DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland: State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland: State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 1-1987 Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland: State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem Jerome A. Onsager USDA, Agricultural Research Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons Recommended Citation Onsager, Jerome A. and USDA, Agricultural Research Service, "Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland: State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem" (1987). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 511. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/511 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1111111111111111111111111111111 PB87-170171 Information is our business. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ON RANGELAND STATE OF THE ART IN THE SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BELTSVILLE, MD JAN 87 u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service ; fl£B7-170171 United States Department of Agriculture Integrated Agricultural Research Service Pest Management ARS-50 January 1987 on Rangeland State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem REPRODUCED BY U.S. DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161 ABSTRACT Onsager, Jerome A., editor. 1987. Integrated Pest Management: State-of-the-Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-50, 85 p., illus. Several sagebrush communities represent optimum levels of negative development plant productivity for certain peculiar sites, and therefore should be managed for their preservation. Other sagebrush communities may be profitably modified to favor forage species that are more palatable to domestic livestock. Modification techniques can range from subtle (i.e., grazing strategies) to tracematic (i.e., brush removal and revegetation), and an associated spectrum of management tactics are described. Interrelationships between and problems associated with management of forage resources, management of weeds, and management of insects (including grasshoppers, black grass bugs, and beneficial insects) are discussed. Economical analyses, the role of modeling as a management tool, and impacts of management tactics on wildlife and non-target species also are discussed. KEYWORDS: IPM, pest management, range, range­ land, sagebrush, brush control, weed control, bladegrass bugs, grasshopper control, rangeland modeling, range revegetation The papers, including the figures, references, and tables, presented here are reproduced essen­ tially as provided by the individual authors. Queries regarding them should be referred to authors of specific papers. The views expressed by the workshop participants are their own and do not necessarly represent the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Copies of this report can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. ARS has no additional copies for free distribution. Cover photograph: Part of the sagebrush region of Western North America--an extensive stand of Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) in central Utah. ~02n-l01 .1. Recipient'. Acc ...I ..... No. : RD>()RT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I. PAGE ARS-50 PBa 7 1 7' 0 1i 7 "1 TAS I 4. Title and Subtitle Integrated Pest }ianagment on Rangeland January 1987 State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem 7. Author(s) a. ... rformlnc Orcanlzallon Rept. No. Jerome A. Onsager (editor) USDA-ARS 9 .... rformlnc Ore_nll.tlon Name and Add,... 10. Prolect/Taak/Wo,k Unit No. United States Department of Agriculture N/A Agricultural Research Service 11. Cont,aet(C) or G,ant(G) No. Building 005 ec) Beltsville, MD 20705 N/A (G) 12.. Spon.onne O,.anlzallon Name and Addrus 13. Type of Report & Period Covered RE!search Same 14. 15. Supplemantary Notes N/A 16. Abstract (limIt: 200 words) Several sagebrush communities represent optimum Tevels of negative development plant productivity for certain peculiar sites, and therefore should be managed for their preservation. Other sagebrush communities may be profitably modified to favor forage species that are more palatable to domestic livestock. Modification techniques can range form subtle (i.e., grazing strategies) to tracematic (i.e., brush removal and revegetation), and an associated spectrum of management tactics are. described. Interrelationships between and problems associated with managment of forage resources, management of weeds, and management of insects (including grasshoppers, black grass bugs, and beneficial insects) are discussed. Economical analyses, the role of modeling as a management tool; and impacts of management tactics on wildlife and non-target species also are discussed. 17. Document Analysis •• Descriptors IPM, pest managment, rnage, rangeland, sagebrush, bursh control, weed control, bladegrass bugs, grasshopper control, rangeland modeling, range revegetation b. Identlfiers/Open·Ended Terms Pest management,'grashopper control,'rangeland modeling, range revegetation e. COSA TI Field/Group. ~ ______________________________~ _________________~f~ _______________________,- _______________ 18. Availability St.temen: No restriction on distribution 19. Security CI ... (This Report) 21. No. of Paees 9 (; Available from National Technical Information UNCLASSIFIED~,,~---~-..:.--~----.----- Service, Springfield, VA 22161 20. Security Class (This PaKe) 22. Price UNCLASSIFTF.n (See ANSI-Z39.18) s •• Instruction. on Rey.r •• OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-771 (Formerly NTlS-351 Oepo'Jrtm~"t of Con'm~rc(O United States Department of Agriculture Integrated Agricultural Research Pest Management Service ARS-50 on Rangeland State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem Jerome A. Onsager Editor , II CONTENTS PREFACE Sagebrush types as ecological indicators to This publication provides the text of 12 papers integrated pest management (IPM) in the that were presented by invitation at a symposium sagebrush ecosystem of Western North America entitled "Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland: K. L. Johnson State-of-the-Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem." The objectives were to stimulate dialogue between Weed and brush control tactics in the sage­ research and extension personnel in range-related brush ecosystem 11 disciplines, to identify opportunities for D. L. Lancaster, J. A. Young, and R. A. Evans interdisciplinary approaches to management of pests or pest complexes on rangeland, and to provide a basis for prioritization of interdisciplinary Technology for seeding on sagebrush rangelands 15 research breeds for IPM on rangeland. J. A. Young and R. A. Evans Revegetation in the sagebrush ecosystem 19 The symposium was sponsored by Western Regional K. H. Asay Research Project No. W-16l, Integrated Pest Management. Shrubs and forbs for revegetation plantings in the sagebrush ecosystem 28 Topics for discussion and candidate speakers were E. D. McArthur, S. B. Monsen, and B. L. Welch selected by the following representatives of the Range Subcommittee of W-16l: K. H. Asay, Logan, Grazing management systems and tactics in the UT; R. A. Evans, Reno, NV; K. L. Johnson, Logan, sagebrush ecosystems 40 UT; J. B. Knight, Reno, NV; J. A. Onsager, Bozeman, W. A. Laycock MT, Chairman; G. L. Piper, Pullman, WA; and B. F. Roche, Jr., Pullman, WA. The symposium was held,on Time and data needs in the economic analysis of March 27-28, 1984, at the University of Nevada, range management decisions 49 Reno, NV. J. J. Jacobs My thanks are extended to all who contributed to Rangeland modeling 56 the symposium: To the Western Regional IPM J. R. Wight Coordinator, Gary A. McIntyre, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO; to the W-16l Current tactics for suppression of grasshoppers Rangeland Subcommittee; to J. B. Knight, University on range 60 J. A. Onsager of Nevada, Reno, NV, for providing local arrangements; to the speakers and other participants of the symposium; and to Vera The status of IPM strategies for controlling Christie, Rangeland Insect Laboratory, Bozeman, MT grass bugs infesting introduced grassland monocultures 67 for preparing camera-ready copies of manuscripts. B. A. Haws Range insects - pests and beneficials 73 J. B. Knight Jerome A. Onsager, Editor. Wildlife and pest control in the sagebrush ecosystem: Basic ecology and management considerations 76 L. C. McEwen and L. R. DeWeese III SAGEBRUSH TYPES AS ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS TO SAGEWORT, WORMWOOD, AND SAGEBRUSH INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) IN THE SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICA The large and well-established genus Artemisia L. contains over 200 species distributed throughout the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. Kendall L. Johnson The species include herbaceous, suffrutescent, and woody growth forms of wide ecological amplitude, but occur primarily in the arid steppe areas of Eurasia, North America, and Africa. In the Pacific ABSTRACT and Rocky Mountain West of North America, there are at least 30-35 well-defined taxa, although some Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a structured authorities have recognized many more (McArthur approach to ecosystem management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetic Analysis of Native and Introduced Populations of Taeniatherum Caput-Medusae (Poaceae): Implications for Biological Control
    Genetic analysis of native and introduced populations of Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Poaceae): implications for biological control S.J. Novak1,2 and R. Sforza3 Summary Genetic analysis of both native and introduced populations of invasive species can be used to exam­ ine population origins and spread. Accurate delineation of an invasive species’ source populations can contribute to the search for specific and effective biological control agents. Medusahead, Tae- niatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski, a primarily self-pollinating Eurasian annual grass that was introduced in the western USA in the late 1800s, is now widely distributed in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. The goal of our current research is to assess introduction dynamics and range expansion of this grass in the western USA, and to identify source populations in the native range to facilitate the search for potential biocontrol agents. Across introduced populations, nine multilocus genotypes were detected, and we suggest a minimum of seven separate introduction events of T. caput-medusae in the western USA. Although range expansion appears to have occurred primarily on a local level, several introduced populations appear to be composed of admixtures of introduced genotypes. None of the native populations analysed to date possess the exact multilocus genotypes detected in introduced populations. We have recently begun screening Eurasian popula­ tions using intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) genetic markers to determine whether this polymerase chain reaction–based technique can provide a higher degree of resolution for the identification of source populations. Keywords: invasive grass, multilocus genotypes, multiple introductions. Introduction (Novak and Mack, 2001, 2005; Lavergne and Molof­ sky, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Taeniatherum Caput-Medusae (L.) Nevski (= Elymus Caput-Medusae L
    A WEED REPORT from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States This WEED REPORT does not constitute a formal recommendation. When using herbicides always read the label, and when in doubt consult your farm advisor or county agent. This WEED REPORT is an excerpt from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States and is available wholesale through the UC Weed Research & Information Center (wric.ucdavis.edu) or retail through the Western Society of Weed Science (wsweedscience.org) or the California Invasive Species Council (cal-ipc.org). Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski (= Elymus caput-medusae L. [Jepson Manual 2012]) Medusahead Family: Poaceae Range: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington; a few locations in the northeastern states. Habitat: Disturbed sites, grassland, rangeland, openings in chaparral, oak woodlands, and rarely in agronomic fields. Generally in areas that receive at least 9 inches of rain per year, so not common in the low desert. Grows best on clay soils or where deep soil moisture is available late in the growing season. Origin: Native to the Mediterranean region. Impact: Dense stands displace desirable vegetation and reduce livestock and wildlife carrying capacity. Unpalatable to livestock except during the early growth stages. The stiff awns and hard florets can injure eyes, nostrils, and mouths of grazing animals. Birds and rodents usually avoid feeding on the seeds. Senesced plants form a dense layer of thatch that takes a couple of years to decompose. The thatch layer changes the temperature and moisture dynamics of the soil, reduces seed germination of other species, and creates fuel for wildfires.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 CREATING A WILDLIFE FRIENDLY YARD ......................................................................2 With Plant Variety Comes Wildlife Diversity...............................................................2 Existing Yards....................................................................................................2 Native Plants ......................................................................................................3 Why Choose Organic Fertilizers?......................................................................3 Butterfly Gardens...............................................................................................3 Fall Flower Garden Maintenance.......................................................................3 Water Availability..............................................................................................4 Bird Feeders...................................................................................................................4 Provide Grit to Assist with Digestion ................................................................5 Unwelcome Visitors at Your Feeders? ..............................................................5 Attracting Hummingbirds ..................................................................................5 Cleaning Bird Feeders........................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Taeniatherum Caput-Medusae) Using Timely Sheep Grazing
    Invasive Plant Science and Management 2008 1:241–247 Research Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Using Timely Sheep Grazing Joseph M. DiTomaso, Guy B. Kyser, Melvin R. George, Morgan P. Doran, and Emilio A. Laca* Medusahead is among the most invasive grasses in the western United States. Selective control of this noxious winter annual grass is difficult in California grasslands, as many other desirable annual grasses and both native and nonnative broadleaf forbs are also important components of the rangeland system. Intensive grazing management using sheep is one control option. This study was designed to determine the optimal timing for sheep grazing on heavily infested medusahead sites, and to evaluate the changes in species composition with different grazing regimes. Midspring (April/May) grazing reduced medusahead cover by 86 to 100% relative to ungrazed plots, regardless of whether it was used in combination with early spring or fall grazing. Early spring (March) or fall (October to November) grazing, alone or in combination, was ineffective for control of medusahead. In addition, midspring grazing increased forb cover, native forb species richness, and overall plant diversity. At the midspring grazing timing, medusahead was in the ‘‘boot’’ stage, just prior to exposure of the inflorescences. The success of this timely grazing system required high animal densities for short periods. Although this approach may be effective in some areas, the timing window is fairly narrow and the animal stocking rates are high. Thus, sheep grazing is unlikely to be a practical solution for management of large medusahead infestations. Nomenclature: Medusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski ELYCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Physiological Traits and Species Abundance to Invasion Resistance
    Linking physiological traits and species abundance to invasion resistance Jeremy James Framework • Plant community composition influences ecosystem properties • Much emphasis on effects of functional group diversity on ecosystem properties • Invasive plant management can be improved by managing plant communities based on functional traits as opposed to functional groups Outline • An example of how functional traits influence ecosystem properties (N capture and invasion) – Traits related to N capture – Trait effects on ecosystems are moderated by species abundance • What traits might be important to consider when revegetating areas prone to weed invasion? – At the seedling stage traits affecting initial growth rate important • Conclusions and future directions Functional group diversity, nitrogen capture and invasion resistance Study site Group Code Common Name Scientific Name Annual BRTE cheatgrass Bromus tectorum L. Annual TACA medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski Bunchgrass PSSP bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Löve Bunchgrass ELEL bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey Bunchgrass POSE Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa secunda J. Presl Forb LOTR nineleaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatum (Pursh) Coult. & Rose Forb CRIN grey hawksbeard Crepis intermedia Gray Experimental design • 15N was injected into soils around 7 study species • Injections were made: – 3 times during the growing season (April, May June) – At 2 soil depth (2-7 cm, 17-22 cm) + - – Using 2 forms of N (NH4 , NO3 ) • Removal plots
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera) (Excluding Anthribidae
    A FAUNAL SURVEY AND ZOOGEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CURCULIONOIDEA (COLEOPTERA) (EXCLUDING ANTHRIBIDAE, PLATPODINAE. AND SCOLYTINAE) OF THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY OF TEXAS A Thesis TAMI ANNE CARLOW Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 1997 Major Subject; Entomology A FAUNAL SURVEY AND ZOOGEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CURCVLIONOIDEA (COLEOPTERA) (EXCLUDING ANTHRIBIDAE, PLATYPODINAE. AND SCOLYTINAE) OF THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY OF TEXAS A Thesis by TAMI ANNE CARLOW Submitted to Texas AgcM University in partial fulltllment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved as to style and content by: Horace R. Burke (Chair of Committee) James B. Woolley ay, Frisbie (Member) (Head of Department) Gilbert L. Schroeter (Member) August 1997 Major Subject: Entomology A Faunal Survey and Zoogeographic Analysis of the Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) (Excluding Anthribidae, Platypodinae, and Scolytinae) of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. (August 1997) Tami Anne Carlow. B.S. , Cornell University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Horace R. Burke An annotated list of the Curculionoidea (Coleoptem) (excluding Anthribidae, Platypodinae, and Scolytinae) is presented for the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas. The list includes species that occur in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Wigacy counties. Each of the 23S species in 97 genera is tteated according to its geographical range. Lower Rio Grande distribution, seasonal activity, plant associations, and biology. The taxonomic atTangement follows O' Brien &, Wibmer (I og2). A table of the species occuning in patxicular areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, such as the Boca Chica Beach area, the Sabal Palm Grove Sanctuary, Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park, and the Falcon Dam area is included.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Foundation Bunchgrass Species Abundances: Model-Assisted Decision-Making in Protected-Area Sagebrush Steppe 1, 2 3 3 4 THOMAS J
    #825 Predicting foundation bunchgrass species abundances: model-assisted decision-making in protected-area sagebrush steppe 1, 2 3 3 4 THOMAS J. RODHOUSE, KATHRYN M. IRVINE, ROGER L. SHELEY, BRENDA S. SMITH, SHIRLEY HOH, 5 5 DANIEL M. ESPOSITO, AND RICARDO MATA-GONZALEZ 1Upper Columbia Basin Network, National Park Service, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701 USA 2Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, United States Geological Survey, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, Montana 59715 USA 3Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 67826-A, Highway 205, Burns, Oregon 97720 USA 4John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, National Park Service, 32651 Highway 19, Kimberly, Oregon 97848 USA 5Department of Animal and Rangeland Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA Citation: Rodhouse, T. J., K. M. Irvine, R. L. Sheley, B. S. Smith, S. Hoh, D. M. Esposito, and R. Mata-Gonzalez. 2014. Predicting foundation bunchgrass species abundances: model-assisted decision-making in protected-area sagebrush steppe. Ecosphere 5(9):108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00169.1 Abstract. Foundation species are structurally dominant members of ecological communities that can stabilize ecological processes and influence resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion. Being common, they are often overlooked for conservation but are increasingly threatened from land use change, biological invasions, and over-exploitation. The pattern of foundation species abundances over space and time may be used to guide decision-making, particularly in protected areas for which they are iconic. We used ordinal logistic regression to identify the important environmental influences on the abundance patterns of bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurber- ianum), and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) in protected-area sagebrush steppe.
    [Show full text]
  • Medusahead (Taeniatherum Caput-Medusae) Plant Guide
    Plant Guide Well-established medusahead communities have low plant species diversity and have low value for wildlife MEDUSAHEAD habitat (Miller et al. 1999). Rabbits will graze medusahead (Sharp et al. 1957). Bodurtha et al. (1989) Taeniatherum caput-medusae reported that mule deer will frequent medusahead mixed (L.) Nevski communities but they will not eat medusahead. Savage et Plant symbol = TACA8 al. (1969) reported that chucker partridge consumed medusahead seeds in a controlled feeding study but further reported that the birds lost weight. Contributed By: USDA, NRCS, Washington & Idaho Plant Materials Program Status Consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g., threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Weediness Medusahead originates from Eurasia and was first reported in North America in the 1880s (Furbush 1953). By 2003, it occupied approximately 2.3 million acres in 17 western states (Rice, 2005). Pellant and Hall (1994) suggest that 76 million acres of public land is susceptible to invasion by winter annuals including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum ) and medusahead. Medusahead’s success is largely a result of it being native Caution: This plant is highly invasive. to a Eurasian region with similar temperature-moisture patterns as found in the Intermountain West and inland Alternate Names valleys of California. Summers are warm and dry; fall, Medusahead wildrye, medusahead rye, rough winter, and spring seasons are cool to cold and moist. medusahead. Diverse native plant communities inhibit colonization of Uses weedy species because these communities more fully Erosion Control: Medusahead is a winter annual grass exploit soil and moisture resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Management of Medusahead (Taeniatherum Caput- Medusae Ssp
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 52 Number 3 Article 6 12-18-1992 Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- medusae ssp. asperum Melderis) James A. Young Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reno, Nevada Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Young, James A. (1992) "Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum Melderis)," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 52 : No. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol52/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 52(3), pr. 245-252 ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF MEDUSAHEAD (TAENIATHERUM CAPUT-MEDUSAE SSP. ASPERUM [SIMK.] MELDERlS) ABsn\Acr.-Medusahead is nnother in the extensive list of annual herbaceous S],X-"Cies to invade thl:: tempemte desert rangelands of the Great Basin. Mednsahead is not preferred by large herhin)res and apparently is not preferred by gmnivores. Herbage ofthis anlllial gl'ass enhances ignition and sprei.ld ofwildFIres. Mcdwmhcad is highly competitive with the se<..--dlings of IlJltive spedcs and is prohably the greate..<>t threat to the biodiver.<iity uf the natural vegdation that has yet been accidentally introduced into the Great 8nsin. Despite the obvious hiological disruptions that are os.rociated with medusahead invasion, the species offers a wealtll of opportunities for stlldents to examine the mechanism by which thiS species is so sllccessful.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic and Morphological Variation in Taeniatherum Caput
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Boise State University - ScholarWorks GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION IN TAENIATHERUM CAPUT- MEDUSAE (MEDUSAHEAD): TAXOMONIC DIVERSITY, GEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS, MULTIPLE INTRODUCTIONS AND FOUNDER EFFECTS by Morgan Lindsey Peters A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology Boise State University August 2013 © 2013 Morgan Lindsey Peters ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS of the thesis submitted by Morgan Lindsey Peters Thesis Title: Genetic and morphological variation in Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Medusahead): taxonomic diversity, geographic origins, multiple introductions and founder effects Date of Final Oral Examination: 19 May 2011 The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Morgan Lindsey Peters, and they evaluated her presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination. Stephen J. Novak, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee James F. Smith, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee Marcelo Serpe, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee René Sforza, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Steven J. Novak, Ph.D., Chair of the Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved for the Graduate College by John R. Pelton, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College. DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated with love to Jeannette Irene Turman (1926-2011) and Paul Onil Frechette (1923-2011). iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the endless patience, guidance, and enthusiasm of my major advisor Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Medusahead Plants and Can Be Used to Break of Agriculture (530) 283-6365 Medusahead up Deep Thatch Layers
    Management & Control Methods For More Information: Mechanical- Tillage will control existing · Plumas-Sierra County Department medusahead plants and can be used to break of Agriculture (530) 283-6365 Medusahead up deep thatch layers. But, it can increase Website: www.countyofplumas.com potential for soil erosion and loss of soil moisture. Mowing is not an effective · Plumas-Sierra University of California AKA:Taeniatherum caput- control strategy for medusahead. Cooperative Extension (530) 283-6270 medusae Website: ucce-plumassierra.ucdavis.edu/ Biological- Biological control of medusahead does not appear to be a potential management · Natural Resources Conservation Service option in the near future. (NRCS), (530) 284-7126 Chemical- Herbicides are a good tool for Photos, and text provided by: Managing medusahead Ø California Department of Food and populations and Agriculture, Integrated Pest Control often improve the Branch success of other Ø Hilken, Thomas O & Richard F. Miller. control methods 1980 Medusahead. Oregon State Univ., such as tillage, burning, or Ø Lassen County Special Weed Action Team re-vegetation. Check with your Agriculture Department or Ø Randall John M. Rice, Barry R, / The Cooperative Extension office to determine the Nature Conservancy Herbicides that work best for your situation. Ø University of California Cooperative Plumas-Sierra Grazing-Cattle and sheep will graze Extension-Plumas Sierra Counties medusahead early in the season before seeds Ø USDA-NRCS, High Sierra Resource et, however medusahead’s low palatability Noxious WEEDS* Conservation and Development Area prevents grazing from being an effective control option. Ø Whitson, Tom, et al. 1991 Weeds of the Management Group West. University of Wyoming Fire- Burning can help remove medusahead’s dense thatch layer.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium
    Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium Dennis Isaacson Martha H. Brookes Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV and Oregon Department of Agriculture Salem, OR June 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many of the tasks of organizing a symposium such as this — and there are many — are not obvious, and, if they are handled well, the effort that goes into them can easily be overlooked. Sherry Kudna of the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Control staff managed most of the arrangements and took care of many, many details, which helped the symposium run smoothly. We truly appreciate her many contributions. We also acknowledge the contributions of the presenters. They not only organized their own presentations and manuscripts, but also assisted with reviewing drafts of each other’s papers in the proceedings. Several of the presenters also covered their own expenses. Such dedication speaks well of their commitment to improving the practice of weed biocontrol. Both the Oregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service made major contributions to supporting the symposium. Although several individuals from both organizations provided assistance, we especially note the encouragement and advice of Bob Bolton, Oregon Bureau of Land Management Weed Control Coordinator, and the willingness to help and financial support for publishing this document from Richard C. Reardon, Biocontrol/Biopesticides Program Manager, USDA Forest Service's Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. We thank Tinathan Coger for layout and design and Patricia Dougherty for printing advice and coordination of the manuscript We also thank Barbra Mullin, Montana State Department of Agriculture, who delivered the keynote address; Tami Lowry, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, who helped format the document; and Eric Coombs, who provided the photographs of weeds and agents that convey the concepts of weed biocontrol.
    [Show full text]