Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Weeds”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2007

The art and science of weed mapping

Land managers need cost-effective and informative tools for non-native plant species management. Many local, state, and federal agencies adopted mapping systems designed to collect comparable data for the early detection and monitoring of non-native species. We compared mapping information to statistically rigorous, plot-based methods to better understand the benefits and compatibility of the two techniques. Mapping non-native species locations provided a species list, associated species distributions, and infested area for subjectively selected survey sites. The value of this information may be compromised by crude estimates of cover and incomplete or biased estimations of species distributions. Incorporating plot-based assessments guided by a stratified-random sample design provided a less biased description of non-native species distributions and increased the comparability of data over time and across regions for the inventory, monitoring, and management of non-native and native plant species.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment↗
USGS2024

Rangeland pitting for revegetation and annual weed control

On the Ground Soil pitting is an ancient technique for concentrating soil moisture to enable plant establishment and promote plant growth. It is especially effective in arid areas where plant establishment is limited by water availability. Pits created by digging and mounding action have been shown to be effective. Small pits made by soil compression are not very durable. Larger pits last longer and store more moisture. In mesic areas or years with above-average soil moisture, pitting may not be needed for plant establishment, and better results may be obtained by drill seeding. Pitting can help control some non-native annual plants by hindering their seed dispersal and concentrating their seeds within pits. This increases intraspecific competition and limits seed production. The pitting technique has been demonstrated in several studies as an effective control tactic for cheatgrass. Pitting is a strategy that may become more important as climates become hotter and more variable, as it allows soils to stay wetter for longer periods of time. Many custom-built machines have been developed to create soil pits efficiently. Commercially available machines are less common. Currently, pitters that dig and mound soil and are suitable for rangelands are not commercially available in North America.

Rangelands↗
USGS2011

Weeds of Hawaii’s lands devoted to watershed protection and biodiversity conservation: Role of biological control as the missing piece in an integrated pest management strategy

Despite Hawaii’s reputation as an extinction icon, significant biological resources remain, especially in watersheds, natural areas, and specialized edaphic sites (e.g., lava dry forest, coastal). While direct habitat destruction by humans continues, human-facilitated biological invaders are currently the primary agents of continuing degradation. The ability of invasive plants to have prolific seed production, efficient dispersal systems, and to become established in dense vegetation, complicated by Hawaii’s rugged topography, appears to render mechanical and chemical control as mere holding actions. Costly, ‘environmentally unfriendly’, and often ineffective, strategies using chemical and mechanical control on a large scale, despite the most valiant of efforts, can be viewed simply as attempts to buy time. Without increased levels of safely tested biological control, the seemingly inevitable result is the landscape level transformation of native forests, with potentially catastrophic consequences to cultural, biological, water, and economic resources. Increased levels of effective biological control for certain intractable invasive species appear to comprise a conspicuous ‘missing piece’ in our efforts to protect Hawaiian watersheds and other conservation lands.

Hawaii↗
USGS2011

Allelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland establishment

The effects of grazing, mowing, and type of cover crop were evaluated in a previous winter wheat–fallow cropland seeded to grassland under the Conservation Reserve Program in eastern Colorado. Prior to seeding, the fallow strips were planted to forage sorghum or wheat in alternating strips (cover crops), with no grazing, moderate to heavy grazing, and mowing (grazing treatments) superimposed 4 yr after planting and studied for 3 yr. Plots previously in wheat had more annual and exotic species than sorghum plots. Concomitantly, there were much greater abundances of perennial native grass and all native species in sorghum than wheat cropped areas. The competitive advantage gained by seeded species in sorghum plots resulted in large increases in rhizomatous western wheatgrass. Sorghum is known to be allelopathic and is used in crop agriculture rotations to suppress weeds and increase crop yields, consistent with the responses of weed and desired native species in this study. Grazing treatment had relatively minor effects on basal and canopy cover composition of annual or exotic species versus perennial native grass or native species. Although grazing treatment never was a significant main effect, it occasionally modified cover crop or year effects. Opportunistic grazing reduced exotic cheatgrass by year 3 but also decreased the native palatable western wheatgrass. Mowing was a less effective weed control practice than grazing. Vegetative basal cover and aboveground primary production varied primarily with year. Common management practices for revegetation/restoration currently use herbicides and mowing as weed control practices and restrict grazing in all stages of development. Results suggest that allelopathic cover crop selection and opportunistic grazing can be effective alternative grass establishment and weed control practices. Susceptibility, resistance, and interactions of weed and seeded species to allelopathic cover species/cultivars may be a fruitful area of research.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗
USGS2002

Supplemental planting of early successional tree species during bottomland hardwood afforestation

Reforestation of former bottom land hardwood forests that have been cleared for agriculture (i.e., afforestation) has historically emphasized planting heavy-seeded oaks (Quercus spp.) and pecans (Carya spp.). These species are slow to develop vertical forest structure. However, vertical forest structure is key to colonization of afforested sites by forest birds. Although early-successional tree species often enhance vertical structure, few of these species invade afforested sites that are distant from seed sources. Furthermore, many land mangers are reluctant to establish and maintain stands of fast-growing plantation trees. Therefore, on 40 afforested bottomland sites, we supplemented heavy-seeded seedlings with 8 patches of fast-growing trees: 4 patches of 12 eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) stem cuttings and 4 patches of 12 American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) seedlings. To enhance survival and growth, tree patches were subjected to 4 weed control treatments: (1) physical weed barriers, (2) chemical herbicide, (3) both physical and chemical weed control, or (4) no weed control. Overall, first-year survival of cottonwood and sycamore was 25 percent and 47 percent, respectively. Second-year survival of extant trees was 52 percent for cottonwood and 77 percent for sycamore. Physical weed barriers increased survival of cottonwoods to 30 percent versus 18 percent survival with no weed control. Similarly, sycamore survival was increased from 49 percent without weed control to 64 percent with physical weed barriers. Chemical weed control adversely impacted sycamore and reduced survival to 35 percent. Tree heights did not differ between species or among weed control treatments. Girdling of trees by deer often destroyed saplings. Thus, little increase in vertical structure was detected between growing seasons. Application of fertilizer and protection via tree shelters did not improve survival or vertical development of sycamore or cottonwood.

Book chapter↗
USGS1982

Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the prairie pothole region

A sample of 365 stands of seeded nesting cover (mixtures of cool-season grasses and legumes) was studied in the glaciated prairie pothole region during 1977-79. Measurements of species composition, canopy cover, plant height, and visual obstruction values differed with stand age but only in a general way when results from over the entire region were pooled. Maximum values for plant height and visual obstruction occurred once per stand during the first 10 growing seasons. Although the year of maximum growth was variable and unpredictable, stands showed trends of degeneration in height and visual obstruction after the year of maximum growth.Seeded nesting cover grew similarly throughout the region when on soils of capability class IV or better and within a precipitation range of 30 to 61 cm. Precipitation was the factor that most affected stand growth, especially the amount received in the year before spring measurements. Height and visual obstruction values within a stand were also directly affected by some individual species and by the percentage of grass within a stand. In 2 of the 3 study years, the height and visual obstruction values of residual cover were extremely reduced by ice pack, heavy snow pack, or a combination of snow pack and harvest by rodents. Such events, if frequent, largely negate the possibility of using minimum visual obstruction or plant height measurements for assessing quality of vegetation for wildlife cover and management purposes.Species composition, number of species, and canopy cover varied most during the first three growing seasons and least during the next six. Succession toward dominance by native grasses and forbs and woody species was retarded by the predominance of the species of seeded nesting cover, at least during the first 10 growing seasons.All stands had at least one species present that was either a noxious weed, a problem cropland weed, or a nuisance weed. Weeds were usually local in distribution. Five weed species needing special management attention on public lands are leafy spurge (Euphorbia podperae), wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides). Sites disturbed by mammal diggings or those skipped during planting operations became revegetated mostly with species other than those of seeded nesting cover.Successfully established stands on good sites provided substantial food and cover for wildlife for at least 6 years and retained stand composition for at least 10 years. Further study will be necessary to determine longevity of these stands. Except for mandatory noxious weed control, no management treatments of seeded nesting cover were necessary before the seventh growing season, at which time some stands needed renovation. The primary goals for management of seeded nesting cover should be stand quality and longevity. Guidelines to these goals are suggested.

Special Scientific Report - Wildlife↗