Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:02:41.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David W. Clausnitzer ,
Michael M. Borman  and
Douglas E. Johnson
David W. Clausnitzer
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Douglas E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted from 1993–1994 through 1995–1996 growing seasons in Harney County, OR, to determine the relative competitive abilities of Elymus elymoides (squirreltail) a native perennial range grass, and Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead), an exotic annual grass weed. The 1993–1994 growing season was very dry, 1994–1995 was dry, and 1995–1996 was wetter than average. One experiment tested seedlings vs. seedlings in each of three seasons. The second experiment tested seedlings plus second- and third-year established E. elymoides plants vs. 77 caput-medusae over 2 yr. Biomass, seed production, and soil moisture utilization 15, 30, 45, and 60 cm deep by the two species were measured. A randomized block design with factorial arrangement was used, with 25 2.25-m2 plots per block. Initial seeding densities of each species were 0, 10, 74, 550, and 4,074 seeds m−2 in all combinations of density. In the seedling vs. seedling experiment, intraspecific competition by 77 caput-medusae on itself was always significant (P ≤ 0.10) for both biomass and seed production. Interspecific competition by E. elymoides seedlings on T. caput-medusae biomass and seed production was not significant (P ≥ 0.10) in 2 of 3 yr and was always less than intraspecific competition by 77 caput-medusae. Only 0.4% of E. elymoides seed germinated, and no seed was produced in the very dry first year, but 84% of remaining seed was viable for the next year, which had better moisture conditions for germination and establishment. Interspecific competition affected (P ≤ 0.10) E. elymoides seedling biomass and seed production throughout the study. Intraspecific competition affected (P ≤ 0.10) seedling E. elymoides seed production in the dry year but not in the wetter than average year. In the mature E. elymoides experiment, intraspecific competition by T. caput-medusae on weight and seed production per plant was greater than interspecific competition from E. elymoides. Seedling/mature E. elymoides reduced T. caput-medusae weight per plant in the dry year but the effect was not biologically significant. Larger, mature Eelymoides plants produced 600 to 3,000 seeds per plant during the wet year; neither intra- nor interspecific competition was a factor. Taeniatherum caput-medusae was better able to access deeper soil moisture and was more aggressive at extracting soil moisture than were E. elymoides seedlings in the wet year. Cold soils and low oxygen due to wet soils may have restricted E. elymoides seedling root activity. Mature E. elymoides plants did not appear restricted by cold soils or low oxygen. Established second- and third-year E. elymoides plants were able to compete for soil moisture down to 45 cm. The generally greater interspecific competitive effects of T. caput-medusae on E. elymoides than vice versa suggested that it will be difficult to establish an E. elymoides stand in an existing T. caput-medusae community without first suppressing T. caput-medusae. Individual E. elymoides plants did establish and were productive with and without T. caput-medusae competition.

Keywords

Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey SITHY, squirreltailTaeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum (Simk.) Melderis ELYCM, medusaheadCompetitioninterferenceseed productionsoil moisturesoil temperatureELYCMSITHY
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 720 - 728
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Anderson, E. W., Borman, M. M., and Krueger, W. C. 1998. The Ecological Provinces of Oregon: A treatise on the Basic Ecological Geography of the State. Corvallis: Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Report 990. 138 p.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W., Le Tourneau, D., and Erickson, L. C. 1961. The chemical composition of medusahead and downy brome. Weeds 9:307–311.Google Scholar
Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. R. 1996. The Nature and Property of Soils. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 213–240.Google Scholar
Brannon, T. A. 1972. Some Interactions between Nitrate–Nitrogen and Temperature in Portions of the Life Cycle of Four Range Grasses. . Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 69 p.Google Scholar
Cook, J. E. and White, A. S. 1985. Competitive interactions among two perennial grasses in a replacement experiment. Bull. Ecol, Soc. Am. 66:158.Google Scholar
Dahl, B. E. and Tisdale, E. W. 1975. Environmental factors related to medusahead distribution. J. Range Manage. 28:463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. A. 1961. Effects of different densities of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) on growth and survival of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) in the greenhouse. Weeds 9:216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furbush, P. 1953. Control of medusahead on California ranges. J. For. 51:118–121.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. Pages 27–45 in Grace, J. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1965. Medusahead competition. Pages 66–69 in Proceedings of the Cheatgrass Symposium. Vale, OR: (Portland) Bureau of Land Management.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol. Monogr. 37:89–111.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1977. Root phenology as a factor of competition among grass seedlings. J. Range Manage. 30:172–177.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Goebel, C. J. 1976. Factors in Plant Competition in Seeding Pacific Northwest Ranges. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 820. 22 p.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. 1970. Competition for moisture among seedlings of annual and perennial grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperature. Ecology 51:530–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hironaka, M. 1994. Medusahead: natural successor to the cheatgrass type in the northern Great Basin. Pages 89–91 in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., comps. Proceedings—Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands; May 18–21, 1992, Boise, ID. General Technical Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. and Sindelar, B. W. 1973. Reproductive success of squirreltail in medusahead infested ranges. J. Range Manage. 26:219–221.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. and Sindelar, B. W. 1975. Growth characteristics of squirreltail seedlings in competition with medusahead. J. Range Manage. 28:283–285.Google Scholar
Hironaka, M. and Tisdale, E. W. 1963. Secondary succession in annual vegetation in southern Idaho. Ecology 4:810–812.Google Scholar
Kay, B. L. 1965. The medusahead problem in California—what progress is research making? Pages 74–80 in Proceedings of the Cheatgrass Symposium. Vale, OR: (Portland) Bureau of Land Management.Google Scholar
Monsen, S. B. 1994. The competitive influences of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) on site restoration. Pages 43–50 in Monsen, S. B. and Kitchen, S. G., comps. Proceedings—Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands; May 18–21, 1992, Boise, ID. General Technical Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. F. 1974. Roots and root temperatures. Pages 302–303 in Carson, E. W., ed. The Plant Root and Its Environment. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Schlatterer, E. F. and Hironaka, M. 1972. Some factors influencing tolerance to moisture stress of three range grasses. J. Range Manage. 20:364–367.Google Scholar
Sharp, L. A. and Tisdale, E. W. 1952. Medusahead, a Problem on Some Idaho Ranges: A Preliminary Study. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experimental Station Research Note 3. 9 p.Google Scholar
Sharp, L. A., Hironaka, M., and Tisdale, E. W. 1957. Viability of medusahead seed collected in Idaho. J. Range Manage. 10:123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manage. 47:470–474.Google Scholar
Stolzy, L. H. 1974. Soil atmosphere. Pages 348–355 in Carson, E. W., ed. The Plant Root and Its Environment. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Turner, R. B. 1965. Medusahead control and management studies in Oregon. Pages 70–73 in Proceedings of the Cheatgrass Symposium. Vale, OR: (Portland) Bureau of Land Management.Google Scholar
Whiteley, G. M. and Dexter, A. R. 1983. Behavior of roots in cracks between soil peds. Plant and Soil 74:153–162.Google Scholar
Wood, M. K., Eckert, R. E. Jr., Blackburn, W. H., and Peterson, F. F. 1982. Influence of crusting soil surfaces on emergence and establishment of crested wheatgrass, squirreltail, Thurber needlegrass, and fourwing saltbush. J. Range Manage. 35:282–287.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae spp. Asperum [SIMK.] meldris). Great Basin Nat. 52:245–253.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1977. Squirreltail seed germination. J. Range Manage. 30:33–36.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1978. Germination of medusahead in response to temperature and afterripening. Weed Sci. 16:92–95.Google Scholar