Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Mean percent cover of wildflowers (WF), native warm-season grasses (NWSG), and weedy species from Experiment I. In plots planted with the NWSG+WF mix, imazapic application consistently reduced cover of WF relative to controls each year of the study. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 2.
Mean percent cover of native grasses and weedy species in plots seeded with the native grasses only from Experiment I. Imazapic application increased NWSG cover and reduced weedy species cover relative to the control in both years of the experiment. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 3.
Percent cover of NWSG, WF, and weeds by imazapic rate from Experiment II. The Medium treatment had the lowest weedy species cover, while the no-imazapic control treatment had the highest. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 4.
Percent cover of NWSG and weeds by imazapic rate in the plots seeded only with native grasses in Experiment II. The Medium treatment had lowest weedy species cover, while the no-imazapic Control treatment had the highest. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 5.
Percent cover of weedy species or number of NWSG and WF plants in control and imazapic plots in Experiment III. Both WF and weedy species cover were higher in the no-imazapic control treatment than in the imazapic treatment. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 6.
Percent cover of wildflowers and weedy species between establishment treatments in Experiment IV. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different. Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of bare ground and native grasses from this analysis. Different letters among treatments indicate statistical differences (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05). Totals do not equal 100% cover because of the omission of percent bare ground from this analysis.
- Figure 7.
A cow in one of the grazed no-imazapic WF plots in Experiment I in the third year of establishment. Photo by Benjamin Tracy
Tables
- TABLE 1
Summary of the 4 experiments, including objectives, seeding treatments, and establishment treatments evaluated.
Objective Seeding treatments Establishment treatments Experiment I Evaluate effectiveness of imazapic applications in pasture-sized plots sown with a mix of NWSG (alone) or a mix of NWSG + WF. NWSG (alone)
Mix of NWSG + WFControl: no imazapic
Imazapic: 0.15 l/ha (2 oz/ac)Experiment II Compare establishment of NWSG and WF at 4 different rates of imazapic application. NWSG (alone)
Mix of NWSG + WFControl: no imazapic
Low: 0.15 l/ha (2 oz/ac)
Medium: 0.29 l/ha (6 oz/ ac)
High: 0.73 l/ha (12 oz/ac)Experiment III Evaluate how imazapic applications might interact with spatially segregating NWSG and WF species at planting. NWSG + WF planted together
NWSG + WF planted spatially separateControl: no imazapic
Imazapic: 0.44 l/ha (6 oz/ac)Experiment IV Evaluate 2 glyphosate application treatments and 2 other non-chemical strategies for establishing wildflowers. Mix of NWSG + WF Glyphosate
Glyphosate and raking of thatch
Tillage
Prescribed fireNotes: NWSG, native warm-season grasses; WF, wildflowers.
Genus species Family Authority Common name Experiment I II III IV Agastache foeniculum Lamiaceae (Pursh) Kuntze Marsh blazing star X X Andropogon gerardii Poaceae Vitman Big bluestem X X X Avena sativa Poaceae L. Oat (companion crop) X X Baptisia australis Fabaceae (L.) R. Br. Blue false indigo X Bidens aristosa Asteraceae (Michx.) Britton Western tickseed X X Chamaecrista fasciculata Fabaceae (Michx.) Greene Partridge pea X X Coreopsis lanceolata Asteraceae L. Lanceleaf coreopsis X X X X Coreopsis tinctoria Asteraceae Nutt. Plains coreopsis X Desmanthus illinoensis Fabaceae (Michx.) MacMill. ex B.L. Rob. & Fernald Illinois bundleflower X X Echinacea purpurea Asteraceae (L.) Moench Purple coneflower X X X X Gaillardia aristata Asteraceae Pursh Blanketflower X X Gaillardia pulchella Asteraceae Foug. Indian blanket X X X Helianthus maximiliani Asteraceae Schrad. Maximilian sunflower X X X X Leucanthemum maximum Asteraceae (Ramond) DC. Shasta daisy X X Leucanthemum vulgare Asteraceae Lam. Oxeye daisy X X Liatris spicata Asteraceae (L.) Willd. Anise hyssop X Linum perenne Linaceae L. Perennial blueflax X X X Monarda fistulosa Asteraceae [Lamiaceae] L. Wild bergamot X Ratibida pinnata Asteraceae (Vent.) Barnhart Grey-headed coneflower X X X Rudbeckia hirta Asteraceae L. Black-eyed Susan X X X X Schizachyrium scoparium Poaceae (Michx.) Nash Little bluestem X X X Solidago nemoralis Asteraceae Aiton Gray goldenrod X Solidago rigida Asteraceae L. Stiff-leaved goldenrod X Sorghastrum nutans Poaceae (L.) Nash Indiangrass X X X Tradescantia ohiensis Commelinaceae Raf. Ohio spiderwort X Tridens flavus Poaceae (L.) Hitchc. Purpletop X
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.