultivars have been produced with varying growth forms and adaptations to tolerate different environments (McCosker and Teitzel Reference McCosker and Teitzel1975). A deep root system provides resistance to short periods of drought by accessing water down to 1 m in the soil profile (Langeland et al. Reference Langeland, Cherry, McCormick and Craddock Burks2008). The robust root system was shown by Schaller et al. (Reference Schaller, Schroth, Beer and Jiménez2003) to restrict the lateral growth of the root system of young rainbow eucalyptus (Eucalyptus deglupta Blume) trees in Costa Rica. The species burns readily and is fire tolerant, regenerating following fire disturbance from belowground rhizomes (Ellsworth et al. Reference Ellsworth, Litton, Dale and Miura2014; Langeland et al. Reference Langeland, Cherry, McCormick and Craddock Burks2008; Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). Urochloa maxima has shown allelopathic qualities in laboratory experiments (Chou and Young Reference Chou and Young1975).

Urochloa maxima is a productive livestock forage worldwide, especially for beef and dairy cattle, but also for sheep (Aganga and Tshwenyane Reference Aganga and Tshwenyane2004; McCosker and Teitzel Reference McCosker and Teitzel1975). The grass is often used for hay and silage production (Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). It is considered a highly palatable forage (Best Reference Best2006). Continuous grazing of U. maxima pasture can lead to mortality, but frequent grazing leaving a standing crop of >0.35 m produces continuous fresh growth (Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). Due to its worldwide use and differing agronomic practices (e.g., fertilizer application), the nutrient content of U. maxima varies widely among localities (Skerman and Riveros Reference Skerman and Riveros1990). However, crude protein is highest and crude fiber lowest in fresh growth (McCosker and Teitzel Reference McCosker and Teitzel1975). Barbosa et al. (Reference Barbosa, do Nascimento Júnior, Vilela, de Lana Sousa, da Silva, Batista Euclides and Teixeira da Silveira2012) recommend grazing management practices that promote a high tiller population renewal to increase the production of younger growth and thereby increase growth rates and nutritional values. Ramirez-Yañez et al. (Reference Ramirez-Yañez, Ortega-S, Brennan and Rasmussen2007) found that cattle use of U. maxima pastures increased following prescribed burning, presumably from the flush of regrowth in South Texas. The seeds of this species show some ability to germinate after passing through the gastrointestinal tract of cattle (Gardener et al. Reference Gardener, McIvor and Jansen1993).

The population of subtropical U. maxima in southern Texas has become invasive in croplands, rangelands, and urban areas (Best Reference Best2006). Urochloa maxima and, to an extent, P. ciliare comprise the dominant herbaceous layer along many sites on the Rio Grande river corridor, where they have become impossible to remove (Lonard and Judd Reference Lonard and Judd2006). A study of seven sites along the Rio Grande found that U. maxima was the dominant species in the ground layer, particularly those sites with a dense shrub and tree canopy cover (Lonard and Judd Reference Lonard and Judd2002; Figure 5). The two sites where it was absent were dominated by salt-tolerant species (Lonard and Judd Reference Lonard and Judd2002). Restoration of Tamaulipan thornscrub in southern Texas has been hampered by invasion of M. maximus (Dick Reference Dick2015; Twedt and Best Reference Twedt and Best2004; Vela Reference Vela2015). Additionally, it competes with the endangered Tamaulipan kidneypetal (Ayenia limitaris Cristóbal) for partial shade under shrubs (USFWS 2014).

Figure 5. Urochloa maxima growing under the canopy of Prosopis glandulosa and sweet acacia [Vachellia farnesiana (L.) Wight & Arn.] in Kleberg County, TX.

The tall and lanky growth and shade tolerance of U. maxima has made it a problem species for citrus growers in Florida and Texas (Hall et al. Reference Hall, Currey and Orsenigo1998; Sauls Reference Sauls1995). During drought conditions, the presence of dry tillers in shrubs can create ladders that carry fire from the ground to shrub and tree canopies (Best Reference Best2006). Changes in fire behavior and return intervals are blamed for ecosystem changes to dry tropical forests in Hawaiʽi by clearing native forest species and allowing trees and shrubs to invade (Ellsworth et al. Reference Ellsworth, Litton, Dale and Miura2014). Additionally, U. maxima invades native Hawaiʽian H. contortus grasslands and remnant dry lowland forests, causing a reduction in plant diversity (Ammondt et al. Reference Ammondt, Litton, Ellsworth and Leary2013; Daehler and Carino Reference Daehler and Carino1998).

There are few studies investigating the effects of U. maxima on wildlife. Moore (Reference Moore2010) investigated C. virginianus use of U. maxima sites and found that nest success decreased by 4% for every 1% increase of U. maxima cover, presumably from reductions in diversity and production of forb and grass seeds. Selection of U. maxima for loafing cover may be related to the shade tolerance of the grass and its growth within brush (Moore Reference Moore2010). A study of grass seed selection among pen-raised C. virginianus found preferred selection for U. maxima and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) seeds compared with Texas millet [Urochloa texana (Buckley) R. Webster] and plains bristlegrass [Setaria leucopila (Scribn. & Merr.) K. Schum.] seeds (Larson et al. Reference Larson, Fulbright, Brennan, Hernández and Bryant2012). The seeds of U. maxima are large relative to their mass and provide 18% protein and 3.58 kcal g−1 of energy; however, in wild C. virginianus harvested in Kenedy County, TX, only 11 of 260 crops from necropsied quail contained U. maxima seeds, comprising <2% of total grass seeds (Larson Reference Larson2008; Larson et al. Reference Larson, Fulbright, Brennan, Hernández and Bryant2012). Displacement of native grasses by U. maxima is causing declines in grass skipper butterflies (subfamily Hesperiinae), whose caterpillars feed on native grasses (USFWS 2008).

Eragrostis lehmanniana (Lehmann Lovegrass)

Eragrostis lehmanniana is native to the southern Kalahari Desert and the Karoo of South Africa, where it is considered an early successional species (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b; Humphrey Reference Humphrey1994). In 1932, seed was imported from the Griqualand West region by Franklin Crider and planted near Superior, AZ, at the Boyce Thompson Arboretum (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a). Testing of the grass was conducted at the Soil Conservation Service nursery in Tucson, AZ, beginning in 1935, and a refined accession, ‘A-68’, was selected for seed production in 1937 (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b). Approximately 135 kg of seed produced at the Tucson nursery was planted on Soil Conservation Service plots from Arizona to west Texas, and in 1950, the Arizona Agriculture Experiment Station and Soil Conservation Service released seed for commercial production (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b). Approximately 70% of commercially produced seed was sown on rangelands and along highway rights-of-way in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, with the remaining seed planted in the northern Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Sonora (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a, Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b). Seeds from diploid individuals were imported from Northern Cape, South Africa, to allow genetic insertion of preferred traits, and a second variety labeled ‘TEM-SD’ was commercially released as germplasm by the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station and USDA Agriculture Research Service in 1991 (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994).

Eragrostis lehmanniana is a caespitose perennial (Figure 6) within the Eragrostideae tribe that utilizes C4 carbon fixation (Shaw Reference Shaw2012; Soreng et al. Reference Soreng, Peterson, Romaschenko, Davidse, Zuloaga, Judziewicz, Filgueiras, Davis and Morrne2015). Culms grow to 80-cm tall with a profusion of 7- to 15-cm-long layered leaves that create a clump up to 92 cm across (Crider Reference Crider1945; Shaw Reference Shaw2012). Plants are weakly stoloniferous with many culms decumbent or geniculate along lower nodes (Burson and Voigt Reference Burson and Voigt1996; Zeid et al. Reference Zeid, Echenique, Díaz, Pessino, Sorrels and Kole2011). Roots are fine textured and only reach shallowly into soil, with 80% occurring in the top 30 cm of the soil profile (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Giner-Mendoza, Dobrenz and Smith1992). Asexual reproduction via apomixis occurs in polyploidy individuals, though diploid individuals (2n = 2x = 20) produce seed sexually (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Burson and Voigt Reference Burson and Voigt1996). Apomictic individuals predominate in its native African range and in the southwestern United States (Burson and Voigt Reference Burson and Voigt1996; Schussman et al. Reference Schussman, Geiger, Mau-Crimmins and Ward2006; Zeid et al. Reference Zeid, Echenique, Díaz, Pessino, Sorrels and Kole2011). Despite lower genetic variability from nonsexual reproduction, E. lehmanniana exhibits a high phenotypic plasticity that allows it to survive multiple ecological sites (Schussman et al. Reference Schussman, Geiger, Mau-Crimmins and Ward2006). Established stands of E. lehmanniana can produce two seed crops each year, a heavy yield in early summer and a lighter yield in late summer to early autumn (Crider Reference Crider1945). Seedling emergence appears to decrease in soil textures with higher fractions of clay, and germination is inhibited when seeds are below 5 mm in the soil profile (Cox and Martin Reference Cox and Martin1984; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b).

Figure 6. Dense stand of Eragrostis lehmanniana growing alongside a ranch road in southwestern Texas.

Eragrostis lehmanniana is adapted to climates with temperature ranges between 0 and 38 C and requires 130 to 160 mm of precipitation during active growth (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Martin-R, Ibarra-F, Fourie, Rethman and Wilcox1988a). The species persists but seldom spreads with summer precipitation between 100 and 160 mm and persists and spreads with precipitation between 160 and 220 mm. Stands may produce as much as 2,695 kg ha−1 of dry matter during favorable conditions (Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Hamilton, Reynolds and Humphrey1953). Where it is the dominant species, net aboveground production increases, with pure stands having up to four times that amount (McGlone and Huenneke Reference McGlone and Huenneke2004). Cox et al. (Reference Cox, Ruyle and Roundy1990) reported that E. lehmanniana annually produced three to four times more green forage than native grasses in southeastern Arizona. Palatability of E. lehmanniana is low, and cattle prefer native perennial grasses during summer (Cable Reference Cable1971). During other seasons, utilization increases in relation to native grasses due to E. lehmanniana’s prolonged green forage (Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ruyle, Fourie and Donaldson1988b). Crude fiber constitutes 35% of fresh forage and provides 3.6% and 3.2% digestible protein for cattle and sheep, respectively (National Research Council 1971). The protein content of E. lehmanniana is higher in winter compared with native forages such as Arizona cottontop [Digitaria californica (Benth.) Henr.] (Cable Reference Cable1976). Eragrostis lehmanniana is considered resistant to defoliation, as it evolved to withstand high grazing pressures (Anable et al. Reference Anable, McClaran and Ruyle1992; Bock et al. Reference Bock, Bock, Kennedy and Jones2007). Disturbance, especially grazing, does not appear to be necessary for the spread of E. lehmanniana as much as proximity to seed sources (Bock et al. Reference Bock, Bock, Kennedy and Jones2007; Geiger and McPherson Reference Geiger and McPherson2005; McClaran and Anable Reference McClaran and Anable1992).

Eragrostis lehmanniana is considered a fire-tolerant species and recovers more quickly than native species (McGlone and Huenneke Reference McGlone and Huenneke2004). This has a 2-fold effect on enhanced propagation of the species. The earlier recovery over native grasses allows for higher seed production within a year after a fire event, and removal of litter, whether by fire or mechanical means, enhances seedling emergence by increasing red light penetration and temperature fluctuations at the ground level (McGlone and Huenneke Reference McGlone and Huenneke2004; Roundy et al. Reference Roundy, Taylorson and Sumrall1992; Ruyle et al. Reference Ruyle, Roundy and Cox1988). McGlone and Huenneke (Reference McGlone and Huenneke2004) described a higher quantity of litter accumulation in E. lehmanniana stands, which may alter fire intensity and encourage further establishment of the species.

Little research has been conducted on the effects of E. lehmanniana on wildlife. Several studies of grassland birds indicate that E. lehmanniana decreases food and shelter resources (Bock and Bock Reference Bock and Bock1992; Flanders et al. Reference Flanders, Kuvlesky, Ruthven, Zaiglin, Bingham, Fulbright, Hernández and Brennan2006; Whitford Reference Whitford1997). At the Santa Rita Experimental Range, Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii Gambel) and C. squamata both avoided E. lehmanniana sites in favor of mesquite grasslands and less dense perennial grass cover with high forb diversity, respectively (Medina Reference Medina2003). In South Texas, E. lehmanniana was used by C. virginianus for nesting but generally avoided for forage areas (Sands et al. Reference Sands, Brennan, Hernández, Kuvlesky, Gallagher and Ruthven2012). Eragrostis lehmanniana decreases abundance of Palmer’s century plant (Agave palmeri Engelm.), which is an important nectar source for Mexican long-tongued bats (Choeronycteris mexicana Tschundi) and lesser long-nosed bats (Leptonycteris yerbauenae Martínez and Villa-R.; Lindsay et al. Reference Lindsay, Bailey, Lance, Clifford, Delph and Cobb2011).

Cynodon dactylon (Bermudagrass)

Cynodon dactylon has a cosmopolitan distribution with likely origins in southeastern Africa and south Asia, though it has been culturally significant in India since at least 1500 BCE due to its ability to provide productive forage for livestock (Kneebone Reference Kneebone1966; Way Reference Way2014). It is one of the most widely distributed plants in the world (Harlan et al. Reference Harlan, de Wet, Huffine and Deakin1970). Cynodon dactylon first arrived in the Western Hemisphere on one of the voyages of Christopher Columbus to the Caribbean Islands (Way Reference Way2014). The first likely introduction to North America occurred between 1733 to 1738, when botanist Robert Miller brought material to Savannah, GA, and within 50 yr, it was recorded in South Carolina as well (Kneebone Reference Kneebone1966). Intentional plantings were used for pasture, but spread is also attributed to movement of livestock and the use of hay as packing material (Kneebone Reference Kneebone1966). The first cultivar, ‘Coastal’, was released in 1943 as a cross between a productive strain discovered near Tifton, GA, and two tall strains of southern African provenance (Burton Reference Burton1948; Kneebone Reference Kneebone1966; Way Reference Way2014). Many seeded cultivars have since been developed, as well as hybrids that are essentially sterile and require propagation by sprigging (Corriher and Redmon Reference Corriher and Redmon2009).

Cynodon dactylon is a rhizomatous and stoloniferous sod-forming grass (Figure 7) of the Cynodonteae tribe that utilizes C4 photosynthesis (Shaw Reference Shaw2012; Soreng et al. Reference Soreng, Peterson, Romaschenko, Davidse, Zuloaga, Judziewicz, Filgueiras, Davis and Morrne2015). Besides being used for pasture and hay production, it is a common lawn grass in the southern United States (Way Reference Way2014). The most frequently encountered varieties outside cultivation are the diploid (2n = 2x = 36) ‘common’ and the tetraploid ‘Coastal’, which is larger and more resistant to foliage removal, drought, frost, and disease (Alderson and Sharp Reference Alderson and Sharp1994; Harlan et al. Reference Harlan, de Wet, Huffine and Deakin1970; Rouquette et al. Reference Rouquette, Anderson, Harris-Schultz and Smith2011). Both varieties are adaptable to many soil textures and pH ranges, but heavy clays and sands reduce production without fertilizer application (Burton Reference Burton1948; Corriher and Redmon Reference Corriher and Redmon2009; Marsalis Reference Marsalis2004). Cynodon dactylon has little freeze tolerance, which limits its distribution (Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Taliaferro and Martin2002). The species exhibits a high degree of phenotypic plasticity, with many naturally occurring ecotypes (Harlan et al. Reference Harlan, de Wet, Huffine and Deakin1970; Hoveland Reference Hoveland1960; Rouquette et al. Reference Rouquette, Anderson, Harris-Schultz and Smith2011). It is considered drought resistant, though the degree varies depending on ecotype or cultivar, and it is able to withstand submergence, both at depth and of long duration (Tan et al. Reference Tan, Zhu and Zhang2010; Zhou et al. Reference Zhou, Lambrides and Fukai2013).

Figure 7. Monoculture sod of Cynodon dactylon during anthesis in coastal South Texas.

Cynodon dactylon has a history of use for livestock production in the southern United States since the late 19th century (Way Reference Way2014). It withstands defoliation well (Grace et al. Reference Grace, Smith, Grace, Collins and Stohlgren2001). Fresh, mature C. dactylon forage provides 28.5% crude fiber, 5.8% protein, and energy levels of 2.72 Mcal kg−1 for cattle, while its hay provides 29.4% crude fiber, 7.9% protein, and energy of 2.20 Mcal kg−1 for cattle (National Research Council 1971). Average annual crude protein from South Texas samples was 11.4%, which meet the needs for dry cows across all seasons and for lactating cows all seasons but winter (Gonzalez and Everitt Reference Gonzalez and Everitt1982).

Dense growth of C. dactylon has been shown to be highly utilized forage of black-bellied whistling ducks (Dendrocygna autumnalis Linnaeus) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis Linnaeus) in South Texas (Bolen and Forsyth Reference Bolen and Forsyth1967; Glazener Reference Glazener1946). However, this growth decreases survivability of C. virginianus chicks by impeding movement and increasing temperatures up to 4 C compared with forb-dominated sites (Martin et al. Reference Martin, Burkhart, Thackston and Carroll2015). Furthermore, C. dactylon provides poor nesting cover, and it outcompetes other plants, subsequently decreasing seed and arthropod availability to C. virginianus (Bond et al. Reference Bond, Baumann, Lane, Thackston and Bowman2005; Crouch Reference Crouch2017). Gust and Schmidly (Reference Gust and Schmidly1986) observed a change in rodent diversity and hypothesized that the monoculture habit of C. dactylon decreases food availability of small mammals.

Cynodon dactylon is considered an early successional species and is closely associated with disturbed rangelands (Barnes et al. Reference Barnes, DeMaso and Bahm2013; Grace et al. Reference Grace, Smith, Grace, Collins and Stohlgren2001). Way (Reference Way2014) suggests it seldom exists naturally as a component of climax vegetation. It has been found to be an early colonizer of formerly submerged land in the Texas Gulf prairies (Scifres and Mutz Reference Scifres and Mutz1975). The affinity for disturbance by C. dactylon could prove problematic for habitat restoration projects; however, drought has been shown to be a factor aiding in removal of C. dactylon during a restoration in South Texas (Crouch Reference Crouch2017). This suggests that the spread of this species in South Texas may be restricted to the more mesic coastal prairies and riparian zones farther inland.

Monitoring Invasive Species: Remote Sensing Approaches

Understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of invasive grasses is critical to the effective monitoring and management of rangelands (Villarreal et al. Reference Villarreal, Soulard and Waller2019). Monitoring of rangeland conditions was first systematically established under a range succession model based on Clementsian succession theory (Westoby et al. Reference Westoby, Walker and Noy-Meir1989). This model allowed changes in vegetation along a single axis and did not account for encroachment of shrubs and trees or the introduction of exotic species (Briske et al. Reference Briske, Fuhlendorf and Smeins2005). State and transition models were developed wherein the ecosystem may occupy one of multiple potential stable states (Briske et al. Reference Briske, Fuhlendorf and Smeins2005; Westoby et al. Reference Westoby, Walker and Noy-Meir1989). Autogenic or allogenic triggers may modify ecological structure and function during transitions between states creating a threshold, with return to a previous state requiring intervention (Young et al. Reference Young, Perotto-Baldivieso, Brewer, Homer and Santos2014). This model has since become useful for describing many types of terrestrial ecosystems (Bestlemeyer et al. Reference Bestlemeyer, Goolsby and Archer2011). It is under this framework that we hypothesize that invasive grass species have transitioned rangelands in South Texas into a new stable state.

Past monitoring in rangelands relied on subjective measurements of ground observations (Booth and Tueller Reference Booth and Tueller2003). Remote sensing technologies have played an increasing role in the estimation of standing yields and canopy heights, mapping of vegetation distributions, and detection of invasive plant species (Bradley and Mustard Reference Bradley and Mustard2006; Everitt and Deloach Reference Everitt and Deloach1990; Everitt et al. Reference Everitt, Anderson, Escobar, Davis, Spencer and Andrascik1995, Reference Everitt, Judd, Escobar and Davis1996; Franklin et al. Reference Franklin, Lyons, Nagler, Lampkin, Glenn, Molina-Fraener, Markow and Huete2006; Hestir et al. Reference Hestir, Khanna, Andrew, Santos, Viers, Greenberg, Rajapakse and Ustin2008; Hunt et al. Reference Hunt, Everitt, Ritchie, Moran, Booth, Anderson, Clark and Seyfried2003; Piñeiro et al. Reference Piñeiro, Oesterheld and Paruelo2006). Since 1972, Landsat satellites have provided the longest record of Earth observation and have been used to classify invasive grasses (Roy et al. Reference Roy, Wulder, Loveland, Woodcock, Allen, Anderson, Helder, Irons, Johnson, Kennedy, Scambos, Schaaf, Schott, Sheng and Vermote2014). Knight (Reference Knight2004) successfully classified Landsat imagery to distinguish B. ischaemum and B. bladhii from native grasslands and croplands in Oklahoma. Image classification, combined with habitat models, has been applied to quantify P. ciliare environments where invasion is likely (Brenner et al. Reference Brenner, Christman and Rogan2012; Young et al. Reference Young, Abbot, Caldwell and Schrader2013). Coarser spatial and high-spectral resolution satellites, such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), have been used to map the distribution and phenological status of P. ciliare in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona (Wallace et al. Reference Wallace, Walker, Skirvin, Patrick-Birdwell, Weltzin and Raichle2016). Using higher spatial resolutions (<5-m pixel size) than MODIS and Landsat, aerial photography has also been used to detect the phenological responses of P. ciliare to water stress in South Texas (Everitt et al. Reference Everitt, Escobar, Alaniz and Hussey1987). More recently, Mata et al. (Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018) classified National Agriculture Imagery Program images to assess the spatial and temporal distribution of H. contortus (Figure 8) between 2008 and 2014 and observed an increase from 4% to 20% in H. contortus cover. Although aerial photography provides higher spatial resolution for lower cost, it lacks the spectral resolution of satellite imagery, usually providing only bands in the visible and near-infrared spectra (Huang and Asner Reference Huang and Asner2009; Underwood et al. Reference Underwood, Ustin and DiPietro2003). Additionally, imagery lacks consistent data acquisition, with very low temporal revisit times that can limit its usefulness for monitoring studies (Underwood et al. Reference Underwood, Ustin and DiPietro2003).

Figure 8. Workflow of unsupervised classification of 2014 National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photography with normalized difference vegetation index layer stack (adapted from Mata et al. Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018).

Recently launched satellites have included hyperspectral sensors that detect a continuous spectrum of visible and shortwave electromagnetic radiation divided into hundreds of small bands (Huang and Asner Reference Huang and Asner2009; Toth and Jóźków Reference Toth and Jóźków2016). Production of microsatellites has allowed for constellations producing <10-m resolution multispectral data at weekly or shorter time intervals (Toth and Jóźków Reference Toth and Jóźków2016). These microsatellites lack the spectral resolution of the larger satellites, but some platforms, such as RapidEye, include a red edge band, which has improved vegetation mapping accuracies and allowed for detection of foliar nitrogen estimation (Ramoelo et al. Reference Ramoelo, Skidmore, Cho, Schlerf, Mathieu and Heitkönig2012; Schuster et al. Reference Schuster, Förster and Kleinschmit2012). Operating a constellation of small satellites allows reductions in revisit times to days compared with the large Earth-observing satellites (Butler Reference Butler2014). Deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (Figure 9) has allowed production of low-cost on-demand imagery with spatial scales <2 cm (Anderson and Gaston Reference Anderson and Gaston2013; Rango et al. Reference Rango, Laliberte, Steele, Herrick, Bestelmeyer, Schmugge, Roanhorse and Jenkins2006). These high spatial resolutions allow the identification of individual patches using mounted digital cameras and ground control points to create mosaicked, georeferenced imagery (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Tarasoff, Whitworth, Baron, Bradshaw and Church2017; Lu and He Reference Lu and He2017). This data-acquisition process can also be used to construct digital elevation models and digital surface models to quantify canopy height comparable with more expensive Lidar data (Ni et al. Reference Ni, Liu, Zhang, Sun and Yang2015).

Figure 9. Natural color orthoimagery acquired by an unmanned aerial vehicle of a pasture containing Heteropogon contortus in South Texas. Dark areas in the image correspond to patches of H. contortus. Pixel resolution is 1.4 cm.

While remote sensing has advanced significantly in terms of platforms, classification algorithms, and access to data and classification approaches through the cloud, there is a need to improve accuracy and the delivery of information to end users (e.g., ranchers, land managers). Traditional image classifications have allowed the classification of invasive monocultures of H. contortus in South Texas with accuracies greater than 85% (Mata et al. Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018). However, there is a need to develop classification approaches for the other species in South Texas. This may require the combination of unmanned aerial vehicle platforms combined with satellite platforms to improve both temporal and spatial resolution (Rango et al. Reference Rango, Laliberte, Steele, Herrick, Bestelmeyer, Schmugge, Roanhorse and Jenkins2006). Development of classification approaches and very-high-resolution multispectral imagery in different seasons may also prove useful to improve identification of invasive grasses in South Texas. New approaches such as deep learning and artificial intelligence can potentially improve accuracies to greater than 95% (Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Cheng, Li, Xia, Ma, Zhou and Li2019). The use of multiple periods and time-series analyses can be used to inform the temporal dynamics of invasive grasses at local and regional scales (Mata et al. Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018; Villarreal et al. Reference Villarreal, Soulard and Waller2019). The use of landscape metrics to assess patch dynamics can be used to evaluate the spread of invasive grasses across the landscape (Mata et al. Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018). Young et al. (Reference Young, Perotto-Baldivieso, Brewer, Homer and Santos2014) used remote sensing information and combined it with landscape metrics to quantify thresholds among states in UK peatlands. Image classification, combined with wildlife observation data, can provide a useful framework to develop spatially explicit habitat suitability models to prioritize management and restoration of wildlife habitat. Hence, developing approaches that integrate image classification, soil information, wildlife data, and other environmental variables can help translate remote sensing products from image classifications to management tools for land managers in rangelands as part of their geospatial technology tools.

Future Directions

Land use in South Texas has changed in the last 100 yr from dedicated livestock operations to a combination of livestock and wildlife conservation. The introduction of grasses, once very beneficial to livestock operations, may now have become problematic for wildlife conservation and habitat management. The spread of invasive grasses as a result of changes in land-use practices, such as reduced grazing and oil and energy development, may pose new challenges in South Texas landscapes (Smith Reference Smith2010; Wester et al. Reference Wester, Bryant, Tjelmeland, Grace, Mitchell, Edwards, Hernández, Lyons, Clayton, Rideout-Hanzak, Machen and Ortega-S2018). The extent that invasive species have spread precludes complete eradication as a practical conservation option. Some exotics like P. ciliare and C. dactylon are still planted and actively managed by some landowners. Approaches to manage invaded areas may include the introduction of pyric herbivory (Grahmann et al. Reference Grahmann, Fulbright, Hernández, Hehman, Wester, Ortega-Santos and Martin2018; Walther Reference Walther2019). Depending on management objectives, reintroducing native species through fire or native reseeding may improve habitat for wildlife and provide a more sustainable livestock production, with potentially more resilient and profitable ecosystems in the long term. There is a need to develop state and transition models for South Texas rangelands and determine whether these rangelands have transitioned beyond a threshold to a new potentially stable state. Quantifying the spatial and temporal distribution and monitoring the spread of these species will best inform management practices moving into the future. We have already been able to quantify the spatial and temporal dynamics of H. contortus (Mata et al. Reference Mata, Perotto-Baldivieso, Hernández, Grahmann, Rideout-Hanzak, Edwards, Page and Shedd2018), but it is important to develop regional models to assess potential areas of H. contortus invasions. Research into creating methods to quantify the distribution of B. ischaemum and D. annulatum with daily, high spatial resolution satellite imagery may provide the framework for local and regional image classifications. Similar studies need to be conducted for D. aristatum, P. ciliare, M. maximus, E. lehmanniana, and C. dactylon. These approaches, combined with fieldwork, would provide a road map to understanding the biology and ecology of invasive grasses in South Texas. The results of these studies will provide conservationists and landowners the tools to preserve and maintain the Last Great Habitat.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the South Texas chapter of the Quail Coalition. An additional grant was awarded from NASA and the Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability at Michigan State University to JPW. LAB was supported by the C.C. “Charlie” Winn Endowed Chair in the Richard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research. We are grateful to F. S. Smith, A. D. Falk, K. G. Lyons, and the two anonymous reviewers who helped us improve this article. Figures 6 and 7 were provided by F. S. Smith. No conflicts of interest have been declared. This is manuscript number 19-118 from the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Kelly Lyons, Trinity University

References

Abella, SR, Chiquoine, LP, Backer, DM (2012) Ecological characteristics of sites invaded by buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare). Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:443453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aganga, AA, Tshwenyane, S (2004) Potentials of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) as forage crop in livestock production. Pak J Nutr 3:14Google Scholar
Ahring, RM, Taliaferro, CM, Russell, CC (1978) Establishment and Management of Old World Bluestem Grasses for Seed. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Agriculture Experiment Station Technical Bulletin T-149. 28 pGoogle Scholar
Akiyama, Y, Hanna, WW, Ozias-Akins, P (2005) High-resolution physical mapping reveals that the apospory-specific genomic region (ASGR) in Cenchrus ciliaris is located on a heterochromatic and hemizygous region of a single chromosome. Theor Appl Genet 111:10421051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akiyama, Y, Yamada-Akiyama, H, Yamanouchi, H, Takahara, M, Ebina, M, Takamizo, T, Sugita, S, Nakagawa, H (2008) Estimation of genome size and physical mapping of ribosomal DNA in diploid and tetraploid guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.). Grassl Sci 54:8997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J, Sharp, WC (1994) Grass Varieties in the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 170. 296 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allred, BW, Nixon, WM (1955) Grass for Conservation in the Southern Great Plains. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 2093. 30 pGoogle Scholar
Alofs, KM, Fowler, NL (2013) Loss of native herbaceous species due to woody plant encroachment facilitates the establishment of an invasive grass. Ecology 94:751760CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ammondt, SA, Litton, CM, Ellsworth, LM, Leary, JK (2013) Restoration of native plant communities in a Hawaiian dry lowland ecosystem dominated by the invasive grass Megathyrsus maximus. Appl Veg Sci 16:2939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anable, ME, McClaran, MP, Ruyle, GP (1992) Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees. in southern Arizona, USA. Biol Conserv 61:181188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D, Hamilton, LP, Reynolds, HG, Humphrey, RR (1953) Reseeding desert grassland ranges in southern Arizona. Tucson: Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 249. 32 pGoogle Scholar
Anderson, JA, Taliaferro, CM, Martin, D (2002) Freeze tolerance of bermudagrasses. Crop Sci 42:975977Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, K, Gaston, KJ (2013) Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11:138146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, S, Hirsh, H, Thair, T (2008) Removal of Invasive Fire-Prone Grasses to Increase Training Lands in the Pacific. Department of Defense Legacy Resources Management ProgramReport. Honolulu, HI: SWCA Environmental Consultants. 42 pGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, LA, Drawe, DL (1979) Food habits of white-tailed deer in the South Texas Plains. J Range Manage 32:175178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arredondo, JA, Hernández, F, Bryant, FC, Bingham, RL, Howard, R (2007) Habitat-suitability bounds for nesting cover of northern bobwhites on semiarid rangelands. J Wildl Manag 71:25922599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arriaga, L, Castellanos-V, AE, Moreno, E, Alarcón, J (2004) Potential ecological distribution of alien invasive species and risk assessment: a case study of buffel grass in arid regions of Mexico. Conserv Biol 18:15041514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthan, A, McKain, MR, Traiperm, P, Welker, CAD, Teisher, JK, Kellogg, EA (2017) Phylogenomics of Andrpogoneae (Panicoideae: Poaceae) of mainland Southeast Asia. Syst Bot 42:418431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, RA, do Nascimento Júnior, D, Vilela, HH, de Lana Sousa, BM, da Silva, SC, Batista Euclides, VP, Teixeira da Silveira, MC (2012) Morphogenetic and structural characteristics of guinea grass tillers at different ages under intermittent stocking. R Bras Zootec 41:15831588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, TG, DeMaso, SJ, Bahm, MA (2013) The impact of 3 exotic, invasive grasses in the southeastern United States on wildlife. Wildlife Soc B 37:497502Google Scholar
Bhat, V, Mahalakshmi, C, Saran, S, Raina, SN (2011) Dichanthium. Pages 89112in Kole, C, ed. Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources–millets and grasses. Berlin: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C (2006) Fighting weeds with weeds: battling invasive grasses in the Rio Grande delta of Texas. Pages 307318in Proceedings of the Weeds across Borders Conference. Tucson: Arizona-Sonora Desert MuseumGoogle Scholar
Bestlemeyer, BT, Goolsby, DP, Archer, SR (2011) Spatial perspectives in state-and-transition models: a missing link to land management? J Appl Ecol 48:746757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielfelt, BJ (2013) Invasion by a Native Grass: Implications of Increased Dominance of Heteropogon contortus (Tanglehead) for Grassland Birds. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 117 pGoogle Scholar
Bielfelt, BJ, Litt, AR (2016) Effects of increased Heteropogon contortus (tanglehead) on rangelands: the tangled issue of native invasive species. Rangeland Ecol Manag 69:508512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, CE, Bock, JH (1992) Response of birds to wildfire in native versus exotic Arizona grassland. Southwest Nat 37:7381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, CE, Bock, JH, Kennedy, L, Jones, ZF (2007) Spread of non-native grasses into grazed versus ungrazed desert grasslands. J Arid Environ 71:229235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolen, EG, Forsyth, BJ (1967) Foods of the black-bellied tree duck in South Texas. Wilson Bull 79:4349Google Scholar
Bond, BT, Baumann, CD, Lane, MW II, Thackston, RE, Bowman, JL (2005) Efficacy of herbicides to control bermudagrass for enhancement of northern bobwhite habitat. Proc Annu Conf SEAFWA 59:191199Google Scholar
Booth, DT, Tueller, PT (2003) Rangeland monitoring using remote sensing. Arid Land Res Manage 17:455467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, BA, Mustard, JF (2006) Characterizing the landscape dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote sensing. Ecol Appl 16:11321147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, LA, Hernández, F, Bryan, FC (2007) Introduction. Pages 35in Brennan, LA, ed. Texas Quails: Ecology and Management. 1st ed. College Station: Texas A&M University PressGoogle Scholar
Brenner, JC (2010) What drives the conversion of native rangeland to buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) pasture in Mexico’s Sonoran Desert? The social dimensions of a biological invasion. Hum Ecol 38:495505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, JC (2011) Pasture conversion, private ranchers, and the invasive exotic buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) in Mexico’s Sonoran Desert. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101:84106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, JC, Christman, Z, Rogan, J (2012) Segmentation of Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery improves bufelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) pasture mapping in the Sonoran Desert of Mexico. Appl Geogr 34:569575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briske, DD, Fuhlendorf, SD, Smeins, FE (2005) State-and-transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecol Manage 58:1102.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, FC, Kothmann, MM, Merrill, LB (1979) Diets of sheep, Angora goats, Spanish goats and white-tailed deer under excellent range conditions. J Range Manage 32:412417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, FC, Taylor, CA, Merrill, LB (1981) White-tailed deer diets from pastures in excellent and poor range condition. J Range Manage 34:193200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buelow, MC, Brennan, LA, Hernández, F, Fulbright, TE (2011) Influence of invasive tanglehead grass on northern bobwhite nesting and habitat use in South Texas. Bull Tex Ornithol Soc 44:1527Google Scholar
Burson, BL, Actkinson, JM, Hussey, MA, Jessup, RW (2012) Ploidy determination of buffel grass accessions in the USDA National Plant Germplasm System collection byflow cytometry. S Afr J Bot 79:9195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burson, BL, Voigt, PW (1996) Cytogenetic relationships between the Eragrostis curvula and E. lehmanniana complexes. Int J Plant Sci 157:632637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, GW (1948) Coastal Bermuda grass. Tifton, GA: -+Coastal Plain Experiment Station Circular 10. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Butler, D (2014) Many eyes on Earth. Nature 505:143144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cable, DR (1971) Lehmann lovegrass on the Santa Rita Experimental Range, 1937–1968. Rangeland Ecol Manag 24:1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, DR (1976) Twenty years of changes in grass production following mesquite control and reseeding. J Range Manage 29:286289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield, RH (1948) Perennial grass composition as an indicator of condition in southwestern mixed grass ranges. Ecology 29:190204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, MG (1958) Reclaiming Texas brushland range. J Range Manage 11:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celarier, RP, Harlan, JR (1955) Studies on Old World bluestems. Stillwater: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin T-58. 31 pGoogle Scholar
Celarier, RP, Harlan, JR (1956) An Andropogoneae garden in Oklahoma. Taxon 5:183186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamrad, AD, Box, TW (1968) Food habits of white-tailed deer in South Texas. J Range Manage 21:158164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, RN, Engle, DM, Masters, RE, Leslie, DM Jr (2004) Grassland vegetation and bird communities in the southern Great Plains of North America. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:577585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, C, Young, C (1975) Phytotoxic substances in twelve subtropical grasses. J Chem Ecol 1:183193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, F, Smith, FS, Stuver, S (2016) Invasive Grass Species Distributions at Well Pad Sites in South Texas. College Station: Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources Final Report to Texas General Land Office and Houston Advanced Research Council. 23 pGoogle Scholar
Cohn, JP (2005) Tiff over tamarisk: can a nuisance be nice, too? BioScience 55:648654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, SW, Forbes, TDA (1998) Herbage characteristics and performance of steers grazing Old World bluestems. J Range Manage 51:399407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cord, EE (2011) Changes in Arthropod Abundance and Diversity with Invasive Grasses. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 99 pGoogle Scholar
Correll, DS, Johnston, MC (1970) Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Renner: Texas Research FoundationGoogle Scholar
Corriher, VA, Redmon, LA (2009) Bermudagrass varieties, hybrids and blends for Texas. College Station: Texas AgriLife Extension Publication E-320. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Cortez, JD, Henke, SE, Wiemers, DW, Fulbright, TE, Wester, DB, Riddle, R (2015) Distribution and habitat selection by the maritime pocket gopher. Southeast Nat 14:4156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JR, Giner-Mendoza, M, Dobrenz, AK, Smith, MF (1992) Defoliation effects on resource allocation in Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica) and Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana). J Grassl Soc South Afr 9:5359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JR, Martin, MH (1984) Effects of planting depth and soil texture on the emergence of four lovegrasses. J Range Manage 37:204205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JR, Martin-R, MH, Ibarra-F, FA, Fourie, JH, Rethman, JFG, Wilcox, DG (1988a) The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. J Range Manage 41:127139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JR, Ruyle, GB, Fourie, JH, Donaldson, C (1988b) Lehmann lovegrass—central South Africa and Arizona, USA. Rangelands 10:5355Google Scholar
Cox, JR, Ruyle, GB, Roundy, BA (1990) Lehmann lovegrass in southeastern Arizona: biomass production and disappearance. J Range Manage 43:367372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crider, FJ (1945) Three Introduced Lovegrasses for Soil Conservation. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service Circular No. 730. 90 pGoogle Scholar
Crouch, CG (2017) Ecology and Habitat of Grassland Birds in South Texas. Ph.D dissertation. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 123 pGoogle Scholar
Daehler, CC, Carino, DA (1998) Recent replacement of native pili grass (Heteropogon contortus) by invasive African grasses in the Hawaiian Islands. Pac Sci 52:220227Google Scholar
D’Antonio, CM, Vitousek, PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:6387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, FH (2011) Effects of Prescribed Burning on King Ranch Bluestem at Vegetative Regrowth and Flowering Stages. MS thesis. San Marcos: Texas State University–San Marcos. 43 pGoogle Scholar
Dick, KN (2015) Restoring Semi-arid Thornscrub Forests: Seedling Growth and Survival in Response to Shelter Tubes, Grass-Specific Herbicide, and Herbivore Exclosures. MS thesis. Brownsville: University of Texas at Brownsville. 83 pGoogle Scholar
Duke, JA (1983) Handbook of Energy Crops. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Center for New Crops & Plants Products Publication. http://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/dukeindex.html. Accessed: March 26, 2019Google Scholar
Edwards, JT, Hernández, F, Wester, DB, Brennan, LA, Parent, CJ, Bryant, FC (2017) Effects of tanglehead expansion on bobwhite habitat use in South Texas. Page 132in Proceedings of the 8th National Quail Symposium. Knoxville: University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, LM, Litton, CM, Dale, AP, Miura, T (2014) Invasive grasses change landscape structure and fire behavior in Hawaii. Appl Veg Sci 17:680689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Anderson, GL, Escobar, DE, Davis, MR, Spencer, NR, Andrascik, RJ (1995) Use of remote sensing for detecting and mapping leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Technol 9:599609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Deloach, CJ (1990) Remote sensing of Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) and associated vegetation. Weed Sci 38:273278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Drawe, DL (1974) Spring food habits of white-tailed deer in the South Texas plains. J Range Manage 27:1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Drawe, DL, Little, CR, Londard, RI (2011) Grasses of South Texas: a guide to their identification and value. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. 336 pGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Escobar, DE, Alaniz, MA, Hussey, MA (1987) Drought-stress detection of buffelgrass with color-infrared aerial photography and computer-aided image processing. Photogramm Eng Rem S 53:12551258Google Scholar
Everitt, JH, Gonzalez, CL (1979) Botanical composition and nutrient content of fall and early winter diets of white-tailed deer in South Texas. Southwest Nat 24:297310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Gonzalez, CL, Scott, G, Dahl, BE (1981) Seasonal food preferences of cattle on native range in the South Texas plains. J Range Manage 34:384388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JH, Judd, FW, Escobar, DE, Davis, MR (1996) Integration of remote sensing and spatial information technologies for mapping black mangrove on the Texas Gulf Coast. J Coastal Res 12:6469Google Scholar
Falk, AD, Fulbright, TE, Smith, FS, Brennan, LA, Ortega-Santos, AJ, Benn, S (2013) Does seeding a locally adapted native mixture inhibit ingress by exotic plants? Restor Ecol 21:474480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fensham, RJ, Donald, S, Dwyer, JM (2013) Propagule pressure, not fire or cattle grazing, promotes invasion of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliare. J Appl Ecol 50:138146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, AA, Kuvlesky, WP Jr, Ruthven, DC III, Zaiglin, RE, Bingham, RL, Fulbright, TE, Hernández, F, Brennan, LA (2006) Effects of invasive exotic grasses on South Texas rangeland breeding birds. Auk 123:171182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, KA, Lyons, K, Nagler, PL, Lampkin, D, Glenn, EP, Molina-Fraener, F, Markow, T, Huete, AR (2006) Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) land conversion and productivity in the plains of Sonora, Mexico. Biol Conserv 127:6271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, AJ (2002) The ecological consequences of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within remnant vegetation of Queensland. Pac Conserv Biol 8:99107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulbright, TE (2001) Human-induced vegetation changes in the Tamaulipan scrub of La Frontera. Pages 166175in Webster, GL, Bahre, CJ, eds. Changing Plant Life of La Frontera. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico PressGoogle Scholar
Fulbright, TE, Bryant, FC (2002) The last great habitat. Kingsville, TX: Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Special Publication 1. 32 pGoogle Scholar
Fulbright, N, Fulbright, TE (1990) Germination of 2 legumes in leachate from introduced grasses. J Range Manage 43:466467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulbright, TE, Hickman, KR, Hewitt, DG (2013) Exotic grass invasion and wildlife abundance and diversity, south-central United States. Wildlife Soc B 37:503509Google Scholar
Gabbard, BL, Fowler, NL (2007) Wide ecological amplitude of a diversity-reducing invasive grass. Biol Invasions 9:149160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardener, CJ, McIvor, JG, Jansen, A (1993) Passage of legume and grass seeds through the digestive tract of cattle and their survival in faeces. J Appl Ecol 30:6374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, EL, McPherson, GR (2005) Response of semi-desert grasslands invaded by non-native grasses to altered disturbance regimes. J Biogeogr 32:895902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, AD, O’Connell, TJ, Hickman, KR, Leslie, DM Jr (2009) Influence of old world bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) monocultures on breeding density of three grassland songbirds in Oklahoma. Pages 691697in Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference. McAllen, TX: Partners in FlightGoogle Scholar
George, AD, O’Connell, TJ, Hickman, KR, Leslie, DM Jr (2013a) Food availability in exotic grasslands: a potential mechanism for depauperate breeding assemblages. Wilson J Ornithol 125:526533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, AD, O’Connell, TJ, Hickman, KR, Leslie, DM Jr (2013b) Use of seeded exotic grasslands by wintering birds. Prairie Nat 45:7783Google Scholar
Glazener, WC (1946) Food habits of wild geese on the Gulf Coast of Texas. J Wildl Manag 10:322329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goergen, E, Daehler, CC (2001) Reproductive ecology of a native Hawaiian grass (Heteropogon contortus; Poaceae) versus its invasive alien competitor (Pennisetum setaceum; Poaceae). Int J Plant Sci 162:317326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, S (2013) Patterns of Old World Bluestem Invasion during 37 Years in Southern Texas. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, CL, Everitt, JH (1982) Nutrient contents of major food plants eaten by cattle in the South Texas plains. J Range Manage 35:733736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, FW, Shaw, RB (1983) Grass Systematics. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 397 pGoogle Scholar
Grace, JB, Smith, MD, Grace, SL, Collins, SL, Stohlgren, TJ (2001) Interactions between fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands of North America. Pages 4065in Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station Misc. Pub. 11Google Scholar
Grace, JL, Tjelmeland, AD, Smith, FS, Mitchell, SL, Rideout-Hanzak, S, Lloyd-Reilley, J, Maher, SD, Wester, DB (2016) Effects of depth and duration of burial on tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus) seed viability and germination in southern Texas. Ecol Restor 34:710Google Scholar
Grahmann, ED, Fulbright, TE, Hernández, F, Hehman, MW, Wester, DB, Ortega-Santos, A, Martin, BA (2018) Demographic and density response of northern bobwhites to pyric herbivory of non-native grasslands. Rangeland Ecol Manag 71:458469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greer, M, Noland, MA, Hickman, KR, Wilson, GWT (2014) Old World bluestem and its effects on the small mammal communities of North Central Oklahoma, USA: an ecological game changer. Pages 109110in Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial Conference on the Conservation of America’s Grasslands. Manhattan; Kansas State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Griffith, G, Bryce, S, Omernik, J, Rogers, A (2007) Ecoregions of Texas. Austin: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Report. 125 pGoogle Scholar
Gust, DA, Schmidly, DJ (1986) Small mammal populations on reclaimed strip-mined areas in Freestone County, Texas. J Mammal 67:214217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, JB, Ratcliff, D (1989) Seed dormancy and factors controlling dormancy breakdown in buffel grass accessions from contrasting provenances. J Appl Ecol 26:201212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, VE (1926) Angleton Grass. College Station: Texas Agriculture Extension Service Bulletin No. 342. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Hall, DW, Currey, WL, Orsenigo, JR (1998) Weeds from other places: the Florida beachhead is established. Weed Technol 12:720725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanselka, CW (1988) Buffelgrass: South Texas wonder grass. Rangelands 10:279281Google Scholar
Hanselka, CW (1989) Forage quality of common buffelgrass as influenced by prescribed fire. Tex J Agric Nat Res 3:1518Google Scholar
Harlan, JR (1951) New grasses for old ranges. J Range Manage 4:1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, JR, Brooks, MH, Borgaonkar, DS, de Wet, JMJ (1964) Nature and inheritance of apomixis in Bothriochloa and Dichanthium. Bot Gaz 125:4146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, JR, Celarier, RP, Richardson, WL, Brooks, MH, Mehra, KL (1958) Studies on Old World Bluestems II. Stillwater: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin T-72. 23 pGoogle Scholar
Harlan, JR, de Wet, JMJ (1963) The compilospecies concept. Evolution 17:497501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, JR, de Wet, JMJ, Huffine, WW, Deakin, JR (1970) A guide to the species of Cynodon (Graminae). Stillwater: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin B-673. 37 pGoogle Scholar
Hatch, SL, Schuster, JL, Drawe, DL (1999) Grasses of the Texas Gulf prairies and marshes. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 355 pGoogle Scholar
Hernández, F, Guthery, FS (2012) Beef, Brush, and Bobwhites: Quail Management in Cattle Country. 1st ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 244 pGoogle Scholar
Hestir, EL, Khanna, S, Andrew, ME, Santos, MJ, Viers, JH, Greenberg, JA, Rajapakse, SS, Ustin, SL (2008) Identification of invasive vegetation using hyperspectral remote sensing in the California Delta ecosystem. Remote Sens Environ 112:40344047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, KR, Farley, GH, Channell, R, Steier, JE (2006) Effects of Old World bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) on food availability and avian community composition within the mixed-grass prairie. Southwest Nat 51:524530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, DJ, Tarasoff, C, Whitworth, GE, Baron, J, Bradshaw, JL, Church, JS (2017) Utility of unmanned aerial vehicles for mapping invasive plant species: a case study on yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus L.). Int J Remote Sens 38:20832105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, EA, Allen, KE, Parker, NC, Baker, RJ (2000) Ecotourism and conservation: richness of terrestrial vertebrates across Texas. Lubbock: Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Paper OP-201. 16 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoveland, CS (1960) Bermudagrass for Forage in Alabama. Auburn: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 328. 22 pGoogle Scholar
Huang, C, Asner, GP (2009) Applications of remote sensing to alien invasive plant studies. Sensors 9:48694889CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, N (1994) History, status and management of Lehmann lovegrass. Rangelands 16:205206Google Scholar
Hunt, ER Jr, Everitt, JH, Ritchie, JC, Moran, MS, Booth, DT, Anderson, GL, Clark, PE, Seyfried, MS (2003) Applications and research using remote sensing for rangeland management. Photogramm Eng Rem S 69:675693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarra-F, FA, Cox, JR, Martin-R, MH, Crowl, TA, Call, CA (1995) Predicting buffelgrass survival across a geographical and environmental gradient. J Range Manage 48:5359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahrsdoerfer, SE, Leslie, DM Jr (1988) Tamaulipan Brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: Description, Human Impacts, and Management Options. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(36). 63 pGoogle Scholar
Johnson, MVV, Fulbright, TE (2008) Is exotic plant invasion enhanced by a traditional wildlife habitat management technique? J Arid Environ 72:19111917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, MC (1963) Past and present grasslands of southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology 44:456466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamler, JF, Ballard, WB, Fish, EB, Lemons, PR, Mote, K, Perchellet, CC (2003) Habitat use, home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented landscape: conservation implications. J Mammal 84:989995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneebone, WR (1966) Bermuda grass: worldly, wily, wonderful weed. Econ Bot 20:9497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, RA (2004) Assessment of the spread and distribution of Old World bluestems (Bothriochloa spp.) at local and landscape scales. MS thesis. Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University. 71 pGoogle Scholar
Kuvlesky, WP Jr, Brennan, LA, Fulbright, TE, Hernández, F, DeMaso, SJ, Sands, JP, Perez, RM, Hardin, JB (2012) Impacts of invasive, exotic grasses on quail of southwestern rangelands: a decade of progress? Pages 2533in Proceedings of the 7th National Quail Symposium. Knoxville: University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
Kuvlesky, WP Jr, Fulbright, TE, Engel-Wilson, R (2002) The impact of invasive exotic grasses on quail in the southwestern United States. Pages 118128in Proceedings of the 5th National Quail Symposium. Knoxville: University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
Langeland, KA, Cherry, HM, McCormick, CM, Craddock Burks, KA (2008). Identification and biology of nonnative plants in Florida’s natural areas. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. 210 pGoogle Scholar
Larson, JA (2008) Preference and Nutrition of Grass Seeds and Common Supplemental Feeds Eaten by Northern Bobwhites. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 56 pGoogle Scholar
Larson, JA, Fulbright, TE, Brennan, LA, Hernández, F, Bryant, FC (2012) Selection of seeds of an exotic and three native grasses by northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus). Southwest Nat 57:319322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, T (1957) The King Ranch. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown. 838 pGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, VW (1969) Forgotten Legions: Sheep in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas. El Paso: Texas Western Press. 226 pGoogle Scholar
Leslie, DM Jr (2016) An International Borderland of Concern: Conservation of the Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5078. 120 pGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, DL, Bailey, P, Lance, RF, Clifford, MJ, Delph, R, Cobb, NS (2011) Effects of a nonnative, invasive lovegrass on Agave palmeri distribution, abundance, and insect pollinator communities. Biodivers Conserv 20:32513266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litt, AR, Steidl, RJ (2010) Insect assemblages change along a gradient of invasion by a nonnative grass. Biol Invasions 12:34493463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonard, RI, Judd, FW (2002) Riparian vegetation of the Lower Rio Grande. Southwest Nat 47:420432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonard, RI, Judd, FW (2006) Notes on invasive plants in the Rio Grande delta of Cameron County, Texas. Tex J Sci 58:271277Google Scholar
Lu, B, He, Y (2017) Species classification using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-acquired high spatial resolution imagery in a heterogeneous grassland. ISPRS J Photogramm 128:7385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, KG, Maldonado-Leal, BG, Owen, G (2013) Community and ecosystem effects of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) and nitrogen deposition in the Sonoran Desert. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:6578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsalis, MA (2004) Adaptation of Forage Bermudagrasses [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] to the Texas High Plains Grown under Saline and Limited Irrigation Conditions. Ph.D dissertation. Lubbock: Texas Tech University. 207 pGoogle Scholar
Marshall, VM, Lewis, MM, Ostendorf, B (2012) Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat to biodiversity in arid environments: a review. J Arid Environ 78:112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, JA, Burkhart, JK, Thackston, RE, Carroll, JP (2015) Exotic grass alters micro-climate and mobility for northern bobwhite chicks. Wildlife Soc B 39:834839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-R, MH, Cox, JR, Ibarra-F, F (1995) Climatic effects on buffelgrass productivity in the Sonoran Desert. J Range Manage 48:6063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mata, JM, Perotto-Baldivieso, HL, Hernández, F, Grahmann, ED, Rideout-Hanzak, S, Edwards, JT, Page, MT, Shedd, TM (2018) Quantifying the spatial and temporal distribution of tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus) on South Texas rangelands. Ecol Process 7:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, S, Sprangler, RE, Mason-Gamer, RJ, Kellogg, EA (2002) Phylogeny of Andropogoneae inferred from phytochrome B, GBSSI, and NDHF. Int J Plant Sci 163:441450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayeux, HS Jr, Hamilton, WT (1983) Response of common goldenweed (Isocoma coronopifolia) and buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) to fire and soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci 31:355360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClaran, MP, Anable, ME (1992) Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass along a grazing intensity gradient. J Appl Ecol 29:9298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollum, FT III (2000) Old World bluestem pasture management strategies for Panhandle and South Plains. Pages 1117in Proceedings of the Plains Nutrition Council 2000 Fall Grazing Conference. Amarillo: Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension CenterGoogle Scholar
McCosker, TH, Teitzel, JK (1975) A review of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) for the wet tropics of Australia. Trop Grasslands 9:177190Google Scholar
McCully, WG, Bowmer, WJ, Stubbendieck, JL (1970) Problems in Establishing or Maintaining Vegetation on Roadsides. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute Research Report 142–1. 26 pGoogle Scholar
McDonald, CJ, McPherson, GR (2011) Fire behavior characteristics of buffelgrass-fueled fires and native plant community composition in invaded patches. J Arid Env 75:11471154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, ML, Ueckert, DN, Hartmann, S (1987) Revegetation of oil well reserve pits in West Texas. J Range Manage 40:122127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, CM, Huenneke, LF (2004) The impact of a prescribed burn on introduced Lehmann lovegrass versus native vegetation in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. J Arid Environ 57:297310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, NE (2003) Effects of Conservation Reserve Program seeding regime on harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex), with implications for the threatened Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). Southwest Nat 48:2742772.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, NE, Thompson, TR (2003) A comparison of Conservation Reserve Program habitat plantings with respect to arthropod prey for grassland birds. Am Midl Nat 150:291301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIvor, JG (2003) Competition affects survival and growth of buffel grass seedlings—is buffel grass a coloniser or an invader? Trop Grasslands 37:176181Google Scholar
Medina, AL (2003) Gabel and scaled quail diets on the Santa Rita Experimental Range. Pages 133140in Santa Rita Experimental Range: 100 Years (1903–2003) of Accomplishments and Contributions. Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-30Google Scholar
Meyer, MW, Brown, RD (1985) Seasonal trends in the chemical composition of ten range plants in South Texas. J Range Manage 38:154157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, MW, Brown, RD, Graham, MW (1984) Protein and energy content of white-tailed deer diets in the Texas Coastal Bend. J Wildl Manag 48:527534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, AB, Litt, AR (2016) Nonnative plant shifts functional groups of arthropods following drought. Biol Invasions 18:13511361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, SF (2010) Effects of Guineagrass on Northern Bobwhite Habitat Use. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 89 pGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1971) Atlas of Nutritional Data on United States and Canadian Feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 772 pGoogle Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service (2019) Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: March 4, 2019Google Scholar
Ni, W, Liu, J, Zhang, Z, Sun, G, Yang, A (2015) Evaluation of UAV-based forest inventory system compared with LiDAR data. Pages 38743877in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Milan, Italy: Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, WM (1949) Range reseeding in Texas and Oklahoma. J Range Manage 2:213217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novosad, AC, Pratt, JN (1959) Introduced bluestem grasses for cultivated pastures. College Station: Texas Agriculture Extension Service Publication MP-340. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Ortega-S, JA, Avila-C, JM, Gonzalez-V, EA, Gonzalez-P, MA (2007) Grazing intensity and nitrogen fertilization to manage invasive Kleberg bluestem on pangolagrass pastures in Northern Mexico. Tex J Agric Nat Res 20:109115Google Scholar
Ortega-S, JA, Ibarra-Flores, FA, Gonzalez-Valenzuela, EA, Martin-Rivera, MH, Ávila-Curiel, JM, Ayala-Alvares, F, Pinedo, C, Rivero, O (2013) Exotic grasses and wildlife in northern Mexico. Wildlife Soc B 37:537545Google Scholar
Ozias-Akins, P, Van Dijk, P (2007) Mendelian genetics of apomixis in plants. Annu Rev Genet 41:509537CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pacheco, ME, Brown, RD, Bingham, RL (1983) Nutritive value and intake of Kleberg bluestem by beef cattle. J Range Manage 36:222224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, JJ (1972) Spread of African pasture grasses to the American tropics. J Range Manage 25:1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavur, GC (2016) Status of Mesocarnivores in the Last Area Known to be Occupied by Swift Foxes, Vulpes velox, in Texas. MS thesis. Lubbock: Texas Tech University. 73 pGoogle Scholar
Piñeiro, G, Oesterheld, M, Paruelo, JM (2006) Seasonal variation in aboveground production and radiation-use efficiency of temperate rangelands estimated through remote sensing. Ecosystems 9:357373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, B, Hussey, M (1985) Buffelgrass. College Station: Texas Agriculture Extension Service Leaflet L-2136. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Powell, AM (1994) Grasses of the Trans-Pecos and Adjacent Areas. Austin: University of Texas Press. 377 pGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, RG, Mireles, E, Huerta, JM, Aranda, J (1995) Forage selection by range sheep on a buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) pasture. Small Ruminant Res 17:129135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez-Yañez, LE, Ortega-S, JA, Brennan, LA, Rasmussen, GA (2007) Use of prescribed fire and cattle grazing to control guineagrass. Pages 240245in Proceedings of the 23rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and Shrubland Ecosystems. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research StationGoogle Scholar
Ramoelo, A, Skidmore, AK, Cho, MA, Schlerf, M, Mathieu, R, Heitkönig, IMA (2012) Regional estimation of savanna grass nitrogen using the red-edge band of the spaceborne RapidEye sensor. Int J Appl Earth Obs 19:151162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rango, A, Laliberte, A, Steele, C, Herrick, JE, Bestelmeyer, B, Schmugge, T, Roanhorse, A, Jenkins, V (2006) Using unmanned aerial vehicles for rangelands: current applications and future potentials. Environ Pract 8:159168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J, Maher, SD, Duvauchelle, D (2002) Plant Fact Sheet: Tanglehead. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service Publication. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Reinheimer, R, Pozner, R, Vegetti, AC (2005) Inflorescence, spikelet, and floral development in Panicum maximum and Urochloa plantaginea (Poaceae). Am J Bot 92:565575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, DM, Pyšek, P, Rejmánek, M, Barbour, MG, Panetta, FD, West, CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripper, D, McLachlan, M, Toombs, T, VerCauteren, T (2008) Assessment of Conservation Reserve Program fields within the current distribution of lesser prairie-chicken. Gt Plains Res 18:205218Google Scholar
Roundy, BA, Taylorson, RB, Sumrall, LB (1992) Germination responses of Lehmann lovegrass to light. J Range Manage 45:8184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouquette, FM Jr, Anderson, WF, Harris-Schultz, KR, Smith, GR (2011) Stand maintenance and genetic diversity of bermudagrass pastures under different grazing management strategies during a 38-year period. Crop Sci 51:28862894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, DP, Wulder, MA, Loveland, TR, Woodcock, CE, Allen, RG, Anderson, MC, Helder, D, Irons, JR, Johnson, DM, Kennedy, R, Scambos, TA, Schaaf, CB, Schott, JR, Sheng, Y, Vermote, EF, et al. (2014) Landsat-8: Science and product vision for terrestrial global change research. Remote Sens Environ 145:154172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckman, EM, Schwinning, S, Lyons, KG (2012) Effects of phenology at burn time on post-fire recovery in an invasive C4 grass. Restor Ecol 20:756763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruffner, ME, Barnes, TG (2012) Evaluation of herbicide and disking to control invasive bluestems in a South Texas coastal prairie. Range Ecol Manag 65:277285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruthven, DC III, Fulbright, TE, Beasom, SL, Hellgren, EC (1993) Long-term effects of root-plowing on vegetation in the eastern south Texas plains. J Range Manage 46:351354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruyle, GB, Roundy, BA, Cox, JR (1988) Effects of burning on germinability of Lehmann lovegrass. J Range Manage 41:404406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sammon, JG, Wilkins, KT (2005) Effects of an invasive grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum) on a grassland rodent community. Tex J Sci 57:371382Google Scholar
Sands, JP, Brennan, LA, Hernández, F, Kuvlesky, WP Jr, Gallagher, JF, Ruthven, DC III (2012) Impacts of introduced grasses on breeding season habitat use by northern bobwhite in the South Texas plains. J Wildl Manag 76:608618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, JP, Brennan, LA, Hernández, F, Kuvlesky, WP Jr, Gallagher, JF, Ruthven, DC III, Pittman, JE III (2009) Impacts of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) on a forb community in South Texas. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:130140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauls, JW (1995) Texas Citrus Weed Control. College Station: Texas Agriculture Extension Service Publication L-2317. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Savidan, Y (1980) Chromosomal and embryological analyses in sexual × apomictic hybrids of Panicum maximum Jacq. Theor Appl Genet 57:153156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, M, Schroth, G, Beer, J, Jiménez, F (2003) Root interactions between young Eucalyptus deglupta trees and competitive grass species in contour strips. For Ecol Manag 179:429440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnupp, MJ, DeLaney, DS (2012) Funding research as an investment for improving management. Pages 99116in Sands, JP, Brennan, LA, DeMaso, SJ, Schnupp, MJ, eds. Wildlife Science: Connecting Research with Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schussman, H, Geiger, E, Mau-Crimmins, T, Ward, J (2006) Spread and current potential distribution of an alien grass, Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees, in the southwestern USA: comparing historical data and ecological niche models. Divers Distrib 12:582592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, C, Förster, M, Kleinschmit, B (2012) Testing the red edge channel for improving land-use classifications based on high-resolution multi-spectral satellite data. Int J Remote Sens 33:55835599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scifres, CJ, Mutz, JL (1975) Secondary succession following extended inundation of Texas coastal rangelands. J Range Manage 28:279282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, RB (2012) Guide to Texas Grasses. 1st ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 1080 pGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D, Martin, JL, Genovesi, P, Maris, V, Wardle, DA, Aronson, J, Courchamp, F, Galil, B, García-Bertou, E, Pascal, M, Pyšek, P, Sousa, R, Tabacchi, E, Vilà, M (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:5866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, MT, Windhager, S, Power, P, Lott, J, Lyons, RK, Schwope, C (2007) Selective and non-selective control of invasive plants: the short-term effects of growing-season prescribed fire, herbicide, and mowing in two Texas prairies. Restor Ecol 15:662669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, S, Barnett, D, Stohlgren, T (2004) The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the Invasion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Fort Collins, CO: National Institute of Invasive Species Science Technical Report. 38 pGoogle Scholar
Singh, AP (1965) Intergeneric cross of Dichanthium annulatum with Bothriochloa ischaemum. Cytologia 30:5457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skerman, PF, Riveros, F (1990) Tropical Grasses. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Plant Production and Protection Series No. 23. 832 pGoogle Scholar
Smith, FS (2010) Texas today: a sea of the wrong grasses. Ecol Restor 28:112117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soreng, RJ, Peterson, PM, Romaschenko, K, Davidse, G, Zuloaga, FO, Judziewicz, EJ, Filgueiras, TS, Davis, JI, Morrne, O (2015) A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae (Gramineae). J Syst Evol 53:117137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S, Zhu, M, Zhang, Q (2010) Physiological responses of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) to submergence. Acta Physiol Plant 32:133140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjelmeland, AD (2011) Tanglehead Ecology and Management on South Texas Rangelands. Kingsville, TX: Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Research Report. 10 pGoogle Scholar
Tjelmeland, AD, Fulbright, TE, Lloyd-Reilley, J (2008) Evaluation of herbicides for restoring native grasses in buffelgrass-dominated grasslands. Restor Ecol 16:263269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, DA, Ogren, J (2016) The Texas Landscape Project: Nature and People. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 303 pGoogle Scholar
Toth, C, Jóźków, G (2016) Remote sensing platforms and sensors: a survey. ISPRS J Photogramm 115:2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tothill, JC, Hacker, JB (1976) Polyploidy, flowering phenology and climatic adaptation in Heteropogon contortus (Graminae). Aust J Ecol 1:213222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twedt, DJ, Best, C (2004) Restoration of floodplain forests for the conservation of migratory landbirds. Ecol Restor 22:194203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twidwell, D, Rogers, WR, McMahon, EA, Thomas, BR, Kreuter, UP, Blankenship, TL (2012) Prescribed extreme fire effects on richness and invasion in coastal prairie. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:330340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, E, Ustin, S, DiPietro, D (2003) Mapping nonnative plants using hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sens Environ 86:150161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Butterflies of Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region. 2 pGoogle Scholar
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2014) Recovery Plan for the Tamaulipan Kidneypetal (Texas ayenia; Ayenia limitaris). Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region. 80 pGoogle Scholar
Van Devender, TR, Felger, RS, Búrquez-M., A (1997) Exotic plants in the Sonoran Desert Region, Arizona and Sonora. Pages 16in Proceedings of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council. Berkeley: California Exotic Pest Plant CouncilGoogle Scholar
Vela, JL (2015) Alternative Restoration Treatments to Maximize Growth and Survival of Tamaulipan Thornscrub Species during Seedling Establishment. MS thesis. Brownsville: University of Texas at Brownsville. 61 pGoogle Scholar
Veldman, JW, Putz, FE (2010) Long-distance dispersal of invasive grasses by logging vehicles in a tropical dry forest. Biotropica 42:697703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villarreal, ML, Soulard, CE, Waller, EK (2019) Landsat time series assessment of invasive annual grasses following energy development. Remote Sens 11:2553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, PM (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, CSA, Walker, JJ, Skirvin, SM, Patrick-Birdwell, C, Weltzin, JF, Raichle, H (2016) Mapping presence and predicting phenological status of invasive buffelgrass in southern Arizona using MODIS, climate and citizen science observation data. Remote Sens 8:524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, CH (2019) Response of Tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus) to Prescribed Burning and Cattle Grazing. MS thesis. Kingsville: Texas A&M University–Kingsville. 93 pGoogle Scholar
Way, AG (2014) A cosmopolitan weed of the world: following bermudagrass. Agric Hist 88:354367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wester, DB, Bryant, FC, Tjelmeland, AD, Grace, JL, Mitchell, SL, Edwards, JT, Hernández, F, Lyons, RK, Clayton, MK, Rideout-Hanzak, S, Machen, RV, Ortega-S, JA, (2018) Tanglehead in southern Texas: a native grass with an invasive behavior. Rangelands 40:3744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M, Walker, B, Noy-Meir, I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manage 42:266274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, WG (1997) Desertification and animal biodiversity in the desert grasslands of North America. J Arid Environ 37:709720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, JA (1973) Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecol Monogr 43:237270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, DG, Baruch, Z (2000) African grass invasion in the Americas: ecosystem consequences and the role of ecophysiology. Biol Invasions 2:123140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkworth, RE (1971) Longevity of buffel grass seed sown in an arid Australian range. J Range Manage 24:141145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, DH, Larsson, LC, Patten, MA (2016) The lesser prairie-chicken in the mixed-grass prairie ecoregion of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Pages 299314in Haukos, DA, Boal, CW, eds. Ecology and Conservation of Lesser Prairie-Chickens. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Woodin, MC, Skoruppa, MK, Pearce, BD, Ruddy, AJ, Hickman, GC (2010) Grassland Birds Wintering at U.S. Navy Facilities in Southern Texas. Corpus Christi, TX: U.S. Geological Survey Report 2010-1115. 62 pGoogle Scholar
Young, D, Perotto-Baldivieso, HL, Brewer, T, Homer, R, Santos, SA (2014) Monitoring British upland ecosystems with the use of landscape structure as an indicator for state-and-transition models. Rangeland Ecol Manag 67:380388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, KE, Abbot, LB, Caldwell, CA, Schrader, TS (2013) Estimating suitable environments for invasive plant species across large landscapes: a remote sensing strategy using Landsat 7 ETM+. Int J Biodivers Conserv 5:122134Google Scholar
Zeid, M, Echenique, V, Díaz, M, Pessino, S, Sorrels, ME (2011) Eragrostis. Pages 135151in Kole, C, ed. Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources—Millets and Grasses. Berlin: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, F, Cheng, L, Li, N, Xia, N, Ma, L, Zhou, X, Li, M (2019) A hierarchical airport detection method using spatial analysis and deep learning. Remote Sens 11:2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y, Lambrides, CJ, Fukai, S (2013) Drought resistance of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) ecotypes collected from different climate zones. Environ Exp Bot 85:2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. South Texas ecoregions based on Griffith et al. (2007).

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of key biological and ecological characteristics of the most common invasive grass species in South Texas.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Monoculture of Heteropogon contortus in a ranch pasture in Jim Hogg County, TX.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Characteristic yellow color of reproductive stage of Bothriochloa ischaemum in Nueces County, TX.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Early spring growth of Pennisetum ciliare on a pipeline right-of-way in Jim Hogg County, TX.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Urochloa maxima growing under the canopy of Prosopis glandulosa and sweet acacia [Vachellia farnesiana (L.) Wight & Arn.] in Kleberg County, TX.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Dense stand of Eragrostis lehmanniana growing alongside a ranch road in southwestern Texas.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Monoculture sod of Cynodon dactylon during anthesis in coastal South Texas.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Workflow of unsupervised classification of 2014 National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photography with normalized difference vegetation index layer stack (adapted from Mata et al. 2018).

Figure 9

Figure 9. Natural color orthoimagery acquired by an unmanned aerial vehicle of a pasture containing Heteropogon contortus in South Texas. Dark areas in the image correspond to patches of H. contortus. Pixel resolution is 1.4 cm.