The invasive annual grass downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) is a critical threat to the semiarid shrublands that characterize western North America. More abundant fine fuel after invasion typically increases fire frequency in plant communities adapted to relatively infrequent burning, reducing the likelihood of native plant persistence. Currently, imazapic is most often used to manage B. tectorum, but reinvasion from the seedbank after treatment is common. Indaziflam is a newer herbicide recently labeled for use in rangelands grazed by livestock, and many research trials have demonstrated its ability to deplete invasive annual grass seedbanks. We evaluated the effectiveness of indaziflam and imazapic for reducing B. tectorum density and cover over a period of approximately 5 yr (57 mo after treatment [MAT]) at two invaded sagebrush-grassland sites near Pinedale, WY. Treatments included three different indaziflam rates (51, 73, and 102 g ai ha−1) and one imazapic rate (123 g ai ha−1), and these treatments were reapplied to half of each plot at 45 MAT to evaluate the effects of two sequential applications. We also measured perennial grass cover, because positive perennial grass responses were observed after release from B. tectorum competition in other studies, and perennial grasses may provide resistance to B. tectorum reinvasion. Intermediate and high indaziflam rates (73 and 102 g ha−1, respectively) reduced B. tectorum cover and density at 45 MAT, and perennial grass cover responded positively to some treatments, mostly early in the study (≤33 MAT). Imazapic reduced B. tectorum initially, but did not affect density or cover at either site beyond 21 MAT. Reapplication did not substantially improve B. tectorum control at 57 MAT in plots treated with intermediate and high indaziflam rates, suggesting that long-term control with a single indaziflam treatment may be possible in some cases.

Invasive winter annual grasses, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) are considered serious threats to regional biodiversity. Pollinator populations that depend on the native flora are likely to be negatively impacted as these native species may be displaced by the invasive grass species. Colonization by cheatgrass is also predicted to increase risk of wildfires, as dead plant parts provide fuel in the already dry and arid regions of the western United States. Biocontrol, grazing, prescribed burning, or use of broad-spectrum nonselective herbicides have been suggested as possible means to control B. tectorum. Efficient control may facilitate regrowth of native flora that could in turn support other ecosystem functions. Reporting our findings as a case study, we describe here the results of the application of a preemergent herbicide, indaziflam, that limits germination of B. tectorum seeds. Herbicide was applied to the study locations during the months of December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017. The data reported here on the diversity of flowering plants were collected between May through September 2018. Herbicide-treated plots showed an increase in diversity and abundance of flowering plants compared to the untreated control within two seasons after cheatgrass control was implemented, suggesting that effective reduction of the population of the invasive annual cheatgrass may help facilitate the growth of native forbs. Further studies are necessary to understand mechanisms that facilitate reestablishment of native flowering species, the long-term consequences of reducing invasive annual grasses and to document any residual effects of the herbicide on ground-nesting pollinators.

Producers facing infestations of invasive annual grasses regularly voice the need for practical revegetation strategies that can be applied across broad landscapes. Our objective was to determine the potential for scaling up the single-entry approach for revegetating medusahead-infested rangeland to broader, more heterogeneous landscape-scale revegetation of winter annual grass–infested rangeland. We hypothesized, when applied on a highly variable landscape scale, the combination of imazapic and seeding would provide highest abundance of perennial grasses and lowest amount of annual grasses. Treatments included a control, seeding of crested wheatgrass (‘Hycrest’) and Sandberg's bluegrass, spraying (60 g ai ha−1 imazapic), and a simultaneously applied combination of spraying and seeding. The HyCrest and Sandberg's bluegrass seeding rates were 19 and 3.4 kg ha−1, respectively. The treatments were applied to large plots (1.4 to 8 ha) and replicated five times, with each replication located in different watersheds throughout southeastern Oregon. This study shows that the single-entry approach can be scaled up to larger landscapes, but variation within establishment areas will likely be high. This procedure should reduce the costs over multientry treatment applications and make revegetating annual grass–infested rangeland across landscapes more affordable.

Our objective was to evaluate the cost/benefit of a single herbicide application or targeted grazing of invasive annual grasses during restoration of partially invaded sagebrush steppe ecosystems used for livestock production. The cost/benefit model used is based on estimating the production of vegetation in response to implementing management and modeling cost/benefit economics associated with that prediction. The after-tax present value of added animal unit months (AUMs) obtained was lower than the present value of after-tax treatment costs after 20 yr for a single herbicide treatment, but higher than the present value of after-tax treatment costs for the grazing management scenario. Even at the highest weed utilization level, the value of added AUMs did not offset the cost of the treatment after 20 yr. However, the grazing treatment resulted in a value of added AUMs higher than the costs after 20 yr. Depending on the invasive weed utilization level, break-even points with targeted grazing occurred at anywhere from the first year to 7 yr. This assessment clearly shows that grazing management can be economically viable for managing annual grass-infested rangeland. In the future, models like the one used here can be improved by incorporating the rangeland management and restoration benefits on the wide variety of goods and services gained from rangeland.