Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:41:20.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of a herbicide as a tool to increase livestock consumption of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2021

Clinton A. Stonecipher Open the ORCID record for Clinton A. Stonecipher [Opens in a new window] ,
Casey Spackman ,
Kip E. Panter  and
Juan J. Villalba
Clinton A. Stonecipher*
Affiliation:
Rangeland Scientist, USDA–Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory, Logan, UT, USA
Casey Spackman
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA; current: Rangeland Extension Specialist, Extension Animal Resources, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
Kip E. Panter
Affiliation:
Animal Scientist (Retired), USDA–Agricultural Research Service Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory, Logan, UT, USA
Juan J. Villalba
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Clinton A. Stonecipher, USDA–Agricultural Research Service Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory, 1150 East 1400 North, Logan, UT84341. (Email: clint.stonecipher@ars.usda.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medusahead [Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski] is an invasive annual grass spreading into rangelands throughout the western United States. We tested cattle (Bos taurus L.) utilization of T. caput-medusae following treatment with glyphosate in two forms of its salt (potassium salt and isopropylamine salt) at three different rates of application; low (236 g ae ha−1), medium (394 g ae ha−1), and high rates (788 g ae ha−1) in eastern Washington. The herbicide was applied on April 26, 2016. A second location, northern Utah, was treated with glyphosate in the form of its isopropylamine salt at the high rate. The herbicide was applied on June 5, 2019. Cattle were allowed to start grazing T. caput-medusae 15 d after glyphosate treatment and had unlimited access to the glyphosate-treated plots for more than 85 d. The greatest utilization of T. caput-medusae occurred at the highest glyphosate application rate (P < 0.05), in Washington, with no difference between forms of glyphosate salt. Cattle also consumed T. caput-medusae at the Utah site (P < 0.05). Glyphosate treatment preserved the water-soluble carbohydrate content of T. caput-medusae at levels greater than the nontreated controls (P < 0.05) at both locations. The glyphosate treatment assisted in the increased utilization of T. caput-medusae by cattle and is a viable option for the reduction of T. caput-medusae while increasing the forage value of the weed.

Keywords

Cattlechemical weed controlglyphosategrazingweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 106 - 114
Check for updates
Copyright
© USDA-ARS, 2021. This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Access options

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

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Steven S. Seefeldt, Washington State University

References

[AOAC] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1995) Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
[AOAC] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2000) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Gaithersburg, MD: Association of Official Analytical Chemists Google Scholar
Baylis, AD (2000) Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manag Sci 56:299–308 3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biondini, M, Pettit, RD, Jones, V (1986) Nutritive value of forages on sandy soils as affected by tebuthiuron. J Range Manage 39:396–399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonham, CD (2013) Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 246 p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovey, RW, LeTourneau, D, Erickson, LC (1961) The chemical composition of medusahead and downy brome. Weeds 9:307–311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownsey, P, James, JJ, Barry, SJ, Becchetti, TA, Davy, JS, Doran, MP, Forero, LC, Harper, JM, Larsen, RE, Larson-Praplan, SR, Zhang, J, Laca, EA (2017) Using phenology to optimize timing of mowing and grazing treatments for medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Rangeland Ecol Manag 70:210–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubenmire, RF (1940) Plant succession due to overgrazing in the Agropyron bunchgrass prairie of southeastern Washington. Ecology 21:55–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubenmire, RF (1970) Steppe Vegetation of Washington. Washington State University Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA: Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 131 pGoogle Scholar
Davies, KW, Svejcar, TJ (2008) Comparison of medusahead-invaded and noninvaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:623–629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davy, JS, Roche, LM, Robertson, AV, Nay, DE, Tate, KW (2016) Introducing cattle grazing to a noxious weed-dominated rangeland shifts plant communities. Calif Agr 69:230–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, JM, Call, CA, Devoe, N (2012) Effects of targeted grazing and prescribed burning on community and seed dynamics of a downy brome (Bromus tectorum)–dominated landscape. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:259–269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Kyser, GB, George, MR, Doran, MP, Laca, EA (2008) Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) using timely sheep grazing. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:241–247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M, Gilles, KA, Hamilton, JK, Rebers, PA, Smith, F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatford, KL, Simpson, FJ, Siever-Kelly, C, Leury, BJ, Dove, H, Ciavarella, TA (1999) Spray-topping annual grass pasture with glyphosate to delay loss of feeding value during summer. I. Effects on pasture yield and nutritive value. Aust J Agric Res 50:453–464 Google Scholar
George, MR (1992) Ecology and Management of Medusahead. Davis, CA: Department of Agronomy and Range Science Agricultural Field Station Report, University of California. Pp 1–3 Google Scholar
Giesy, JP, Dobson, S, Solomon, KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide. Pages 35–120 in Ware, GW, ed. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology: Continuation of Residue Reviews. New York: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golob, CT, Williams, MW, Johnston, WJ (2008) Efficacy of a New Potassium Salt Formulation of Glyphosate (Roundup PROMAX) Compared to Other Formulations of Glyphosate. Pullman, WA: Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T, Burritt, EA, Villalba, JJ (2015) Assessing the impact of supplements, food aversions, and silica on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) use by sheep. Small Ruminant Res 124:45–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, B (2001) Glyphosate—a review. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Integrated Crop Management Conference. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/icm/2001/proceedings/3. Accessed: October 25, 2018Google Scholar
Heady, HF, Gibbens, RP, Powell, RW (1959) A comparison of the charting, line intercept, and line point methods of sampling shrub types of vegetation. J Range Manage 12:180–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempy-Mayer, K, Pyke, DA (2008) Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production: implications for grazing. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:116–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hironaka, M (1994) Medusahead: natural successor to the cheatgrass type in the Northern Great Basin. Pages 89–91 in Monsen SB, Kitchen SG, eds. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report No. 313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
James, JJ, Gornish, ES, DiTomaso, JM, Davy, J, Doran, MP, Becchetti, T, Lile, D, Brownsey, P, Laca, EA (2015) Managing medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) on rangeland: a meta-analysis of control effects and assessment of stakeholder needs. Rangeland Ecol Manag 68:215–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, BL, Torell, DT (1970) Curing standing range forage with herbicides. J Range Manage 23:34–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettenring, KM, Adams, CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, LD, Kirkland, DJ (2013) Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. Crit Rev Toxicol 43:283–315 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kisseberth, WC, Buck, WB, Mansfield, ME, Manuel, RK (1986) Preferential grazing by cattle on glyphosate-treated fescue pastures. Am J Vet Res 47:696–698 Google ScholarPubMed
Kyser, GB, Creech, JE, Zhang, J, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Selective control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) in California sagebrush scrub using low rates of glyphosate. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM, Doran, MP, Orloff, SB, Wilson, RG, Lancaster, DL, Lile, DF, Porath, ML (2007) Control of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and other grasses with imazapic. Weed Technol 21:66–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyser, GB, Wilson, RG, Zhang, J, DiTomaso, JM (2013) Herbicide-assisted restoration of Great Basin sagebrush steppe infested with medusahead and downy brome. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66:588–596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leys, AR, Cullis, BR, Plater, B (1991) Effect of spraytopping applications of paraquat and glyphosate on the nutritive value and regeneration of vulpia [Vulpia bromoides (L.) S.F. Gray]. Aust J Agric Res 42:1405–1415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, WC, Jones, MB, Torell, DT, McKell, CM (1961) Medusahead palatability. J Range Manage 14:248–251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, FP, Massey, K, Ennos, AR, Hartley, SE (2009) Impacts of silica-based defenses in grasses on the feeding preferences of sheep. Basic Appl Ecol 10:622–630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, RA, Scifres, CJ (1984) Forage quality responses of selected grasses to tebuthiuron. J Range Manage 37:83–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayland, HF, Shewmaker, GE (2001) Animal health problems caused by silicon and other mineral imbalances. J Range Manage 54:502–517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, SJ, Tarrants, JL, McNaughton, MM, Davis, RH (1985) Silica as a defense against herbivory and a growth promotor in African grasses. Ecology 66:528–535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TA, Osmond, TM, Dewey, SA (2005) Medusahead control with fall- and spring-applied herbicides in northern Utah foothills. Weed Technol 19:653–658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montes-Sánchez, JJ, Villalba, JJ (2017a) Effects of early experience and alternative feeds on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum) intake by sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci 188:9–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montes-Sánchez, JJ, Villalba, JJ (2017b) Understanding medusahead low intake and palatability through in vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics. Animal 11:1930–1938 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nafus, AM, Davies, KW (2014) Medusahead ecology and management: California annual grasslands to the Intermountain West. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:210–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, BE (1999) Grazing and weeds. Pages 85–96 in Sheley, RL, Petroff, JK, eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press Google Scholar
Papanastasis, VP (2009) Restoration of degraded grazing lands through grazing management: can it work? Restor Ecol 17:441–445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfister, JA, Panter, KE, Lee, ST (2014) Crude protein supplementation to reduce lupine consumption by pregnant cattle in the Scablands of eastern Washington. International Journal of Poisonous Plant Research 3:26–32 Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ (2006) Foraging in domestic herbivores: linking the internal and external milieu. Pages 210–240 in Bels, VL, ed. Feeding in Domestic Vertebrates: From Structure to Function. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralphs, MH, Pfister, JA, Panter, KE, Lee, ST, Motteram, ES (2011) Influence of grazing pressure on cattle consumption of the teratogenic plant velvet lupine. Prof Anim Sci 27:101–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, J, Janssens, GPJ (2003) Acid-insoluble ash as a marker in digestibility studies: a review. J Anim Feed Sci 12:383–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scifres, CJ, Scifres, JR, Kothmann, MM (1983) Differential grazing use of herbicide treated areas by cattle. J Range Manage 36:65–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabloom, EW, Harpole, WS, Reichman, OJ, Tilman, D (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13384–13389 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheley, R, Sheley, J, Smith, B (2014) Cost/benefit analysis of managing invasive annual grasses in partially invaded sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Weed Sci 62:38–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, GS, Nelson, AB, Boggino, EJA (1971) Digestibility of forages in vitro as affected by content of silica. J Anim Sci 3:466–471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneva, FA, Raleigh, RJ, Turner, HA (1973) Paraquat cured herbage for late season grazing. J Anim Sci 36:107–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonecipher, CA, Panter, KE, Jensen, KB, Rigby, CW, Villalba, JJ (2017) Revegetation of medusahead-invaded rangelands in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington. Rangeland Ecol Manag 70:388–395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonecipher, CA, Panter, KE, Villalba, JJ (2016) Effect of protein supplementation on forage utilization by cattle in annual grass-dominated rangelands in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington. J Anim Sci 94:2572–2582 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swenson, CF, Tourneau, DL, Erickson, LC (1964) Silica in medusahead. Weeds 12:16–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travlos, I, Cheimona, N, Bilalis, D (2017) Glyphosate efficacy of different salt formulations and adjuvant additives on various weeds. Agronomy 7:60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018) Ecological Site Description for: Mountain Stony Loam, R047XA461UT. https://edit.jornada.nmsu.edu/page?content=class-description&catalog=3&spatial=93&class=6373. Accessed: July 26, 2018Google Scholar
Vallentine, JG, Stevens, AR (1994) Use of livestock to control cheatgrass: a review. Pages 202–206 in Monsen SB, Detchen SG, eds. Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report No. 313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Jones, LHP (1968) Effect of silica in forages upon digestibility. J Dairy Sci 51:1644–1648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Uytvanck, J, Verheyen, K (2014) Grazing as a Tool for Wood-Pasture Restoration and Management. European Wood-Pastures in Transition. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Pp 149–167Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Burritt, EA (2015) Intake of medusahead by sheep: influence of supplements, silica and individual animal variation. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:151–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, NE, Young, JA (2000) Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. Pages 255–284 in Barbour, MG, Billings, WD, eds. North American Terrestrial Vegetation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Williams, AL, Watson, RE, DeSesso, JM (2012) Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B 15:39–96 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, JA (1992) Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [SIMK.] Melderis). Great Basin Nat 52:245–252 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stonecipher et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Stonecipher et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.3 KB