establishment of live willow cuttings in a floodplain site invaded by reed … · 2015-07-30 ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Michael P. Merriman
Establishment of live willow cuttings in a floodplain site invaded by reed canarygrass
Outline 1. Background
2. Methods
3. Preliminary Results and Discussion
No Data
April May June July August
RC
G %
Are
al C
over
0
20
40
60
80
100 Spray No Spray
2012
The Upper Mississippi River (UMR) Floodplain Forest
1. Maintain nutrient levels and water quality
2. Prevent streambank erosion
3. Recreation area
The Upper Mississippi River (UMR) Floodplain Forest
1. Takes advantage of disturbance events
2. Captures forest openings
3. Propagules dispersed by springtime floods
Reed Carnarygrass (Pharlaris arundinacea)
What limits the re-establishment of floodplain forest after reed canarygrass invades?
1. Biotic interactions • Competition
2. Propagule limitation • Seed availability
3. Abiotic constraints • Hydrology
Adams and Galatowitsch (2006)
Herbicide is twice as effective when applied in fall rather than in spring at controlling reed canarygrass (F=131.34, p<0.01).
Hovick and Reinartz (2007) •Applied herbicide following first killing frost (October - November) •Allows for dormancy of many native species while reed canarygrass is still active
10/27/2012
Kim et al. (2006)
*Willows grow from cut sticks (willow stakes) after being stuck in the ground
What size stakes work best? Tall versus short willow stakes
short stake tall stake
reed canarygrass
Plot Design: Tall versus short willow stakes
When should we plant them? Spring versus fall plantings
Hydrograph courtesy of Nathan De Jager
Spring Flooding
Research Objectives
1. Determine the effect of late-fall glyphosate application on RCG during following growing season
2. Evaluate how resource availability responds to glyphosate application
3. Examine the effects of glyphosate treatment, willow stake height, and planting date on willow stake success
Site Description
Study Site
Experimental Design • Fully randomized design • 10 treatments x 8 replicates = 80 plots
Treatment Levels
1. Glyphosate: No spray vs. Spray
2. Stakes: None vs. Short vs. Tall
3. Planting date: Fall vs. Spring
1. Glyphosate
• 50% of all plots treated with glyphosate (broad spectrum herbicide)
• Pesticide trade name Roundup® • Rate: 0.8 oz glyphosate isopropylamine salt
(18%)/plot
11/7/2011
10/27/2012
2. Stake Height • Planted plots: 50% short, 50% tall • Stakes stuck 30 cm (1 ft) into the ground • Tall height ~120 cm • Short height ~60 cm
1.5m
0.9m
3. Planting Date
11/12/2011
11/12/2011 Fall 3/25/2012
3/25/2012
Spring
Planted plots: 50% spring, 50% fall
Experimental Design
1.5m buffer zone
no planting willow stake
1.5m
1.5m
Data Collection Reed Canarygrass Productivity
• Height • Percent cover • Belowground biomass
Data Collection
Site Resources and Conditions • Light levels • Soil nutrient levels • Soil moisture
Data Collection Willow Survival and Performance
• Survivors • Tall vs. Short • Fall vs. Spring • Height and Canopy
Research Objectives
1. Determine the effect of late-fall glyphosate application on RCG during following growing season
2. Evaluate how resource availability responds to glyphosate application
3. Examine the effects of glyphosate treatment, willow stake height, and planting date on willow stake success
Results: Reed canarygrass height was not significantly affected by fall herbicide application
April May June July August
RC
G C
anop
y H
eigh
t (cm
)
70
80
90
100
110
120
Spray No Spray
Results: Reed canarygrass percent cover significantly reduced by fall herbicide application from April till June
No Data
April May June July August
RC
G %
Are
al C
over
0
20
40
60
80
100 Spray No Spray
2012
2012
April May June July August
RC
G B
elow
grou
nd B
iom
ass
(g)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5Spray No Spray
Results: Reed canarygrass belowground biomass was not significantly affected by fall herbicide application until August
Research Objectives
1. Determine the effect of late-fall glyphosate application on RCG during following growing season
2. Evaluate how resource availability responds to glyphosate application
3. Examine the effects of glyphosate treatment, willow stake height, and planting date on willow stake success
Results:
August 2012
No Spray Spray
Ligh
t Lev
el (u
mol
/s/m
) Squ
arer
oot T
rans
form
ed
0
2
4
6
8
10
Light level was significantly higher in sprayed plots than no spray plots
Results: Total soil nitrogen level was not significantly affected by herbicide
Spray No Spray
Tota
l Nitr
ogen
NH
4 +
NO
3 (µ
gra
ms/
10cm
2/bu
rial l
engt
h)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14July 2012
Results: Soil moisture was not significantly affected by herbicide
August 2012
Spray No Spray
Soi
l Moi
stur
e (g
wat
er/g
dry
soi
l)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Research Objectives
1. Determine the effect of late-fall glyphosate application on RCG during following growing season
2. Evaluate how resource availability responds to glyphosate application
3. Examine the effects of glyphosate treatment, willow stake height, and planting date on willow stake success
Results:
Spring
TallTall ShortShort
0
Fall
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Sur
vivi
ng W
illow
s P
er P
lot
0
1
2
3
4
5No Spray Spray
June 2012
There were significantly more survivors in spring planting plots than in fall
Results: Willow performance
Spring
TallTall ShortShort
0
Fall
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Sur
vivi
ng W
illow
s P
er P
lot
0
1
2
3
4
5No Spray Spray
June 2012
Results: Within spring plots, short willow stakes had significantly higher survival than tall
Spring
TallTall ShortShort
0
Fall
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Sur
vivi
ng W
illow
s P
er P
lot
0
1
2
3
4
5No Spray Spray
June 2012
Results: Within spring plots, short willow stakes had significantly higher survival than tall
Results: Both willow height and lateral stem length were significantly higher in spray plots.
August 2012
Spray No Spray
Ave
rage
Willo
w H
eigh
t (cm
)
150
160
170
180
190August 2012
Spray No Spray
Ave
rage
Willo
w L
ater
eral
Ste
m L
engt
h (c
m)
80
90
100
110
120
Future Outlook • Second round of spray and plantings • Data collection for another year
Important Management Implications
Acknowledgements
•Advisors: Dr. Meredith Thomsen and Dr. D. Timothy Gerber •Committee members: Dr. Rob Tyser, Dr. Anita Baines •Fieldwork and lab help: •Goose Island Campground, Brannick Beatse, Chris Bloomingdale, Sonja Cruz, Trevor Cyphers, Kaitlyn Riemann, Zebulon Secrist, Theresa Simpson
References Adams C.R., and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the effectiveness of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14.3:441-451. Hovick, S.M. and J.A. Reinartz. 2007. Restoring forest in wetlands dominated by reed canarygrass: the effects of pre-planting treatments on early survival of planted stock. Wetlands 27:24-39. Kim, K.D., K. Ewing, D.E. Giblin. 2006. Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) with live willow stakes: A density-dependent response. Ecological Engineering 27:219-227.
