restoration of native plant communities at ouray national

Restoration of Native Plant Communities

at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

Annual Report Prepared for:

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

Randlett, UT

By:

Conservation Seeding & Restoration, Inc. (CSR)

Kimberly, ID

August 30, 2011

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3 Experimental Plan 4 Description of Seeding Techniques and Associated Implements Drill Seeder Drop Seeder Broadcast Seeding Imprinter and Cultipacker

6 6 7 7 8

Description of Soil Amendments 9 Mycorrhizal Inoculum 9 Polyacrylamide Polymer 9 Liquid Organic Amendment 9 Sulfur and Gypsum 10 Zeolite 10 Activated Charcoal 10 Direx 4L 10 Irrigation 10 Site Preparation 12 Seeding Method Experiment 13 Soil Amendment Experiment 13 Future Plans for Monitoring Seeding Method and Soil Amendment Experiments

14

Control Studies Related to Kochia Weed and Cheatgrass 19 Materials and Methods for Control Study Related to Kochia Weed 19 Materials and Methods for Control Study Related to Cheatgrass 20 Results for Control Study Related to Kochia Weed 22 Results for Control Study Related to Cheatgrass 28 Discussion of Results from Control Study for Kochia Weed 31 Discussion of Results from Control Study for Cheatgrass 32 References Acknowledgements

36 37

Appendix I, Irrigation Plan Appendix II, Grass Monitoring Plan

39 45

3

Introduction Ouray National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) is a 12,000 acre refuge located in northeast

Utah in Uintah County. The ONWR is comprised of riparian woodlands, floodplain

wetland bottoms, upland grasslands and shrubs and includes 16 miles of the Green River

within the Refuge boundaries. Much of the floodplain bottoms and grasslands had been

farmed prior to the establishment of ONWR in 1960. The climate at ONWR is semi-arid

with only seven inches of rain annually (Heitmeyer and Fredrickson, 2005) and native

desert grasses have proven to have slow recovery times in disturbed areas. Over the past

several years, ONWR has attempted to restore uplands that have been degraded by

disturbance and/or dominated by invasive weeds.

At the start of this study in 2009, the upland and riparian areas of ONWR were in need of

restoration. There had been considerable disturbance due to past and present farming

activities, the presence of a fish hatchery at one study site, developmental disturbance,

and ongoing invasive weed issues. Past restoration attempts further disturbed the soil,

increasing invasive weed populations. Restoration in some of these areas will be crucial

to preclude or, at least, mitigate invasion by invasive species such as Russian olive

(Elaeagnus angustifolia).

An experimental plan for this study has been established to evaluate seven seeding

methods, seven soil preparation strategies, the presence of a polymer to reduce soil

erosion, planting season and natural moisture supplemented with irrigation for their

effect(s) on enhancing germination, and growth and establishment of seven native grass

species. Prior to this study, a variety of seeding techniques and irrigation were used to

restore native grass populations at the ONWR. However, success in this previous

restoration attempt was very poor largely because irrigating restoration plots significantly

increased the population of kochia weed (Kochia scoparia) that in turn crowded out

native plant germination and growth. Added to the kochia weed problem is the current

proliferation of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Therefore, for the current study, also

included in the experimental plan are experiments to test several herbicides for

controlling kochia weed and cheatgrass.

4

Experimental Plan

The experimental plan is comprised of four experiments that are introduced and briefly

described below.

The first two experiments relate to evaluating ways to establish one or more of the seven

native grasses identified in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Seven native grasses evaluated via this study

Scientific Name Common Name Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass Elymus elymoides bottlebrush squirreltail Hesperostipa comata needle & thread Distichlis spicata inland saltgrass Achnatherum hymenoides Indian rice grass Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton

These species were chosen because they are native to the area and are acclimated to the

soil conditions pervasive in the ONWR areas in need of restoration. All of these species

are native to the ONWR according to Heitmeyer and Fredrickson (2005). In addition,

according to the USDA Plant Database (http://plants.usda.gov/java/) all of these species

are native to the region in Utah that encompasses the ONWR. The USDA Plant Database

further indicates that all but Hesperostipa comata are tolerant of soils with high pH

(>8.4); no soil pH values are given for H. comata. The USDA Plant Database indicates

that Pascopyrum smithii, Elymus trachycaulus, Distichlis spicata and Sporobolus

airoides tolerate high soil salinity and that Elymus elymoides and Achnatherum

hymenoides are intolerant of high soil salinity; no data are given for H. comata. Tolerance

of high soil pH and salinity are attributes that will likely influence their success as

restoration agents. Regardless of the seeding method, seeds were planted in each subplot

for both the seeding method and soil amendment experiments in the order indicated in

Figure 1 below:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/

5

Western wheatgrass

Slender wheatgrass

Bottlebrush squirreltail

Needle & thread

Inland saltgrass

Indian ricegrass

Alkali sacaton

Figure 1: Diagram of an experimental plot showing the order in which species were sewn

40 ft.

42 ft.

The four experiments of the experimental plan are described below:

1. The first experiment related to growing native grasses will produce data for

evaluating seven seeding methods across two irrigation and two seeding season

treatments. The experimental site has a 3-factor design with the first level

emphasizing seeding method, the second testing irrigation, and the third, seeding

season. Each treatment combination is replicated three times resulting in a total of

96 plots. Throughout this report, this experiment is referred to as the seeding

method experiment.

2. The second experiment related to growing native grasses will produce data for

evaluating seven soil preparation strategies across two treatments involving a soil

polymer to control erosion and two seeding season treatments. The soil

preparation strategies entail the use of three soil amendments used independently

or in multi-amendment combinations. The site has a 3-factor design with the first

level emphasizing soil preparation strategy, the second testing the presence of a

soil polymer to reduce erosion, and the third, seeding season. Each treatment

combination is replicated three times resulting in a total of 96 plots.

6

The last two experiments relate to controlling the invasive weeds kochia weed and

cheatgrass via herbicide application:

3. The third experiment relates to determining the best herbicide for controlling

kochia weed. This experiment is referred to as the weed control study for kochia.

4. The fourth experiment relates to determining the best herbicide for controlling

cheatgrass. This experiment is referred to as the weed control study for

cheatgrass.

Description of seeding techniques and associated implements

The seven treatments evaluated in the seeding method experiment involve the use of

three mechanized or manual seeding techniques described below. For the soil amendment

experiment, the drill seeder was used exclusively for planting seeds. Associated

implements include the imprinter and cultipacker, also described below.

Drill Seeder: The seeder was a Kincaid/Tye 550 research plot drill with a 6-foot swath

equipped with four cones mounted atop a no-till drill assembly for seed delivery so that

four seed furrows were equally spaced across the seeder’s 6-foot swath. Seeds were

drilled into the soil at a depth of 2-3 cm below the soil surface. Seeds for the seven native

grasses were drill seeded at a rate of 30 PLS per linear foot. Pure Live Seed (PLS) is a

measure used by the native seed industry to determine the percentage of seed that will

actually grow. PLS is contrasted with bulk seed measures where bulk measures include

the target seed plus other non-target seed and inert material. PLS is determined by

multiplying the purity percentage by the percentage of total viable seed. Table 2 shows

the measured amounts that were loaded into each cone of the drill seeder. A distance of

42 feet was used for plot length to allow for some overrun to ensure better plot coverage.

7

Table 2: Bulk ounces of each seed type applied to one 42 foot row.

Scientific Name Common Name Bulk Ounces

loaded into each seeder cone

Achnatherum hymenoides Indian rice grass 0.154 Distichlis spicata inland saltgrass 0.067 Elymus elymoides bottlebrush squirreltail 0.12 Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass 0.258 Hesperostipa comata needle & thread 0.208 Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass 0.14 Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton 0.015

Drop Seeder: The seeder was a Model No. TR-60 Trillion seeder manufactured by Truax

Co., Inc., New Hope, Minnesota. The seeder had a 6-foot swath and was equipped with

two cultipackers, a leading, heavier cultipacker that acted as the drive mechanism and

rolled before the seed was dispersed to prepare the seed bed followed by a lighter

cultipacker that rolled over the seed after it was applied to provide good seed-to-soil

contact. Trillion seeding was completed at a rate of 60 PLS per square foot; a distance of

42 feet was used for plot length and 6 feet was used for the row width. Trillion seeding

was successful for all but one of the seven native grass species; seeds for alkali sacaton

were too small for uniform distribution via the Trillion thus alkali sacaton seeds were

hand-broadcast on all drop-seeding plots. Table 3 shows the bulk ounces of seed applied

to each plot.

Table 3: Bulk ounces of each seed type applied to one 6 foot X 42 foot area (252 ft2). Seeds for alkali sacaton were hand-broadcast and not planted using the Trilion seeder.

Scientific Name Common Name Bulk Ounces Achnatherum hymenoides Indian rice grass 1.852 Distichlis spicata inland saltgrass 0.809 Elymus elymoides bottlebrush squirreltail 1.444 Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass 3.101 Hesperostipa comata needle & thread 2.49 Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass 1.678 Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton 0.178

Broadcast Seeding: As with the drop seeder, broadcast seeding was completed using a

rate of 60 PLS per sq foot using the same plot length and width distances. Also as with

the drop seeder, the bulk seed amounts applied to each site are listed above in Table 3.

Plots were seeded by hand, with each species hand sprinkled for a width of six feet along

the 42 foot rows. AM-120 (see soil amendments below) was applied via hand

8

broadcasting. After application of seed and AM-120, the plots were either treated with

the cultipacker or imprinter. Plot SBC (Stubble/Broadcast – Cultipacker), replicate #2,

fall plot, was mistakenly harrowed after AM-120 application but before seeding. It was

then seeded and treated with a cultipacker.

Imprinter and cultipacker: These implements were used prior to and following seed

application to make impressions in the soil to increase plant survival by creating

microhabitats for enhanced seed germination and seedling growth. Microhabitats created

by these implements likely improve seed-to-soil contact, minimize water run-off and

provide protection against desiccating winds and high temperatures (George, 1988;

Anderson and Swanson, 1949). These implements differ in the shape of the impressions

made in the soil. The imprinter used in this project is shown in Figure 2. The cultipacker

used was a T.G. Schmeiser 6 foot wide, drawbar hitch (floating) ring-roller cultipacker

and similar to the one depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Imprinter used in this project.

Figure 3: Cultipacker similar to the one used in this project.

9

Description of soil amendments

Soil amendments used in both the seeding method and soil amendment experiments are

described below. Each of these amendments is described along with the affected plots

and the rate(s) of application:

Mycorrhizal inoculum: AM-120 mycorrhizal inoculum (Reforestation Technologies

International) was applied to all plots. The product acts to stimulate mycorrhizal growth

that enhances plant nutrient uptake by supporting the plant’s root system with a network

of fungal hyphae (Turnau and Haselwandter, 2002). The drill-seeded plots received a

banded inoculum application (as opposed to a blanket application). The inoculum was

applied at a rate of 0.95 oz/furrow through the Kincaid cone drill concurrently with the

seed. For the drop and broadcast-seeded plots, mycorrhizal inoculum was hand broadcast

at a rate of 38.9 oz/plot.

Polyacrylamide Polymer (PAM): PAM is a recognized erosion control agent for soils

(Entry et al., 2002) and has been used to minimize erosion caused by water and wind.

PAM was applied to 12 plots in the seeding method experiment and 48 plots in the soil

amendment experiment. PAM used for this study was granular with a nominal diameter

of 1-2 mm. PAM application for both experiments was applied as a banded application

through the drill seeder at a rate of 0.24 oz/row. PAM was applied in conjunction with the

seed and AM-120.

Liquid Organic Amendment (LOA): LOA serves to stimulate plant growth by improving

water retention and nutrient availability in soils. LOA was applied using a hand sprayer

to 48 plots in the soil amendment experiment at a rate of 3 gallons of humic acid and 2

gallons of concentrated compost tea per acre. Both products were pre-mixed and the

mixture was applied at 25/oz per subplot with 3 gallons of carrier (water). As a

cautionary note, occasionally in prior correspondence related to this project an older, now

obsolete acronym was used to refer to LOA: OLLI.

10

Sulfur and Gypsum: The sulfur and gypsum mixture serves to lower high soil pH and

sodium concentrations. The mixture, one part sulfur to five parts gypsum (by weight),

was applied to 36 plots in the soil amendment experiment at the rate of 1200 lbs/acre.

The mixture was applied with a broadcaster unit on the back of an ATV (fall) or by hand

( spring) and incorporated into the soil with a harrow pulled by an ATV.

.Zeolite: Zeolite is a fine powder mineral that is effective in improving soil water

retention (Xiubin and Zhanbin, 2001). Zeolite was applied to 36 plots in the soil

amendment experiment at the rate of 2000 lbs/acre. The zeolite was hand broadcast with

shovels and incorporated with a harrow pulled by an ATV.

Activated Charcoal: Activated charcoal is a recognized sorbent and is used in the seeding

method experiment as a sorbent of the pre-emergence herbicide Direx 4L, preventing

herbicide contact with underlying seeds of desirable native grasses. Further descriptions

of this method are given by McCalla et al. (2000) and Fishel (2008). Char-Zorb© was

applied using a hand sprayer to 12 plots in the seeding method study at the rate of 19

oz/subplot. This was a banded application and the 19 oz of concentrate product was

mixed with 1.75 gallons of water.

Direx 4L: Direx 4L is recognized and marketed as an effective pre-emergence herbicide

against many annual weeds and grasses. Direx 4L was used in the seeding method

experiment in concert with activated charcoal, whereby Direx 4L would eliminate weeds

in the top soil layer but be absorbed by the activated charcoal to prevent herbicide action

on underlying desirable native grass seeds. Direx 4L was applied using a spray truck on

April 17, 2011 at a rate of 2 gallons (8 pounds) per acre. Direx 4L was applied only to the

spring-planted plots.

Irrigation

One of the treatments included in the seeding method experiment was irrigation. An

irrigation plan was prepared at the start of this project to describe the options for sprinkler

placement and piping layout. This plan is included as Appendix I. When setting up this

11

system in spring 2011 for the 2011 growing season, questions arose concerning details of

this plan. These questions were addressed via phone conversations or email transmittals

over the April 20-May 5, 2011 time frame and resulted in the following clarifications:

• Development of the irrigation schedule shown below:

Date Sprinkling Time Comments

Week 1 10 minutes/week Week 2 10 minutes/week Germination should be

profuse during this time Week 3 16 waterings of 15 minutes

each over the course of 1-2 weeks

Pulse of water needed to moisten deeply the soil profile stimulating extensive root growth. Numerous short-length waterings minimize erosion concerns.

>Week 4 15 minutes/week For plant maintenance

• For week 3 with 16 waterings, allow 2-3 hours between waterings.

• The watering specified in week 3 can be extended over 2 weeks to make this task

more manageable within timeframes of a typical work week.

• For years following the first year (2011), because parent plants are established, no

deep watering is required therefore the watering schedule is 15 minutes/week for

the entire growing season.

Even with these clarifications in the plan that evolved over the course of 2-3 weeks at the

start of the growing season, implementing the plan was a challenge due to the non-

uniform nature of water delivery across all the sprinkler heads. During the interval

between weeks 5 and 10, it was learned that sprinkler heads at location C of the irrigation

plan’s three-location arrangement, were putting out less water that those at locations A

and B. Adjustments were made in sprinkling time for location C heads to assure the total

water delivery was equal to the output of heads at locations A and B so that heads at

locations A and B were run 30 minutes weekly and at location C 60 minutes weekly.

Also by week 10, it was determined that the lower part of the site was receiving less

water than other parts of the site necessitating an increase in sprinkler time for heads at

12

locations A and B for plots in this lower part of the study site. Sprinkler time for heads at

locations A and B in plots present in the lower part of the study site were increased to 45

minutes weekly. Heads at location C for these plots were maintained at 60 minutes

weekly. Noteworthy regarding this discussion on irrigation and the time required to

determine the settings for sprinkler heads, all water applied during this adjustment period

was applied only to sites designated to receive the irrigation treatment; no sites

designated as non-irrigation sites received irrigation water.

Site Preparation

Plots for the soil amendments experiment were disked and harrowed with a pull-behind

harrow in April of 2010. All plots were mowed August through October 2010.

Previously, seeding of the area with nurse crops of oats and barley was completed in

April and again in June as part of an original experimental design. Because both seeding

attempts failed, the experiment was redesigned to accommodate testing of soil

amendments instead.

Full implementation of the fall plots occurred from October 26 – 30, 2010. All plots to be

tilled were disked, including all the spring plots. The tilled plots for the seeding method

experiment were then cultipacked. The tilled plots for the soil amendment experiment

were then disked and subsequently leveled using a pull-behind harrow and ATV. The

sites that had been seeded with a cover crop in the spring for a previous and subsequently

discarded experimental design were only harrowed as they had been tilled in the spring.

One control plot, replicate #2, was accidentally harrowed which did not invalidate the

site’s use in this study as a control plot.

Spring planting was performed from April 4-7, 2011. All seeding rates and techniques

duplicated those used earlier in the fall 2010 seeding. Prior to seeding all plots were

appropriately marked and flagged to ensure all plots received the required treatment.

13

Seeding method experiment

This experiment will produce data for evaluating seeding techniques across irrigation and

seeding season treatments. The site has a 3-factor design with the first level emphasizing

seeding method, the second testing irrigation, and the third, seeding season. Each

treatment combination is replicated three times resulting in a total of 96 plots. Table 4

summarizes the treatment array for this study.

Each plot measures 40 feet long by 42 feet wide. For the length, a foot was allowed on

either end to accommodate overrun by the seeder so that a seeded row is actually 42 feet

long. The width is necessary to accommodate a 6-foot seeding swath for each of the

seven grass species. Figure 4 shows the layout of these plots on the grounds of ONWR.

This area where these plots were located is also referred to as Study Site 1.

Plot establishment generally occurred as planned. The charcoal banding treatment in the

seeding method experiment was changed because pre-emergent herbicide treatment of the

fall plots did not occur as planned. Consequently, the fall charcoal banding plots were left

untreated with herbicide and designated as a treatment to evaluate the mere presence of

charcoal on the growth of native grasses and weeds. The spring charcoal banding plots

were sprayed at the time of planting and represent the treatment for which we can

evaluate the presence of charcoal and pre-emergent herbicide application on the growth

of native grasses and weeds. Also, for both the irrigated and non-irrigated plots for one

replicate of TKC and TKD (see Table 4), the grass species were planted in reverse order

so the alkali sacaton was on the inside of the plot and western wheatgrass on the outside.

Soil amendment experiment

This experiment will produce data for evaluating soil amendments across soil polymer

and seeding season treatments. The site has a 3-factor design with the first level

emphasizing soil amendments, the second testing the presence of a soil polymer to reduce

erosion, and the third, seeding season. Each treatment combination is replicated three

times resulting in a total of 96 plots. Table 5 summarizes the treatment array for this

study.

14

Each plot measures 40 feet long by 42 feet wide. For the length, a foot was allowed on

either end to accommodate overrun by the seeder so that a seeded row is actually 42 feet

long. The width is necessary to accommodate a 6-foot seeding swath for each of the

seven grass species. Figure 5 shows the layout of these plots on the grounds of ONWR.

Plot establishment occurred as planned. Three instances were noted where the end grass

row was outside the plot due to underestimating the tractor and planter width relative to

the plot space for seeding: alkali sacaton for one ZEO plot and one SLZ plot and western

wheatgrass for one SGP plot (see Table 5 for the description of treatments using these

acronyms).

Future plans for monitoring seeding method and soil amendment experiments

CSR, Inc. will monitor the plots for the seeding method and soil amendment experiments

this fall. This monitoring is tentatively planned for October 2011. Monitoring will be

conducted in accordance with the Grass Monitoring Plan included in Appendix II.

15

Table 4: Treatment array for seeding method experiment

Seeding Method Irrigation Seeding Season

Tilled seedbed + Truax Trillion broadcast seeder

(TTD)

Full irrigation Fall seeded Spring seeded

Non-irrigated Fall seeded Spring seeded

Tilled seedbed + Kincaid rangeland plot drill (TKD)



Tilled seedbed + Kincaid rangeland plot drill with charcoal banding (TKC)

Full irrigation Seeded; with charcoal only Seeded; with charcoal and

pre-emergent herbicide

Non-irrigated Seeded; with charcoal only Seeded; with charcoal and

pre-emergent herbicide

Kochia stubble + broadcast seeding + cultipacker (SBC)



Kochia stubble + broadcast seeding + imprinter (SBI)



Kochia stubble + Kincaid rangeland plot drill (SKD)



Kochia stubble + Kincaid rangeland plot drill +

banded polymer (SKP)



None [Control (N)] Full irrigation Fall seeded

Spring seeded


Figure 4: Diagram showing placement of experimental plots for seeding methods experiment

Table 5: Treatment array for soil amendment experiment Soil Amendment(s) Polymer Addition Seeding Season

Existing Kochia residue (EKR)

Polymer added Fall seeded Spring seeded

No polymer Fall seeded Spring seeded

Liquid Organic Amendment (LOA)



Sulfur-Gypsum (SGP) Polymer added Fall seeded

Spring seeded


Sulfur-Gypsum/LOA (SLO) Polymer added Fall seeded

Spring seeded


Sulfur-Gypsum/LOA/Zeolite

(SLZ)



Zeolite (ZEO) Polymer added Fall seeded

Spring seeded


Zeolite/LOA (ZLO) Polymer added Fall seeded

Spring seeded


None [Control (N)] Polymer added Fall seeded

Spring seeded


18

Figure 5: Diagram showing placement of experimental plots for soil amendment experiment.

19

Control studies related to kochia weed and cheatgrass

Materials and methods for control study related to kochia weed: Plots for the treatments

described below were established in spring 2009 and sampled pre- and post-treatment in

July and August of 2009, respectively. Plots measured 6 feet by 30 feet and consisted of a

variety of plant species but kochia weed was a prominent component of each plot. Each

subplot was replicated four times. The layout and randomization of these plots within

each replicate are shown in Figure 6.

Treatments included the following herbicides and herbicide combinations:

1. Weedar (2,4-D amine) – full strength

2. Weedar (2,4-D amine) – reduced strength

3. Brash (dicamba + 2,4-D) – full strength

4. Brash (dicamba + 2,4-D) – reduced strength

5. Vista (fluroxypyr) – full strength

6. Vista (fluroxypyr) – reduced strength

7. Vista + Portfolio (fluroxypyr + sulfentrazone) – full strength*

8. Vista + Portfolio (fluroxypyr + sulfentrazone) – reduced strength*

9. Overdrive (dicamba + diflufenzopyr) – full strength

10. Overdrive (dicamba + diflufenzopyr) – reduced strength

11. Vista + Telar (fluroxypyr + chlorsulfuron) – full strength

12. Vista + Telar (fluroxypyr + chlorsulfuron) – reduced strength

13. Vista + Escort (fluroxypyr + metsulfuron methyl) – full strength

14. Vista + Escort (fluroxypyr + metsulfuron methyl) – reduced strength

15. None (control) *Portfolio was unavailable at the time plots were established so the Vista+Portfolio treatment was never applied in either the full or reduced strength concentrations. The plots were, however, monitored and served as additional control plots. For the full strength treatments, the herbicide in question was applied at the concentration

specified on the product label. For reduced strength treatments, the herbicide in question

was applied at 67.7% of the full strength concentration.

20

1V

2WX

1OX

1VP

1A 1BX

1VEX 1W 1VTX 1B 1WX

1O 1VPX

1VT

1VE

1VX

2VT

2A

2VEX

2O

2VX

2B

2VPX

2BX

2W

2OX

2VP

2VTX

2VE

2V

4B

4VEX

4W

4OX

4VPX

4VT

4VE

4VX

4BX

4V

4O

4WX

4VTX

4A

4VP

3VP

3V

3VTX

3B

3VE

3OX

3WX

3VEX

3O

3VPX

3VT

3A

3VX

3W

3BX

Kochia Plots

Replicate 1

Replicate 2

Replicate 4 Replicate 3

Figure 6: Layout of treatment plots at study site on grounds of Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. A – control, B – Brash, O – Overdrive, V – Vista, VE – Vista + Escort, VP – Vista + Portfolio, VT (untreated) – Vista + Telar, W – Weedar, X – reduced application rate.

21

Herbicide effectiveness was assessed by characterizing the kochia weed plants in each

treatment plot prior to and following treatment. Pre-treatment characterization was made

July 15-16, 2009 followed by herbicide application and post-treatment characterization

was made August 19, 2009. Characterization consisted of six categories reflective of the

plant’s growth stage:

1) growth – no flower formation, active growth only

2) pre-flower – flower just starting to form

3) flower – flower clearly present

4) growth/flower – some plants flowering, others without flowers

5) curled – plant still alive but top curled over

6) mostly dead – mostly dead, some green, live parts still left on plant

For characterization of each plot, percent coverage values were assigned to each species

present, including bare ground. Furthermore, for the percent cover ascribed to kochia

weed, the relative amount contributed by each of the above growth stage categories to the

plot’s total coverage was recorded. Plot characterization was carried out for both pre-

treatment and post-treatment monitoring.

Because this study emphasized herbicide effectiveness, statistical analysis was performed

using the nearly dead growth category only. Data were analyzed using the Dunnett

version of analysis of variance (ANOVA) where for each treatment the pre-treatment and

post-treatment plots were compared to the post-treatment control plot. All analyses were

performed using SAS software

(http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/statistics/stat/index.html).

Materials and methods for control study related to cheatgrass: Plots for the treatments

described below were established in August 2009 and measured 6 feet by 30 feet.

Following establishment, plots were monitored initially for plant growth by walking

through each plot and estimating percent cover, grouped by height categories, for all

species present. Subsequently, the monitoring method was changed to a point line

http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/statistics/stat/index.html

22

transect running three transects across the plot: from right corner diagonal to far left

corner, left corner diagonal to far right corner, and down the center taking a point every

foot starting at 2 feet and ending at 30 feet. Each plot was replicated four times.

The original plan for this study included three treatments with fall and spring herbicide

applications but because no fall cheatgrass germination was observed in any of the

treatment plots, including the control plots, treatments with spring and fall herbicide

applications were eliminated and the study was redesigned to include the following five

(5) treatments:

1. Journey, spring application

2. Plateau, spring application

3. Plateau, fall application (pre-germination treatment commonly used by other

agencies in the region)

4. Roundup Original, spring application

5. Control, no herbicide application

Layout of the treatment plots, including the spring and fall application plots that were

subsequently discarded, is shown in Figure 7.

All spring only treatment and control plots were monitored using the point line transect

method described above in April, 2010 after spring germination of cheatgrass but before

treatment application. The Plateau fall treatment plots were also monitored at this time

and this monitoring is considered the early post-treatment monitoring for this treatment.

Plots for the Plateau fall treatment were treated on September 16, 2009 at a rate of 6

oz./acre of Plateau + 2 pt./acre of methylated seed oil (MSO) using a 6-foot wide CO2

boom sprayer. Spring only treatments were sprayed on April 16, 2010 at the following

rates:

1) 11 oz./acre Roundup Original + 2 pt./acre MSO

2) 16 oz./acre Journey + 2 pt./acre MSO

3) 6 oz./acre Plateau + 2 pt./acre MSO

23

1RFS

1PS

1JFS

1N

1PFS

1JS

1RS

2JS

2PFS 2N 2RFS

2RS

2JFS

2PS

3JS

3RFS

3PFS

3PS

3JFS

3RS

3N

4PS

4JFS 4N 4JS

4RS

4PFS

4RFS

1Pp

2Pp

3Pp

4Pp

Cheatgrass Plots

Figure 7: Layout of treatment plots for cheatgrass control study. N – Control (no treatment), JS – Journey spring, JFS – Journey fall and spring, PS – Plateau spring, PFS – Plateau fall and spring, Pp – Plateau fall pre-germination, RS – Roundup spring, RFS – Roundup fall and spring.

24

All the spring treated plots, the Plateau fall plots and the control plots were monitored

post-treatment in June 2010 using the point line transect method described above. For the

Plateau fall treatment, this monitoring was considered the late post-treatment monitoring.

Statistical analyses were performed on the monitoring data collected via the point

intercept method only. For each treatment, cheatgrass kill units were calculated for each

transect by subtracting the total cheatgrass point intercepts observed in June 2010 from

those observed in April 2010. For all but the Plateau fall treatment, this reflects post-

treatment results subtracted from pre-treatment results. For the Plateau fall treatment, this

reflects late post treatment results subtracted from early post treatment results. Data were

analyzed using both ANOVA and differences in means were separated using the Tukey

test (SAS, http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/statistics/stat/index.html). Data

were also analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test (Snedecor and Cochran,

1980) where data from each treatment were compared to comparable data in the control

plots.

Results for the control study related to kochia weed: Results of the kochia weed control

experiments are summarized in Figure 8. For those treatments that were effective in

killing Kochia, the mostly dead category dominated the counts. Table 6 summarizes the

results of the statistical analyses and reveal that very highly significant differences were

present for the Brash, Overdrive, Vista, Vista + Telar and Vista + Escort treatments for

both the full and reduced strength treatments when comparing kochia weed presence in

August treatments versus control plots. Differences for the non-treated Vista + Portfolio

and active Weedar treatments were not significant.

Mean abundance percentages from all plots for all plant growth categories collected in

July 2009 (pre-treatment) and August 2009 (post-treatment) are given in Figure 8. All

pre-treatment plots showed two growth categories, growth and pre-flower, and were

similar regarding the relative amounts in each category, high (usually >90%) for the

growth category and low for the pre-flower category. All growth categories were seen in

http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/statistics/stat/index.html

25

the post-treatment data but not necessarily with each herbicide treatment. Where

herbicides were effective, the treatment plot was dominated by the nearly dead category.

Figure 9 shows the mean percentage of mostly dead vegetation for each treatment.

Greater than 80% mostly dead was seen for full and reduced strength treatments for

Brash, Vista and Vista + Telar. Greater than 60% but less than 80% mostly dead was seen

for Overdrive and Vista + Escort for full and reduced strength treatments. Lastly, the

percentage of mostly dead for Weedar at full and reduced strength treatments was

between 40 and 60% and for untreated Vista + Portfolio plots the percentage for full and

reduced strength plots was less than 20%.

Table 6 shows the results of the ANOVA analysis. Very highly significant differences

were seen for Brash, Overdrive, Vista, Vista + Telar and Vista + Escort at label and

reduced label application rates when comparing mean nearly dead tissue from the pre-

treatment July date to the post-treatment August date. Greatest significance was seen for

Brash, Vista and Vista + Telar with P-values <0.0001. Differences for nearly dead tissue

for the untreated Vista + Portfolio plots and active Weedar treatments were not

significant.

Table 7 shows the median application rate, cost per acre and the toxicity via three

exposure routes: oral (ingestion), dermal (absorbed through the skin) and inhalation.

These data were used in concert with herbicide effectiveness to find the best combination

of high effectiveness, low cost and low toxicity. Median application rate was obtained

from information on published labels for each herbicide, cost data were obtained from an

herbicide dealer located in Twin Falls, Idaho and toxicity data were taken from the

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each herbicide.

26

Figure 8: Mean relative abundance of plant growth stages for kochia in July (pre-treatment) and August (post-treatment) 2009 across all treatment plots at label and reduced label application rates. Acronyms for treatement designations are given in Figure 6; GoF – growth/flower category.

0

20

40

60

80

100

A JulA Aug

B JulB Aug

BX JulBX Aug

O JulO Aug

OX Jul

OX Aug

V JulV Aug

VX Jul

VX Aug

VE JulVE Aug

VEX Jul

VEX Aug

VP JulVP Aug

VPX Jul

VPX Aug

VT JulVT Aug

VTX Jul

VTX Aug

W Jul

W Aug

WX Jul

WX Aug

growth preflower GoF flower Curled mostly dead

27

Figure 9: Mean percent of kochia weed attributed to nearly dead category as determined in post-treatment monitoring. Treatment codes are the same as those specified in Figure 1. The Vista+Portfolio (VP) plot was not treated but was monitored.

0

20

40

60

80

100

B O V VE VP VT W

Treatment

Perc

ent (

%) M

ostly

Dea

d

Label rate Reduced label rate

28

Table 6: Summary of ANOVA results comparing mean nearly dead percentages across at treatments and application rates. Treatment codes are the same as those listed in Figure 1. Very highly significant differences are denoted by *** and non-significant differences by ns.

Herbicide Treatment Treatment Code

Herbicide Concentration

P-values Significance

Brash B Full <0.0001 *** BX Reduced <0.0001 ***

Overdrive O Full 0.0007 *** OX Reduced 0.001 ***

Vista V Full 0.0001 *** VX Reduced <0.0001 ***

Untreated Vista + Portfolio plots

VP Full 1.000 ns VPX Reduced 1.000 ns

Vista + Telar VT Full <0.0001 *** VTX Reduced <0.0001 ***

Vista + Escort VE Full 0.0003 *** VEX Reduced 0.0005 ***

Weedar W Full 0.1057 ns WX Reduced 0.1371 ns

29

Table 7: Summary of median application rate, cost and toxicity for five herbicides used singularly or in combination for treatments in the kochia weed control study.

Herbicide Application Rate Cost Toxicity Comments Route Values

Brash 2 pints/acre $5.88/acre Oral >1150 mg/kg

Dermal >2000 mg/kg Inhalation >20.3 mg/L

Escort 20 grams/hectare $3.00/acre Oral >5000 mg/kg Application rate

translates to 0.29 oz/acre


Overdrive 6 ounces/acre $15.00/acre Oral >1800 mg/kg


Telar 0.625 fl. oz./acre $11.56/acre Oral >2000 mg/kg


Vista 12 ounces/acre $17.81/acre Oral >5000 mg/kg


30

Results for the control study related to cheatgrass: Results of the cheatgrass control experiments

are summarized in Figure 10. Table 8 summarizes the Mann-Whitney test results of the statistical

analyses and reveals that highly significant differences were present for the fall and spring

treatments with Plateau and the Journey spring treatment when comparing the monitoring results

taken in April 2010 versus those taken in June 2010. Differences for the Roundup Original and

the control treatments were not significant. ANOVA results were consistent with the Mann-

Whitney results.

Pre- and post-treatment data from all plots are given in Figure 10. All pre-treatment plots and, for

the Plateau fall treatment, the early post treatment plots showed cheatgrass growth. For those

treatments effective in negatively affecting cheatgrass growth, the effect was obvious – the kill

rate for such treatments was essentially 100% (Figure 11). For the Roundup Original treatment,

its effect on cheatgrass, based on the point intercept data, was indistinguishable from the control

treatment.

Results from ANOVA indicated differences existed among the four herbicide treatments and

Control (p<0.0005). Tukey tests indicated that the Journey, Plateau spring and Plateau fall

treatments were significantly different (α = 0.05) from both the Control and Roundup Original

treatments. The tests further showed that no differences existed between the Journey, Plateau

spring and Plateau fall treatments. Lastly, the tests showed also that no differences existed

between the Control and Roundup Original treatments.

Table 8 shows the results of the Mann-Whitney analyses using the kill units. Highly significant

differences were seen for Journey and the spring and fall treatments with Plateau when

comparing the cheatgrass point intercept counts between the pre- and post- treatment dates (early

and late post-treatment dates with the Plateau fall treatment). Differences for cheatgrass point

intercept counts relative to the Roundup Original and Control treatments were not significant.

31

Figure 10: Pre-(April) and post- (June) treatment point intercept data for cheatgrass plots

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Journey-Spring Plateau-Fall Plateau-Spring Roundup-Spring ControlTreatment

Num

ber o

f che

atgr

ass

poin

t int

erce

pts

per p

lot

April June

32

Figure 11: Percent reduction in cheatgrass occurrence between pre- (April) and post- (June) treatment dates

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Treatment

Perc

ent (

%) r

educ

tion

in c

heat

gras

s

Journey Plateau - fall Plateau - spring Roundup Control - no treatment

33

Table 9 shows the median application rate, cost per acre and the toxicity via three

exposure routes: oral (ingestion), dermal (absorbed through the skin) and inhalation. As with the

herbicides in the kochia study, these data were used in concert with herbicide effectiveness to

find the best combination of high effectiveness, low cost and low toxicity. Furthermore,

consistent with our approach in the kochia study, median application rate was obtained from

information on published labels for each herbicide, cost data were obtained from the same

herbicide dealer located in Twin Falls, Idaho and toxicity data were taken from the MSDS for

each herbicide.

Discussion of results from control study for kochia weed: Whereas herbicide selection is

typically based on effectiveness, cost and toxicity, effectiveness stands out as the primary driver

because without effectiveness the herbicide is useless as a weed control agent. Based on this

study, three individual herbicides or herbicide combinations were equally effective in controlling

kochia: Brash, Vista and Vista + Telar. At full strength application, each of these herbicides

showed a kill-rate of >96 %. Even at reduced strength application, all had a kill rate of >89.87%.

Beyond effectiveness for these three herbicides are cost and toxicity. Based on the data given in

Table 2, Brash is the least costly at $5.88/acre compared to $11.56/acre for Telar and $17.81/acre

for Vista. Regarding toxicity, Brash is the most toxic when ingested and among the most toxic

when absorbed through the skin. Ingestion is not believed to be a problem with attentive

professional applicators. Absorption through skin can be minimized with the proper personal

protection equipment including clothing, footwear and gloves as specified within the product’s

MSDS to completely cover the trunk and limbs. Lastly, Brash is the least toxic for the inhalation

route, one of the routes along with dermal that is felt to be the most likely intake route for this

herbicide. Low toxicity via this route supports the use of Brash over Vista and Vista + Telar.

Whereas the objective of this study was to determine the most suitable herbicide based on

effectiveness, cost and toxicity, prolonged use of a single herbicide raises the potential for

development of herbicide resistance by a weed population (Peterson, 1999). The world’s list of

herbicide-resistant weeds is growing (Heap, 1997) and requires one to think cautiously about

weed control by herbicide use only. Herbicide resistance for Kochia scoparia has been observed

34

with members of the ALS-inhibitor family of herbicides (Heap, 1997; Friesen et al., 1993; Foes

et al., 1999); and triazine (Foes et al., 1999). Noteworthy to this study is that two of the

herbicide candidates tested, Telar and Escort, are members of this ALS-inhibitor family of

herbicides whereas Brash’s active ingredients, 2,4-D and dicamba, are synthetic auxins (plant

growth hormones) that act by disrupting growth regulation in the plant.. Options for combating

herbicide resistance are: 1) lower herbicide dosages which translate into less frequent and/or

lower concentration application rates, 2) rotating through herbicides with different modes of

action and 3) non-herbicide weed control measures (Gorddard et al., 1995). Therefore, in light of

this information on herbicide resistance and notwithstanding the recommendation to use Brash,

ONWR personnel should constantly monitor Brash effectiveness against kochia weed. If

effectiveness declines, possibly indicating development of Brash-resistant populations of kochia

weed, consider changing to an herbicide with a different mode of action than that of Brash and/or

incorporating other non-herbicide control measures into the kochia-control strategy.

In summary, high effectiveness, low cost and relatively low toxicity through the inhalation route

support the use of Brash over Vista and Vista + Telar. Relatively high toxicity through the

dermal route can be mitigated through the vigilant use of personal protection equipment. Brash is

the recommended herbicide to combat kochia at the ONWR. If resistant kochia weed populations

develop, consider using an herbicide with a different mode of action and/or other, non-herbicide

control measures.

Discussion of results from control study for cheatgrass: As with the kochia weed study,

herbicide selection was based on effectiveness, cost and toxicity, effectiveness being the leading

determinant. Based on this study, Journey and Plateau were equally effective in controlling

cheatgrass. Furthermore, Plateau was effective whether applied in the spring following

cheatgrass germination or, in the fall, prior to germination. All of these herbicides showed a kill

rate >99.35%.

Regarding cost, Roundup Original is considerably less expensive than either Plateau or Journey

but without effectiveness, lower cost is meaningless. Based on the data given in Table 4 and

relative to the two effective herbicides, Plateau is the least costly at $10.00/acre compared to

35

$13.50/acre for Journey. Also, as the data showed, Plateau is effective whether applied prior to

cheatgrass germination in the fall or following germination in the spring. Regarding toxicity,

Plateau and Journey are comparable via all three exposure routes and neither stands out with an

advantage due to lower toxicity.

Herbicide resistance brought on by prolonged, repeated use of one herbicide should be

considered when choosing an herbicide for cheatgrass control. Such resistance by cheatgrass has

been observed for select acetolactate synthase (ALS) -inhibiting herbicides in the

sulfonylaminocarbonyl-triazolinone and sulfonylurea chemical families (Park and Mallory-

Smith, 2004; Mallory-Smith et al., 1999; Park et al., 2004), specifically herbicides with the

active ingredients propoxycarbazone-sodium, primisulfuron or sulfosulfuron. The sole active

ingredient for Plateau and one of the two active ingredients in Journey is imazapic (the other is

glyphosate which is the sole ingredient for ineffective Roundup Original), another ALS-

inhibiting herbicide but in the imidazolinone chemical family. The fact that other herbicides,

working at the same site of action as imazapic, have lost effectiveness in resistant biotypes of

cheatgrass serves to alert the user of Plateau or Journey that resistance is likely with overuse and

the user’s cheatgrass control strategy should include contingencies if such resistance is observed.

Other herbicides with different mode of action should be sought as well as developing other,

non-herbicide control strategies.

In summary, high effectiveness and lower cost support the use of Plateau over Journey. Even

though toxicity did not factor into this recommendation because Plateau is comparable to

Journey in its toxicity to humans, the need for personal protection through the use of personal

protective equipment and the need for applicators to be attentive to weather conditions and the

maintenance status of their equipment remains imperative. Plateau is the recommended herbicide

to combat cheatgrass at the ONWR. However, as with the kochia study, if Plateau resistance is

observed in cheatgrass populations, institute use of herbicides with different modes of action

and/or other, non-herbicide control measures.

36

Table 8: Summary of Mann-Whitney results comparing the differences in cheatgrass point intercepts between the pre-(April) and post-(June) treatment dates (kill units). Highly significant differences are denoted by ** and non-significant differences by ns.

Herbicide Treatment P-values Significance

Journey <0.001 **

Plateau - Fall <0.001 **

Plateau - Spring <0.001 **

Roundup Original >0.2 ns

Control >0.2 ns

37

Table 9: Summary of median application rate, cost and toxicity for three herbicides used for treatments in the cheatgrass weed control study.

Herbicide Application Rate Cost Toxicity Comments Route Values

Journey 16 ounces/acre $13.50/acre Oral >5000 mg/kg

Dermal >5000 mg/kg Inhalation 2.43 mg/L

Plateau 8 ounces/acre $10.00/acre Oral >5000 mg/kg


Roundup Original

16 ounces/acre $2.50/acre Oral >5000 mg/kg No 4-hour LC50 at

maximum concentration tested for inhalation route

Dermal >5000 mg/kg Inhalation None

38

References Anderson D, Swanson A R (1949) Machinery for seedbed preparation and seeding on Southwestern ranges. Journal of Range Management 2: 64-66. Entry J A, Sojka R E, Watwood, M, Ross, C (2002) Polyacrylamide preparations for protection of water quality threatened by agricultural runoff contaminants. Environmental Pollution 120: 191-200. Fishel F M (2008) Activated Charcoal for Pesticide Inactivation. Document No. PI 164, Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL, 4 pp. Foes M J, Liu L, Vigue G, Stoller E W, Wax L M, and Tranel P J (1999) A kochia (Kochia scoparia) biotype resistant to triazine and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Science 47: 20-27. Friesen L F, Morrison I N, Rashid A, and Devine M D (1993) Response of a chlorsulfuron-resistant biotype of Kochia scoparia to sulfonylurea and alternative herbicides. Weed Science 41: 100-106. George, R R (1988) Reseeding pastures and rangeland for wildlife benefits in the central and southern Great Plains. Guidelines for Increasing Wildlife on Farms and Ranches, Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS, pp 37B-42B. Gorddard R J, Pannell D J and Hertzler G (1995) An optimal control model for integrated weed management under herbicide resistance. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 39: 71-87. Heap I M (1997) The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pesticide Science 51: 235-243. Heitmeyer M E and Fredrickson L H (2005) An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, CO by the Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, University of Missouri – Columbia, Puxico, MO. 52 pp. Mallory-Smith C, Hendrickson P and Mueller-Warrant G (1999) Cross-resistance of primisulfuron-resistant Bromus tectorum L. (downy brome) to sulfosulfuron. Weed Science 47: 256-257. McCalla J, Richardson M D, Boyd J W, Karcher D E (2000) Herbicide Evaluations for Establishment of Newly-seeded Bermudagrass. Horticultural Studies 2000, AAES Research Series 483, pp. 58-60 Park K W and Mallory-Smith C A (2004) Physiological and molecular basis for ALS inhibitor resistance in Bromus tectorum biotypes. Weed Research 44: 71-77.

39

Park K W, Mallory-Smith C A, Ball D A and Mueller-Warrant G W (2004) Ecological fitness of acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant and –susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotypes. Weed Science 52: 768-773. Peterson D E (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technology 13: 632-635. Snedecor G W, Cochran W G (1980) Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA. 507 pp. Turnau K, Haselwandter, K (2002) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, an essential component of soil microflora in ecosystem restoration. In Mycorrhizal Technology in Agriculture, edited by S. Gianinazzi, H. Schuepp, J. M. Barea and K. Haselwandter. Birkhauser Verlag, Switzerland, pp. 137-150. Xiubin H, Zhanbin H (2001) Zeolite application for enhancing water infiltration and retention in loess soil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 34(1): 45-52. MSDSs Winfield Solutions, LLC MSDS for Brash DuPont MSDS for Escort BASF MSDS for Overdrive DuPont MSDS for Telar Dow AgroSciences MSDS for Vista BASF MSDS for Journey BASF MSDS for Plateau Monsanto MSDS for Roundup Original Cost reference Wilbur-Ellis Co. in Twin Falls, Idaho Labels Agrisolutions label for Brash DuPont label for Escort BASF label for Overdrive DuPont label for Telar Dow AgroSciences label for Vista BASF label for Journey BASF label for Plateau Monsanto label for Roundup Original Acknowledgements

• Tucker Bruffy, ONWR – applied solid amendments, took care of mowing and disking plots as needed and treated plots with cultipacker and imprinter.

• Jeremy Jones, ONWR - applied solid amendments, took care of mowing and disking plots as needed and treated plots with cultipacker and imprinter.

40

• Jamie Allen, ONWR – applied solid amendment, seed and soil additive measuring.

• Joe Nuemann, ONWR – soil additive measuring and Kincaid seeding. • Diane Penttila, ONWR – lead contact at ONWR, oversaw study from NWFS

perspective • Ryan Mollnow, ONWR – drove tractor, seed measuring, general info, interface

with NWFS contracting personnel. • Charles Holtz, CSR – primary CSR contact for work in Vernal, UT area, applied

solid amendment and zeolite, oversaw spring seeding. • Kevin Osborne, CSR – drove tractor for fall and spring seedings • Chris Gee, CSR – wrote grass monitoring plan, participated in fall and spring

seeding • Larry Cook, CSR – primary CSR contact for technical questions on this project,

oversaw study from CSR perspective • Zenyth Propst, CSR – designed soil amendment experiment, wrote irrigation plan

with Julie Riddle, oversaw experiment set-up and fall planting, and collection of herbicide study data.

• Kent Fothergill, CSR contractor – supplied statistical analyses of herbicide data • Butch Nolan, CSR – applied LOA for fall planting • Julie Riddle, CSR – wrote irrigation plan with Zenyth Propst, primary CSR

contact regarding irrigation-related questions

41

Appendix I

Irrigation Plan

42

Irrigation Design and Timeline As per Trip Report and Conceptual Designs produced by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated 5th of May 2009:

Irrigation Application Portions (50%, as per the conceptual experimental design; Figure 9) of Revegetation Study 1 [RS1] will be irrigated within each growing season over the project life for comparison with adjacent plots that will be non-irrigated. The ONWR will supply irrigation equipment (sprinkler pipe, feeder and suction pipe, valves, and pump) and irrigation system installation, layout and testing. The ONWR will provide an operator for application of planned irrigation regimes (including irrigation set timing, amounts, and duration). Irrigation amounts, timing, and duration for the seeded vegetation within Revegetation Study 1 will be determined based on meeting minimum evapotranspiration needs of the newly seeded materials in order to prevent moisture stress during germination, adventitious rout development, and root extension – generally targeting an application rate of approximately 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) per week for the time period (duration) of irrigation application. Irrigation supply will be provided by means of an ONWR water right, enabling pumping (via portable, gas-powered pump apparatus) from pipeline diversion of Pelican Lake water to the study site. The ONWR has confirmed this water right, and has agreed to provide such water for the revegetation study. Total anticipated, maximum annual water requirement is 2.5 ac-ft. Revegetation Study 2 will not be irrigated.

Irrigation Testing Conservation Seeding & Restoration, Inc. (CSR) recommended testing of the irrigation equipment for use on RS1. The following testing was completed and data provided by ONWR: TEST 1

ABC are sprinkler locations. 12345 are measuring containers placed about equal distant from each other and from sprinklers. Only one sprinkler was measured at a time. Two sprinklers were being run off of pump. Sprinklers were each run for 1 hour.

A B

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

C

43

Results Container

Sprinkler A

Sprinkler B

Sprinkler C C-A

Sprinkler C C-B

Total

1 0 0 6 mm 4 mm 10 mm 2 2 mm 3 mm 4 mm 5 mm 14 mm 3 3 mm 6 mm 1 mm 2 mm 12 mm 4 5 mm 7 mm 0 1 mm 13 mm 5 7 mm 7 mm 0 0 14 mm TEST 2

Results Container

Sprinkler A

Sprinkler B

Sprinkler C C-A**

Sprinkler C C-B

Total

1 3 mm 3 mm 3 mm 9 mm 2 6 mm 5 mm 2 mm 13 mm 3 5 mm 6 mm 2 mm 13 mm 4 6 mm 3 mm 2 mm 11 mm 5 4 mm* 4 mm* 3 mm* 11 mm * catching some from sprinkler B or A as well ** did not measure CSR Evaluation As the results for both Tests 1 & 2 show, sprinklers A & B are not throwing water far enough to cover the entire distance to sprinkler C, and sprinkler C is not throwing the entire distance tosSprinklers A & B. The diagram below indicates which areas are receiving only single coverage from one sprinkler (white), coverage from two sprinklers (blue), and coverage from all three sprinklers (green).

A B

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

C

44

Therefore, if the need is to provide enough water so that all portions of the site have received 0.25”, the driest portions (white) will receive 0.25” of water whereas the wetter portions (blue and green) will receive much more than the needed amount. This layout is functional, but may not be ideal. In general, manufacturers of sprinkler heads recommend head-to-head coverage: the farthest distance a head sprays is where the next head is located. This allows for 100% overlap and a more even coverage of water over the area to be irrigated, causing less variance in amount of water received on dry (white) versus wet (green) locations. With any design there will always be some dry and some wet locations, but the goal is to minimize the variance between them and provide equal coverage over the entire area. For more uniform coverage using existing sprinklers, the following layout could be utilized:

As this layout is not feasible with the staff and equipment available to ONWR, it may be that replacing the sprinkler heads is the best plan. Sprinkler heads that cover a distance of 58 foot would ensure equal coverage throughout the plot.

C B A

F E D

45

Irrigation Scheduling Germination Irrigation for germinating seeds should begin just prior to the start of germination in spring of 2011. Water should be applied so that the soil is moist to a depth no greater than 1”. Water applied to a depth greater than 1” will serve only to encourage weed growth as the germinating beneficial seeds are generally located near the soil surface do not have the immediate ability to collect water from any depth greater than their new root system. Irrigation should not begin prior to soil thawing or air temperature reaching 45 °F for 10 days consecutively. As seedlings grow, increase the amount of water applied so that soil is moist to a depth of 6” or more. Deep occasional watering is preferred over shallow watering every day as shallow watering promotes shallow roots and the water applied evaporates faster, whereas deep watering encourages deeper root growth and water remains in the soil for longer periods of time. Historical ET data provided by the Utah Division of Water Resources Weather Station in Fruitland, Utah (http://www.conservewater.utah.gov/et/etsite/LastYearSummary_Fruitland_2007.htm) shows us that in the year 2007, a total of 18.08” of irrigation water applied was required to compensate for evapotranspiration effects on a traditional lawn. As traditional lawn mixes generally require more water than the native plants installed at Ouray NWR, it is safe to adjust this requirement downwards by half to compensate for the change in plant material. As such, it is anticipated that total application of no more than 9” of supplemental water over the course of the growing season will be required for establishment of native crops. Adjustment up or down of this requirement may be required if the germination year is abnormally hot or cold, and will need to be determined at the time of concern. Per Trip Report and Conceptual Designs produced by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated 5th of May 2009, 0.25” of water per week is estimated. If watering occurs from April 1 to October 31 (7 months; 30 weeks), an estimated 7.5” of water would be applied. However, it is important to keep in mind that plants will require less water during the cooler months and more water during the warmer months, so application of exactly 0.25” per week regardless of which week is not recommended. It is also necessary to take into account recent rain events: there is no benefit associated with watering saturated that have no further capacity for holding water. CSR anticipates that watering can begin approximately April 1, 2011 and end approximately October 31, 2011. Maintenance Irrigation Maintenance watering of native crops, if desire is to simulate actual planting of species in a restoration setting landscape, should be little to no water. If water is applied, it should be to compensate for abnormally hot weather, and deep watering is preferred. Termination of Irrigation Germination watering shall cease when the ground begins to freeze and the air temperature is below 45 for 5 days consecutively. Plants will require less water as they transition into winter dormancy. Maintenance watering shall terminate after 1 year.

http://www.conservewater.utah.gov/et/etsite/LastYearSummary_Fruitland_2007.htm

46

Irrigation Head Adjustment Multiple adjustments are generally available on every model of sprinkler head. In the case of the impact sprinklers currently being utilized, two adjustments are available: arc and diffuser pin. The arc adjustment clip, to control whether the sprinkler is full circle or sprays any portion of a circle, is located at the base of the head. Twist the clip to one side or the other to increase or decrease the spray arc. The diffuser pin is located at the outlet of the sprinkler. By turning the diffuser pin in or out, water will shoot from the sprinkler in larger or smaller water droplets. In areas with low humidity and high winds, it is recommended that the diffuser pin be turned so that the water droplets issuing from the sprinkler are larger rather than small and misty. This will allow for less evaporation as well as lower chances of water being redirected off-target by wind events. In some models of impact heads, additions or reductions in throw distance can be achieved with the installation of new nozzles. If the heads currently in use at ONWR have this feature, it would be advantageous to consider nozzle options for the heads that throw further – with such, better coverage could be achieved utilizing the three-head triangular layout proposed.

47

Appendix II

Grass Monitoring Plan

48

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Restoration Project

Native Grass Monitoring Plan

Prepared by:

Conservation Seeding and Restoration, Inc.

Kimberly, ID 208.423.4835

www.csr-inc.com

49

Introduction This document serves as the plan for monitoring grass growth for the revegetation project at the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in northeast Utah in Uintah County. This revegetation project was initiated in 2010 to evaluate seven native grass species for use in restoring Refuge uplands degraded by disturbance and the presence of invasive weeds. Also, the experimental design includes treatments to test several restoration techniques, including seeding method, use of irrigation, and soil amendments. The reader should consult other project reports for an explanation of the experimental design and description of all experimental treatments. The seven native grass species being evaluated are:

1. Western wheatgrass, Pascopyrum smithii 2. Slender wheatgrass, Elymus trachycaulus 3. Needle-and-thread, Hesperostipa comata 4. Bottlebrush squirreltail, Elymus elymoides 5. Indian ricegrass, Achnatherum hymenoides 6. Inland saltgrass, Distichlis spicata 7. Alkali sacaton, Sporobolus airoides

Methods for monitoring grass growth described in this plan will be implemented to monitor grass growth in the experimental plots in the late summer or fall of 2011 and 2012. Description of the typical experimental plot This entire study is based on an experimental plot size of 42 feet X 40 feet. The 42-foot dimension accommodates growth of the seven grass species in individual rows 6-feet wide. Each row is 40 feet long. Note, however, that seeders were run 42 feet to assure a continued planting run of 40 feet. For all plots the grass species were sewn in the order shown below in Figure 1. The 6 feet by 40 feet area related to each species is termed a sub-plot.

Western wheatgrass

Slender wheatgrass

Bottlebrush squirreltail

Needle & thread

Inland saltgrass

Indian ricegrass

Alkali sacaton

Figure 1: Diagram of an experimental plot showing the seven sub-plots, location of photo points and the order in which species were sewn

40 ft.

42 ft.

Legend

Photo point at end of sub-plot

Photo point at center of sub-plot

50

Monitoring Methods Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to monitor grass growth at each experimental plot.

Qualitative monitoring Qualitative monitoring will consist of photographs of each experimental sub-plot. Three photos will be taken of each sub-plot. Photos will be taken at both ends of each sub-plot shown on Figure 1. Additionally, a third close up ground photo will be taken at the centerpoint of each sub-plot transect (see below). These photos furnish visual evidence of vegetation and soil changes over time. This method is applicable to a wide variety of vegetation types as long as the plants do not exceed waist height. Quantitative monitoring Quantitative monitoring will be accomplished using a variation of the Daubenmire method (U.S. BLM, 1999). This method, tailored for this project, is detailed below and will be used to monitor the growth of each of the seven native grass species in each experimental plot.

Vegetation Attributes Measured Three vegetation attributes will be determined using this method:

1. Canopy cover – expressed as a percentage of the total area within a sampling quadrat. 2. Frequency – expressed as a percentage of the total quadrats sampled. 3. Composition by canopy cover – expressed for each plant species as a percentage of the area in a

quadrat covered by the total vegetation. Daubenmire method modified from U.S. BLM (1999) for this project Equipment The following equipment will be used A. Data forms; see Figure 2 B. Hammer C. Permanent yellow or orange spray paint D. Two stakes: 1/2-inch diameter rebar; length – 18 inches. E. One ¼-inch diameter pin; length – 18 inches. F. Tape: 50-feet, delineated in inches. G. 20 X 50 cm quadrat frame Training The accuracy of data depends on the training and ability of the examiners. Examiners must be able to identify the plant species. They must receive adequate and consistent training in laying out transects and making canopy coverage estimates using the quadrat frame. Transect placement in subplot One transect will be placed in each subplot so that the transect runs the entire length of the subplot down its center. Vegetation should not be allowed to deflect the alignment of the tape. The tape should be aligned as close to the ground as possible. Rebar stakes should be used at the transect end points. A metal pin may also be driven into the ground at the midpoint of each transect to help with tape alignment. Quadrat placement relative to transect With the transect tape in place, quadrat placement starts at the 2-ft mark on the tape. Subsequent quadrat placements will be made at 2-ft increments so that following the first placement at 2-ft, the second will be at 4-ft, the third at 6-ft and so on. At each 2-ft increment, a quadrat will be randomly placed at one of five positions: 1) 18 inches to the left of the transect tape, 2) 6 inches to the left of the transect tape, 3) directly on the transect tape, 4) 6 inches to the right

51

of the transect tape and 5) 18 inches to the right of the transect tape. Proceed with measuring the vegetation attributes at each quadrat placement until 20 quadrats are completed. Collecting Raw Cover Data at each quadrat placement As the quadrat frame is placed along the tape at the specified intervals, the examiner will estimate the canopy coverage of the target species and record the cover class for each of the 20 quadrats on the datasheet shown as Figure 2. Daubenmire cover classes are given in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Daubenmire cover classes Cover Class Range of Coverage Midpoint of Range

1 <5% 2.5% 2 5-25% 15.0% 3 25-50% 37.5% 4 50-75% 62.5% 5 75-95% 85.0% 6 95-100% 97.5%

(1) The examiner will observe the quadrat frame from directly above and estimate the cover class for all individuals of the target species in the quadrat as a unit. All other kinds of plants are ignored as the target species is assessed. (2) A monitoring tip is to imagine a line drawn about the leaf tips of the undisturbed canopies (ignoring inflorescence) and project these polygonal images onto the ground. This projection is considered "canopy coverage." Decide which of the classes the canopy coverage of the species falls into and record on the form. (3) Any canopies extending over the quadrat are estimated even if the plants are not rooted in the quadrat. (4) The data will be collected at a time of maximum growth of the key species. However there was a fall and spring planting and one has the possibility to be ahead of the other, but both plantings will be monitored at the same time. (5) For small grasses, it will be helpful to estimate the number of individuals that would be required to fill 5% of the frame (the 71 - x 71 -mm area). A quick estimate of the numbers of individuals in each frame will then be used to provide an estimate as to whether the aggregate coverage falls in Cover Class 1 or 2, etc (Cover Classes are described below). (6) Overlapping canopy cover is included in the cover estimates by species; therefore, total cover may exceed 100 percent. Total cover may not reflect actual ground cover. Calculations for normalizing data Canopy cover for each species will be calculated as follows: (1) On the Daubenmire form count the number of quadrats in each of the six cover class (by species) and record in the number column on the datasheet shown as Figure 2. (2) Multiply this value times the midpoint of the appropriate cover class. (3) Total the products for all cover classes by species. (4) Divide the sum by the total number of quadrats sampled from transect. (5) Record the percent cover by species on the form. Frequency for each plant species will be calculated by dividing the number of occurrences of a plant species (the number of quadrats in which a plant species was observed) by the total number of quadrats sampled along each transect. Multiply the resulting value by 100. Composition by canopy cover is based on canopy cover of the various species. It is determined by dividing the percent canopy cover of each plant species by the total canopy cover of all plant species. Each transect of 20 quadrats will be considered a sampling unit. Canopy cover and composition by canopy cover for a subplot will be expressed as the mean of the respective values from the 20 quadrats measured along each transect.

52

Treatment effects will be assessed for differences using ANOVA or the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Additional statistical techniques may be used as data become available and trends or the lack of trends are discerned. References

• U. S. Bureau of Land Management (1999) Daubenmire Method in Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Technical Reference 1734-4, U. S. Department of Agriculture/U. S. Department of the Interior, pp. 55-63.

53

Figure 2: Datasheet for recording raw and summary data

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Revegetation Project Study Site #: Date: Examiner: Subplot #:

Plant Species Quadrat # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Comments:

restoration of native plant communities at ouray national

Documents