DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts of Medusahead (Elymus Caput-Medusae L.) Management on Plant Communities in California’S Valley Grasslands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impacts of Medusahead (Elymus Caput-Medusae L.) Management on Plant Communities in California’S Valley Grasslands The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-15-2020 Impacts of medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae L.) management on plant communities in California’s valley grasslands Nicole Carpenter [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Carpenter, Nicole, "Impacts of medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae L.) management on plant communities in California’s valley grasslands" (2020). Master's Projects and Capstones. 1034. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/1034 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master's Project Impacts of medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae L.) management on plant communities in California’s valley grasslands by Nicole Carpenter is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted: Received: ...................................……….. ................................…………. Nicole Carpenter Date Aviva Rossi, M.S. Date Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objective of this Study ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 California’s Valley Grasslands .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Ecology of Medusahead...................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Impacts of Medusahead ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Loss of Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Forage Decline .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Thatch Accumulation ................................................................................................................ 10 2.3.4 Economic Cost .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Medusahead Control Methods .......................................................................................................... 11 3. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 12 4. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Herbicides......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.3 Impacts on Plant Community .................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Grazing ............................................................................................................................................. 22 4.2.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................................ 24 4.2.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................ 25 4.2.3 Impacts on Plant Community .................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................................... 28 4.3.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................ 29 4.3.3 Impacts on Plant Community .................................................................................................... 30 4.4 Mechanical control ........................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.1 Impacts on Plant Community .................................................................................................... 35 5. Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 36 i 5.1 Integrated Pest Management ............................................................................................................ 39 5.2 The Knowing-Doing Gap ................................................................................................................. 40 5.3 Revegetation Implementation ........................................................................................................... 42 5.4 Climate Change and Drought........................................................................................................... 43 5.5 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 44 6. Conclusion and Management Recommendations .............................................................................. 45 6.1 Restoration Research ........................................................................................................................ 46 6.2 Funding for Weed Management Areas ............................................................................................. 46 6.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 47 References .................................................................................................................................................. 49 List of Figures Figure 1: The invasion curve .......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Current distribution of California’s grasslands ............................................................... 5 Figure 3: Medusahead seed head with visible awns ....................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Medusahead distribution in California ............................................................................ 9 Figure 5: Medusahead thatch ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6: Medusahead control with the pre-emergent application of the herbicides .................... 20 Figure 7: The Green and Brown grazing strategy ......................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Spring timing of sheep grazing on medusahead cover .................................................. 24 Figure 9: Medusahead cover from grazed and ungrazed plots ..................................................... 26 Figure 10: Effect of grazing densities and timing on response ratios of medusahead, native plants, and non-native forage plants ............................................................................................. 27 Figure 11: Percent cover of thatch and bare ground between unburned and burned plots in a vernal pool ecosystem ................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 12:
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]
  • 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]
  • Native Forb Information Sheet
    United States Department of Agriculture Native Forb Information Sheet Missouri Information Sheet IS-MO-643Native Forb Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Missouri Conservation Practice 643 December 2017 Native forbs, or broadleaf plants, are a natural part of the Missouri landscape. They welcomed European settlers to the state, painting the prairie and savanna landscapes with vibrant colors that changed throughout the season while supporting an incredible diversity of native wildlife. More than 800 plant species, most of them forbs, have been identified on Missouri’s prairies. Missourians are demonstrating a rekindled interest in native forbs for their beauty, hardiness, and wildlife benefits. Native forbs are well adapted to Missouri’s climatic extremes, which range from potentially brutal cold in January to the often stifling heat of July. Once established, native forbs require few inputs and little maintenance. Native forbs feature a variety of shapes, sizes, color, and value to wildlife. The towering compass plant, the vibrant butterfly milkweed, the rather plain but very valuable roundhead lespedeza, and the unique rattlesnake master all add important diversity to any planting. Choosing which ones to plant can be difficult; contact your local conservation agency representative, or one of the vendors of native forb seed for assistance. You can find a list at www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/mopmc, www.grownative.org, or www.monativeseed.org. Seed vendors can be excellent sources of information, and they are often as eager as you are for your planting to be successful. Refer to Table 1 in this document for general information about native forbs that are most often available commercially.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Plants at the UHCC
    Flora Checklist Texas Institute for Coastal Prairie Research and Education University of Houston Donald Verser created this list by combining lists from studies by Grace and Siemann with the UHCC herbarium list Herbarium Collections Family Scientific Name Synonym Common Name Native Growth Accesion Dates Locality Comments Status Habit Numbers Acanthaceae Ruellia humilis fringeleaf wild petunia N forb 269 10/9/1973 Acanthaceae Ruellia nudiflora violet wild petunia N forb Agavaceae Manfreda virginica false aloe N forb Agavaceae Polianthes sp. polianthes ? forb 130 8/3/1971 2004 roadside Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy N woody/vine Apiaceae Centella erecta Centella asiatica erect centella N forb 36 4/11/2000 Area 2 Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace I forb 139-142 1971 / 72 No collections by Dr. Brown. Perhaps Apiaceae Eryngium leavenworthii Leavenworth's eryngo N forb 144 7/20/1971 wooded area in pipeline ROW E. hookeri instead? Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium button eryngo N forb 77,143,145 71, 72, 2000 Apiaceae Polytaenia texana Polytaenia nuttallii Texas prairie parsley N forb 32 6/6/2002 Apocynaceae Amsonia illustris Ozark bluestar N Forb 76 3/24/2000 Area 4 Apocynaceae Amsonia tabernaemontana eastern bluestar N Forb Aquifoliaceae Ilex vomitoria yaupon N woody Asclepiadaceae Asclepias lanceolata fewflower milkweed N Forb Not on Dr. Brown's list. Would be great record. Asclepiadaceae Asclepias longifolia longleaf milkweed N Forb 84 6/7/2000 Area 6 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata whorled milkweed N Forb 35 6/7/2002 Area 7 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridis green antelopehorn N Forb 63, 92 1974 & 2000 Asteraceae Acmella oppositifolia var.
    [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]
  • Interactions Between Elevated Atmospheric CO2 and Defoliation on North American Rangeland Plant Species at Low and High N Availability
    Grass and Forage Science The Journal of the British Grassland Society The Official Journal of the European Grassland Federation Interactions between elevated atmospheric CO2 and defoliation on North American rangeland plant species at low and high N availability D. R. LeCain*, J. A. Morgan*, G. L. Hutchinson*, J. D. Reeder* and F. A. Dijkstra† *U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Rangeland Resources Research Unit, Crops Research Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO, USA, and †Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, Level 4, Biomedical Building, 1 Central Avenue, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia Abstract Keywords: semi-arid rangeland, CO2, defoliation, nitro- 15 Although common disturbances of grazing lands like gen, C3 grass, C4 grass, forb, root, biomass, N recov- plant defoliation are expected to affect their sensitivity ery, forage quality. to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, almost no research has been conducted to evaluate how important such effects might be on the direct responses of Introduction rangelands to CO2. This growth chamber experiment About 40% of terrestrial ecosystems are classified as subjected intact plant–soil cylinders from a Wyoming, rangelands (Suttie et al., 2005). Rangeland ecosystems USA, prairie to a 3-way factorial of CO2 (370 vs. are not characteristically productive lands, but they )1 720 lLL ), defoliation (non-clipped vs. clipped) and support most of the world’s managed livestock in )2 soil nitrogen (control vs. 10 g m added N) under addition to large herds of native ungulates (Campbell simulated natural climatic conditions. Above- and et al., 1997). The productivity of rangelands may be below-ground biomass and N dynamics of the func- slowly increasing owing to the fertilization effects of tional groups C3 grasses, C4 grasses and forbs were rising levels of atmospheric CO2 (Polley, 1997; Morgan investigated.
    [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]