Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:18:42.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenology of Salt Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. consimilis) and Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bruce A. Roundy ,
James A. Young  and
Raymond A. Evans
Bruce A. Roundy
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin. Agric. Res., Renewable Resource Center, Univ. of Nevada, 920 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512
James A. Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin. Agric. Res., Renewable Resource Center, Univ. of Nevada, 920 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512
Raymond A. Evans
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin. Agric. Res., Renewable Resource Center, Univ. of Nevada, 920 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Salt rabbitbrush [Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pallas) Britt., ssp. consimilis (Greene)] and greasewood [Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr.] grow slowly in early spring until mid to late May. They then begin a period of rapid growth, at which time susceptibility to foliar herbicides is probably greatest. Greasewood ceases rapid growth in mid June to early July, but salt rabbitbrush continues to grow rapidly until early August. Greasewood that resprouts after herbicide application has a longer rapid-growth period than shrubs in an untreated stand. An average leader length of 4 cm indicates that rapid growth of salt rabbitbrush is underway, and first opening of the flower buds indicates that rapid growth is over. Appearance of greasewood staminate spikes indicates that rapid growth has begun, and the first appearance of dried spikes indicates that growth has ceased. Simultaneous control of these shrubs with a single application of phenoxy herbicides may only be possible during the relatively short period when both are growing rapidly. This period may only occur from late May to mid June in some stands and years, but may occur from mid May to early July in other cases.

Keywords

Rangelandsweed ecologyweed controlrange management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , July 1981 , pp. 448 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

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

References

Literature Cited

1. Blauer, A. C., Plummer, A. P., McArthur, E. D., Stevens, R., and Guinta, B. C. 1976. Characteristics and hybridization of important intermountain shrubs. II. Chenopod family. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Paper INT-177. 42 pp.Google Scholar
2. Cords, H. P. 1966. Root temperature and susceptibility to 2,4-D in three species. Weeds 14:121–124.Google Scholar
3. Fireman, M. and Hayward, H. E. 1952. Indicator significance of some shrubs in the Escalante Desert, Utah. Bot. Gaz. 114:143–155.Google Scholar
4. Hall, H. M. and Clements, F. E. 1923. The Phylogenetic Method in Taxonomy. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 355 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hanks, D. L., McArthur, E. D., Plummer, A. P., Guinta, B. C., and Blauer, A. C. 1975. Chromatographic recognition of some palatable and unpalatable subspecies of rubber rabbitbrush in and around Utah. J. Range Manage. 28:144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hyder, D. N., Sneva, F. A., Chilcote, D. O., and Furtick, W. R. 1958. Chemical control of rabbitbrush with emphasis upon simultaneous control of big sagebrush. Weeds 6:289–297.Google Scholar
7. Hyder, D. N., Sneva, F. A., and Freed, V. H. 1962. Susceptibility of big sagebrush and green rabbitbrush to 2,4-D as related to certain environmental, phenological, and physiological conditions. Weeds 10:188–295.Google Scholar
8. Kingsbury, J. M. 1964. Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 626 pp.Google Scholar
9. Lesperance, A. L., Young, J. A., Eckert, R. E. Jr., and Evans, R. A. 1978. Great Basin wildrye. Rangeman's J. 5:125–127.Google Scholar
10. McKell, C. M. and Chilcote, W. W. 1957. Response of rabbitbrush following removal of competing vegetation. J. Range Mange. 10:228–230.Google Scholar
11. Mohan, J. M. 1973. 14 years of rabbitbrush control in central Oregon. J. Range Manage. 26:448–451.Google Scholar
12. Nie, H. H., Hull, H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., and Bent, D. H. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd. ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 675 pp.Google Scholar
13. Parker, K. G. 1978. Range plant control-modernized. Utah Agric. Ext. Serv. Circ. 346 (revised). 17 pp.Google Scholar
14. Rickard, W. H. 1964. Demise of sagebrush through soil changes. Bioscience 14:43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Robertson, J. H. and Cords, H. P. 1957. Survival of rabbitbrush Chrysothatmnus spp., following chemical, burning, and mechanical treatments. J. Range Manage. 10:83–89.Google Scholar
16. Robinson, T. W. 1958. Phreatophytes. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 1423. 84 pp.Google Scholar
17. Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1974. Phenology of Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus subspecies viscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt. Weed Sci. 22:469–475.Google Scholar