Nontarget effects of herbicides on annual forbs and seeded grass in the Great Basin, United States, are partially offset by planting depth and application rate

IF 2.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Restoration Ecology Pub Date : 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1111/rec.14218
Laura C. Shriver, John Tull, Elizabeth A. Leger
{"title":"Nontarget effects of herbicides on annual forbs and seeded grass in the Great Basin, United States, are partially offset by planting depth and application rate","authors":"Laura C. Shriver, John Tull, Elizabeth A. Leger","doi":"10.1111/rec.14218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pre‐emergent herbicides can reduce the abundance of invasive annual plants, but they can also harm native plants, particularly annuals or perennial seedlings, including seeds planted during restoration. We assessed the effects of imazapic and indaziflam on invasive target and nontarget native plants in the Great Basin, a region with extensive invasive annual grasses. We tested nontarget effects on native annual forbs in an agricultural field previously used to grow native annual forbs, which contained a large seed bank. We seeded perennial grass (<jats:italic>Elymus elymoides</jats:italic>) at multiple depths to determine susceptibility and resistance. Herbicides were applied at full and reduced rates to mimic the effect of litter in natural systems. We observed reductions in most non‐native species in all treatments, but also extensive reductions of native annual forbs, although these were offset at lower application rates, and some species (e.g. <jats:italic>Amsinckia tessellata</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>Microsteris gracilis</jats:italic>) were less susceptible than others. Herbicides, particularly indaziflam, reduced <jats:italic>E. elymoides</jats:italic> emergence, but planting seeds at 2–3 cm depths improved emergence, particularly for imazapic, with 15–68% greater emergence than seeds planted at 1 cm. We suggest surveys for native annual forbs and resistant invaders before applying herbicides and field testing to determine whether reduced rates could provide weed control while maintaining annual forbs. We suggest planting <jats:italic>E. elymoides</jats:italic> at 2–3 cm when applying herbicides, an approach that may be effective for other species. Herbicide use can be an effective tool, but our results indicate that mitigation of nontarget effects will be needed to maintain native plant diversity.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pre‐emergent herbicides can reduce the abundance of invasive annual plants, but they can also harm native plants, particularly annuals or perennial seedlings, including seeds planted during restoration. We assessed the effects of imazapic and indaziflam on invasive target and nontarget native plants in the Great Basin, a region with extensive invasive annual grasses. We tested nontarget effects on native annual forbs in an agricultural field previously used to grow native annual forbs, which contained a large seed bank. We seeded perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) at multiple depths to determine susceptibility and resistance. Herbicides were applied at full and reduced rates to mimic the effect of litter in natural systems. We observed reductions in most non‐native species in all treatments, but also extensive reductions of native annual forbs, although these were offset at lower application rates, and some species (e.g. Amsinckia tessellata and Microsteris gracilis) were less susceptible than others. Herbicides, particularly indaziflam, reduced E. elymoides emergence, but planting seeds at 2–3 cm depths improved emergence, particularly for imazapic, with 15–68% greater emergence than seeds planted at 1 cm. We suggest surveys for native annual forbs and resistant invaders before applying herbicides and field testing to determine whether reduced rates could provide weed control while maintaining annual forbs. We suggest planting E. elymoides at 2–3 cm when applying herbicides, an approach that may be effective for other species. Herbicide use can be an effective tool, but our results indicate that mitigation of nontarget effects will be needed to maintain native plant diversity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
除草剂对美国大盆地一年生草本植物和播种草的非目标效应被种植深度和施药量部分抵消
萌芽前除草剂可以减少入侵一年生植物的数量,但也会伤害本地植物,尤其是一年生或多年生幼苗,包括在恢复期间种植的种子。我们评估了咪鲜胺和茚虫威对大盆地入侵目标植物和非目标本地植物的影响,该地区有大量入侵的一年生禾本科植物。我们在一块曾用于种植本地一年生草本植物的农田中测试了非目标植物对本地一年生草本植物的影响,这块农田中有大量的种子库。我们在多个深度播种了多年生草(Elymus elymoides),以确定其敏感性和抗性。除草剂的施用量为全量和减量,以模拟自然系统中垃圾的影响。我们观察到,在所有处理中,大多数非本地物种的数量都有所减少,但本地一年生草本植物的数量也有大量减少,不过在施用量较低时,这些减少的数量会被抵消,而且有些物种(如 Amsinckia tessellata 和 Microsteris gracilis)对除草剂的敏感性低于其他物种。除草剂,尤其是茚虫威,会降低 E. elymoides 的出苗率,但在 2-3 厘米深处播种会提高出苗率,尤其是咪鲜胺,其出苗率比在 1 厘米处播种的种子高 15-68% 。我们建议在施用除草剂前调查本地一年生草本植物和抗性入侵植物,并进行实地测试,以确定降低用药量是否能在控制杂草的同时保留一年生草本植物。我们建议在施用除草剂时,在 2-3 厘米处种植 E. elymoides,这种方法可能对其他物种有效。使用除草剂可能是一种有效的工具,但我们的研究结果表明,要保持本地植物的多样性,就必须减轻非目标影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Restoration Ecology
Restoration Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
15.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.
期刊最新文献
How does restoration ecology consider climate change uncertainties in forested ecosystems? Does decline and recovery process affect clonal and genetic diversity of a coastal plant population? Salt tolerance of native trees relevant to the restoration of degraded landscapes in the Monte region, Argentina Frequency of association: a key indicator for assessing livestock grazing effects on dryland plant interactions, applicable in restoration Low retention of restocked laboratory‐reared long‐spined sea urchins Diadema antillarum due to Spanish hogfish Bodianus rufus predation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1