Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Vegetation response to invasive Tamarix control in southwestern U.S. rivers: a collaborative study including 416 sites.
González, Eduardo; Sher, Anna A; Anderson, Robert M; Bay, Robin F; Bean, Daniel W; Bissonnete, Gabriel J; Bourgeois, Bérenger; Cooper, David J; Dohrenwend, Kara; Eichhorst, Kim D; El Waer, Hisham; Kennard, Deborah K; Harms-Weissinger, Rebecca; Henry, Annie L; Makarick, Lori J; Ostoja, Steven M; Reynolds, Lindsay V; Robinson, W Wright; Shafroth, Patrick B.
Affiliation
  • González E; EcoLab (Laboratoire Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement), CNRS, INPT, UPS, Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne Bâtiment 4R1, 31062, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
  • Sher AA; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Anderson RM; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Bay RF; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Bean DW; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Bissonnete GJ; Colorado Department of Agriculture, Biological Pest Control, Palisade Insectary, 750 37.8 Road, Palisade, Colorado, 81526, USA.
  • Bourgeois B; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah, 84532, USA.
  • Cooper DJ; Département de Phytologie, Faculté des Sciences de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation, Université Laval, 2425 rue de l'agriculture, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
  • Dohrenwend K; Department of Biology, Québec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1, Canada.
  • Eichhorst KD; Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523, USA.
  • El Waer H; Rim to Rim Restoration, P.O. Box 297, Moab, Utah, 84532, USA.
  • Kennard DK; Department of Biology, Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (BEMP), University of New Mexico, MSC 03 2020, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131, USA.
  • Harms-Weissinger R; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Henry AL; Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81501, USA.
  • Makarick LJ; Northern Colorado Plateau Network, National Park Service, Moab, Utah, 84532, USA.
  • Ostoja SM; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, F. W. Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
  • Reynolds LV; Grand Canyon National Park, 1824 S, Thompson Street, Suite 200, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86001, USA.
  • Robinson WW; USDA California Climate Hub, Agricultural Research Service, University of California, Davis, California, 95616, USA.
  • Shafroth PB; Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523, USA.
Ecol Appl ; 27(6): 1789-1804, 2017 09.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28445000
ABSTRACT
Most studies assessing vegetation response following control of invasive Tamarix trees along southwestern U.S. rivers have been small in scale (e.g., river reach), or at a regional scale but with poor spatial-temporal replication, and most have not included testing the effects of a now widely used biological control. We monitored plant composition following Tamarix control along hydrologic, soil, and climatic gradients in 244 treated and 172 reference sites across six U.S. states. This represents the largest comprehensive assessment to date on the vegetation response to the four most common Tamarix control treatments. Biocontrol by a defoliating beetle (treatment 1) reduced the abundance of Tamarix less than active removal by mechanically using hand and chain-saws (2), heavy machinery (3) or burning (4). Tamarix abundance also decreased with lower temperatures, higher precipitation, and follow-up treatments for Tamarix resprouting. Native cover generally increased over time in active Tamarix removal sites, however, the increases observed were small and was not consistently increased by active revegetation. Overall, native cover was correlated to permanent stream flow, lower grazing pressure, lower soil salinity and temperatures, and higher precipitation. Species diversity also increased where Tamarix was removed. However, Tamarix treatments, especially those generating the highest disturbance (burning and heavy machinery), also often promoted secondary invasions of exotic forbs. The abundance of hydrophytic species was much lower in treated than in reference sites, suggesting that management of southwestern U.S. rivers has focused too much on weed control, overlooking restoration of fluvial processes that provide habitat for hydrophytic and floodplain vegetation. These results can help inform future management of Tamarix-infested rivers to restore hydrogeomorphic processes, increase native biodiversity and reduce abundance of noxious species.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Plants / Tamaricaceae / Biota / Weed Control Limits: Animals Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Ecol Appl Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: France

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Plants / Tamaricaceae / Biota / Weed Control Limits: Animals Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Ecol Appl Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: France