Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts

on Native Plant Communities

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts

on Native Plant Communities

Caren A. Judge, Joseph C. Neal, Theodore H. Shear, and Jeffrey F. Derr

North Carolina State University

Microstegium vimineumMicrostegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass Summer annual

invasive grass (Poaceae)

C4, shade-tolerant Wetlands, woodlands,

utility easements, lawns, landscapes

http://plants.usda.gov

ObjectivesObjectives

To use an biological and ecological based research program to make sound management recommendations for Japanese stiltgrass

Current management guidelinesCurrent management guidelines

Prevent seed production (Tu 2000)

Methods (late-season)–Hand-removal–Mechanical (mow)–Nonselective herbicide

(Roundup Pro – glyphosate)

Questions and concerns? Questions and concerns?

Late-season control allows competition to reduce native species

Non-selective methods (Roundup and mowing) kill native species

Management must be timely

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Day 15 of Each Month

2004

Day

Len

gth

(h

ou

rs)

Photoperiod and flowering (NC)

1st visible flowers (2002-2004)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Day 15 of Each Month

2004

Day

Len

gth

(h

ou

rs)

Photoperiod and flowering (NC)

1st visible flowers (2002-2004)

Approximate floral induction

Seed development Seed development Harvest

inflorescences at various times in the reproductive cycle

Oct. 7 Oct. 21

Nov. 14Nov. 2

Germination of immature seed Germination of immature seed

Collection Date % Germination

Oct. 7 13c

Oct. 21 57b

Nov. 2 97a

Nov. 14 100a

Stiltgrass PRE Control – 8 WATStiltgrass PRE Control – 8 WAT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pennant

Devrinol

Team Pro

Ronstar

Snapshot

Preen

Dimension

Pendulum

XL

Surflan

Barricade

LSD=15 P=0.05

*

*****

Percent

Stiltgrass & Crabgrass PRE ControlStiltgrass & Crabgrass PRE Control

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pennant

Devrinol

Team Pro

Ronstar

Snapshot

Preen

Dimension

Pendulum

XL

Surflan

Barricade

stiltgrass

crabgrass

Percent

Stiltgrass POST Control – 8 WATStiltgrass POST Control – 8 WAT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dimension

Drive

Bueno 6

Envoy

Acclaim Extra

Fusilade II

Vantage

Finale

Roundup Pro

LSD=11 P=0.05

*

**

***

Percent

***

Stiltgrass & Crabgrass POST Control Stiltgrass & Crabgrass POST Control

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dimension

Drive

Bueno 6

Envoy

Acclaim Extra

Fusilade II

Vantage

Finale

Roundup Pro

stiltgrass

crabgrass

Percent

Timing experimentTiming experiment Herbicides

–Acclaim Extra–Vantage–Plateau

Timing –Early season–Mid season–Late season

Data collection & analysisData collection & analysis 2 years (2002 & 2003) 2 locations (NC and VA) RCBD, 4 replications, ANOVA Percent control (’02 and ’03) Percent seedhead reduction (‘03) Percent stand reduction (May ‘04)

Timing: Herbicide effectTiming: Herbicide effect

0

20

40

60

80

100

Biomass Reduction Seedhead Reduction03

Stand Reduction 04

Per

cen

t C

ontr

ol

Acclaim Vantage Plateau

Herbicide NSTiming NS

Herbicide NSTiming NS

Herbicide 0.0113Timing NS

aab b

Timing effect – Oct 2003Timing effect – Oct 2003

Nontreated Acclaim Extra: May

Acclaim Extra: June Acclaim Extra: August

Herbicide, rate, and frequencyHerbicide, rate, and frequency 2 years (NC) Herbicides

– Acclaim Extra– Vantage

Rates - 1/2X, 1X # Applications

– 1 application (mid-season)

– 2 applications (4 wk interval)

Non-treated

Vantage 1X-2 apps

Herbicide, rate, and frequencyHerbicide, rate, and frequency

0

20

40

60

80

100

1/2 X 1 app 1/2 X 2 apps 1X 1 app 1X 2 apps

Per

cen

t C

ontr

ol

ANOVA: Year (NS), Herbicide (NS),Rate (P = 0.0133), Frequency (P < 0.0001),

Rate*Frequency (P = 0.133)

Herbicide, rate, and frequencyHerbicide, rate, and frequency

Nontreated

Vantage 1/2X: 1 app Vantage 1/2X: 2 app

Vantage 1X: 1 app Vantage 1X: 2 app

Oct 2003

SummarySummary

All three selective herbicides were effective at each application timing

Multiple applications were more effective than single applications (whether 1/2X or 1X)

Conventional vs. selectiveConventional vs. selective

Handweed: August Roundup Pro: August

Mow: August Acclaim Extra: June x2

Data collection & analysisData collection & analysis Percent cover: 2002 to 2004

–Mid-summer–Late-summer

Soil cores: 2002 to 2004 –2 per plot (10 x 5 cm) –Identified species–# of individuals

ANOVA (P ≤ 0.05)

Selective vs. nonselective 2002


August November

Acc

laim

Ext

raR

ound

up P

ro



July September

Acc

laim

Ext

raR

ound

up P

ro



June September

Acc

laim

Ext

raR

ound

up P

ro

End of 3rd season comparisonsEnd of 3rd season comparisons

nontreated

Acclaim Extra Roundup Pro

Japanese stiltgrass cover: Duke ForestJapanese stiltgrass cover: Duke Forest

0

20

40

60

80

100

Year 2 Year 3

Per

cent

ck

ru late

mow late

hand late

hand all

acc all

NS

c

a

bc bcbb

Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke ForestHerbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest

020406080

100120140160

Year 2 Year 3

Per

cent

ckru latemow latehand latehand allacc all

a

b

c cc c

a

abababc

bc

c

Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest – 2002 Herbaceous dicot cover: Duke Forest – 2002

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ru late acc all

other (<20%)

false nettle

camphor weed

Am. burnweed

dogfennel


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ru late acc all

other (<20%)

false nettle

camphor weed

Am. burnweed

dogfennel

SummarySummaryJapanese stiltgrass

–All treatments effective control & seed bank reduction

Herbaceous dicots–Greater diversity in selective treatment

The future?The future? What will happen after we control Japanese stiltgrass? Will re-established plant communities be less

susceptible to invasion? Can we truly exhaust the

seed bank?

Questions?? Questions??

Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities

Documents

Transcript of Microstegium vimineum Management and Impacts on Native Plant Communities