4.2 Article

Weed-Suppressive Bacteria Applied as a Spray or Seed Mixture Did Not Control Bromus tectorum

Journal

RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT
Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages 749-752

Publisher

SOC RANGE MANAGEMENT
DOI: 10.1016/j.rama.2019.11.001

Keywords

bioherbicide; biomass; cheatgrass; cover; density; downy brome

Funding

  1. US Geological Survey
  2. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Support Partnership [692, BB00APN]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted two case studies testing effectiveness of a soil-borne bacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens strain D7, in controlling Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) when mixed with native seeds sown after a fire and when sprayed on a native community with high abundances of B. tectorum. Each case study area (162 ha) compared treatments with D7 present and absent and was replicated four times (20.3 ha each) in a completely randomized design. Response variables (foliar cover, aboveground biomass, and density of B. tectorum; density of sown native plants) were measured pretreatment for the sprayed area and each year for 3 yr after treatment at both study areas and were evaluated as a repeated measures analysis. Foliar cover, biomass, and density of B. tectorum with sprayed or seed mixture applications did not differ between D7-treated and untreated areas at any time within the study (F-1,F-6 < 1.42; P > 0.28). D7 as a seed mixture did not significantly impact densities of native seedlings (F-1,F-6 = 1.27; P = 0.30) at any time during the study. Results contrasted with previous D7 studies that showed effective control of B. tectorum within 3 yr of treatment. Since bioherbicidal methods are being commonly applied, we believe that reporting negative results is important for future meta-analytical studies that provide managers with information on the likelihood for weed-suppressive bacteria to effectively control weeds. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Society for Range Management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available