Control of Mixed Brush with Tebuthiuron

Scifres, C. J.; Mutz, J.L.; Hamilton, Wayne T.

doi:10.2307/3897563

Cited by 40 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, response diversity was increased by spiny hackberry and whitebrush, which have been found to respond more favorably to mechanical disturbance than other species in this region (Scifres et al. , Koerth et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

“…Given past studies investigating the effectiveness of chemical and mechanical interventions for woody‐plant encroachment in the study region, the a priori expectation was that mechanical and chemical treatments might be insufficient, by themselves, to surpass the resilience of the degraded shrubland state and move into an alternative grassland state, and fire could provide the additional input needed to meet this restoration goal (Scifres et al. , McGinty and Ueckert , Mitchell et al. ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shrubland resilience varies across soil types: implications for operationalizing resilience in ecological restoration

Wonkka

West

Rogers

2016

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In ecosystems with alternative stable states, restoration success can be thought of as overcoming the resilience of an undesirable state to promote an alternative state that yields greater ecosystem services. Since greater resilience of undesirable states translates into reduced restoration potential, quantifying differences in resilience can enhance restoration planning. In the context of shrub-encroached rangeland restoration, shrubland resilience is the capacity of a woody vegetated state to absorb management interventions designed to produce a more desirable grass-dominated state, and remain within its current regime. Therefore, differences in the resilience of a state can be quantified in a relative sense by measuring whether a state switches to an alternate state following perturbation or remains in its current stability domain. Here we designed an experimental manipulation to assess the contribution of soils to differences in the relative resilience of a shrub-invaded state. In this large-scale experiment, we repeated perturbations across a gradient of soil textures to inform restoration practitioners of differences in the relative resilience of shrubland occurring on different soil types to common rangeland restoration practices. On each soil type, we compared the relative ability of the shrubland state to withstand chemical and mechanical brush control treatments, commonly employed in this study region, to untreated controls. While the shrubland community composition did not differ prior to the study, its capacity to absorb and recover from brush removal treatments depended on soil type. Shrubland resilience to chemical and mechanical brush removal was highest on coarse soils. On these soils, brush removal temporarily restored grassland dominance, but woody plants quickly regained pretreatment levels of dominance. However, shrublands on fine soils did not recover following treatments, continuing to be grass-dominated for the duration of the study. This study highlights a simple approach for prioritizing restoration actions by mapping the locations of different soil attributes that support shrub-dominated states with differing levels of resilience to brush control. This experimental approach provides a basis for operationalizing resilience in restoration and prioritizing management actions across a range of environmental conditions, which is critical given the economic constraints associated with broad-scale mechanical and chemical interventions for rangeland restoration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shrubland resilience varies across soil types: implications for operationalizing resilience in ecological restoration

Wonkka

West

Rogers

2016

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Livestock stocking rates are relatively low in the cross timbers region due to low herbaceous forage production. As a result, mechanical and chemical (with and without fire) treatments are routinely used to remove unwanted brush species and increase forage production for livestock (Scifres and Mutz 1978, Scifres et al 1979, Scifres 1980, Scifres et al 1981, Ivey and Causey 1984, Wood 1988.…”

Section: Rasmussen Et Al 1983 Masters and Scifres 1984)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Quality of Browse after Brush Management on Cross Timbers Rangeland

Soper¹,

Lochmiller²,

Leslie³

et al. 1993

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Response diversity is defi ned as variability in species responses to perturbation and has emerged as an important metric for measuring the adaptive capacity of an ecosystem (Elmqvist et al 2003 ). In our study, response diversity was increased by spiny hackberry and whitebrush, which have been found to respond more favorably to mechanical disturbance than other species in this region (Scifres et al 1979, Koerth et al 1989 ). These species both have large root crowns that increase the amount of meristematic tissue and belowground carbon storage available for resprouting following mechanical disturbance such as rollerchopping that leaves root crowns intact, damaging only aboveground tissues (Flinn et al 1992 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Given past studies investigating the effectiveness of chemical and mechanical interventions for woody-plant encroachment in the study region, the a priori expectation was that mechanical and chemical treatments might be insuffi cient, by themselves, to surpass the resilience of the degraded shrubland state and move into an alternative grassland state, and fi re could provide the additional input needed to meet this restoration goal (Scifres et al 1979, McGinty and Ueckert 2001, Mitchell et al 2004. Within each pasture-soil block, a prescribed fi re treatment was randomly assigned to one of each brush removal treatment plots (control, cut-herbicide, and mechanical).…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%