入侵植物控制的效果取决于施用除草剂的时机和入侵者土壤种子库的密度

IF 2.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Restoration Ecology Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1111/rec.14237
Clarissa S. Rodriguez, Christopher J. McDonald, Travis M. Bean, Loralee Larios
{"title":"入侵植物控制的效果取决于施用除草剂的时机和入侵者土壤种子库的密度","authors":"Clarissa S. Rodriguez, Christopher J. McDonald, Travis M. Bean, Loralee Larios","doi":"10.1111/rec.14237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding the underlying temporal dynamics influencing invasive plant control outcomes is essential to achieve restoration and land management goals. Within grasslands, herbicides are commonly used as the main method for invasive plant control, but the efficacy of management may be dependent on seasonal dynamics, as well as the number of applications. Additionally, assessments to quantify invasive plant control are often limited to aboveground plant composition, overlooking the potential repository of propagules stored in the soil seedbank, and additional impacts on nontarget species. To ensure that an herbicide method is effectively controlling invader populations, while limiting impacts on the resident plant communities, both above‐ and belowground species responses must be assessed. We established an herbicide field experiment across different sites and years in Riverside, CA, U.S.A., to assess the control of a global annual invasive forb, <jats:italic>Oncosiphon pilulifer</jats:italic>. We investigated how seasonal herbicide management (early‐season vs. late‐season) and repeated annual herbicide applications (1 vs. 2 years) influenced cover and seedbank density of our focal invader and the resident plant community 1 year after treatment. We found that although late‐ and early‐season‐applied herbicides reduced invader cover, early‐season applications were the only strategy to reduce invader seedbank density, indicating potential longer term management control. Lastly, native cover was limited in post‐treated areas, suggesting that additional management strategies may be needed to overcome native establishment limitations in invaded grasslands.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of invasive plant control depends on timing of herbicide application and invader soil seedbank density\",\"authors\":\"Clarissa S. Rodriguez, Christopher J. McDonald, Travis M. Bean, Loralee Larios\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rec.14237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Understanding the underlying temporal dynamics influencing invasive plant control outcomes is essential to achieve restoration and land management goals. Within grasslands, herbicides are commonly used as the main method for invasive plant control, but the efficacy of management may be dependent on seasonal dynamics, as well as the number of applications. Additionally, assessments to quantify invasive plant control are often limited to aboveground plant composition, overlooking the potential repository of propagules stored in the soil seedbank, and additional impacts on nontarget species. To ensure that an herbicide method is effectively controlling invader populations, while limiting impacts on the resident plant communities, both above‐ and belowground species responses must be assessed. We established an herbicide field experiment across different sites and years in Riverside, CA, U.S.A., to assess the control of a global annual invasive forb, <jats:italic>Oncosiphon pilulifer</jats:italic>. We investigated how seasonal herbicide management (early‐season vs. late‐season) and repeated annual herbicide applications (1 vs. 2 years) influenced cover and seedbank density of our focal invader and the resident plant community 1 year after treatment. We found that although late‐ and early‐season‐applied herbicides reduced invader cover, early‐season applications were the only strategy to reduce invader seedbank density, indicating potential longer term management control. Lastly, native cover was limited in post‐treated areas, suggesting that additional management strategies may be needed to overcome native establishment limitations in invaded grasslands.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"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.14237\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14237","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

摘要

了解影响入侵植物控制结果的基本时间动态对于实现恢复和土地管理目标至关重要。在草地上,除草剂通常被用作入侵植物控制的主要方法,但管理效果可能取决于季节动态和施药次数。此外,量化入侵植物控制的评估通常仅限于地上植物的组成,忽略了土壤种子库中潜在的繁殖体储存库,以及对非目标物种的额外影响。为确保除草剂方法能有效控制入侵种群,同时限制对常住植物群落的影响,必须对地上和地下物种的反应进行评估。我们在美国加利福尼亚州河滨市的不同地点和年份进行了一次除草剂田间试验,以评估全球一年生入侵禁草 Oncosiphon pilulifer 的控制情况。我们研究了季节性除草剂管理(早季与晚季)和每年重复施用除草剂(1 年与 2 年)如何影响重点入侵植物的覆盖率和种子库密度以及处理 1 年后的常住植物群落。我们发现,虽然晚季和早季施用的除草剂降低了入侵者的覆盖度,但早季施用的除草剂是降低入侵者种子库密度的唯一策略,这表明可能会有更长期的管理控制。最后,处理后区域的原生植被覆盖率有限,这表明可能需要更多的管理策略来克服入侵草地的原生植被限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy of invasive plant control depends on timing of herbicide application and invader soil seedbank density
Understanding the underlying temporal dynamics influencing invasive plant control outcomes is essential to achieve restoration and land management goals. Within grasslands, herbicides are commonly used as the main method for invasive plant control, but the efficacy of management may be dependent on seasonal dynamics, as well as the number of applications. Additionally, assessments to quantify invasive plant control are often limited to aboveground plant composition, overlooking the potential repository of propagules stored in the soil seedbank, and additional impacts on nontarget species. To ensure that an herbicide method is effectively controlling invader populations, while limiting impacts on the resident plant communities, both above‐ and belowground species responses must be assessed. We established an herbicide field experiment across different sites and years in Riverside, CA, U.S.A., to assess the control of a global annual invasive forb, Oncosiphon pilulifer. We investigated how seasonal herbicide management (early‐season vs. late‐season) and repeated annual herbicide applications (1 vs. 2 years) influenced cover and seedbank density of our focal invader and the resident plant community 1 year after treatment. We found that although late‐ and early‐season‐applied herbicides reduced invader cover, early‐season applications were the only strategy to reduce invader seedbank density, indicating potential longer term management control. Lastly, native cover was limited in post‐treated areas, suggesting that additional management strategies may be needed to overcome native establishment limitations in invaded grasslands.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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