Taeniatherum

Last updated

Medusahead
ARS Medusahead weed.jpg
Scientific classification OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg
Kingdom: Plantae
Clade: Tracheophytes
Clade: Angiosperms
Clade: Monocots
Clade: Commelinids
Order: Poales
Family: Poaceae
Subfamily: Pooideae
Tribe: Triticeae
Genus: Taeniatherum
Nevski [1]
Species:
T. caput-medusae
Binomial name
Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(L.) Nevski
Synonyms [2]
List
  • Elymus caput-medusaeL.
  • Hordeum caput-medusae(L.) Coss. & Durieu
  • Leptothrix caput-medusae(L.) Dumort.
  • Cuviera caput-medusae(L.) Simonk.
  • Hordelymus caput-medusae(L.) Pignatti
  • Taeniatherum crinitum var. caput-medusae(L.) Wipff
  • Elymus crinitusSchreb.
  • Hordeum crinitum(Schreb.) Desf.
  • Elymus montanusPall. ex Georgi
  • Elymus intermediusM.Bieb.
  • Elymus platatherusLink
  • Leptothrix crinita(Schreb.) Dumort.
  • Elymus caput-medusae var. crinitus(Schreb.) Ball
  • Hordeum oligostachyumFlatt
  • Cuviera caput-medusae var. asperaSimonk.
  • Hordeum intermedium(M.Bieb.) Hausskn.
  • Hordeum intermedium var. intercedensHausskn.
  • Hordeum asperum(Simonk.) Degen
  • Hordeum caput-medusae subsp. asperum(Simonk.) Asch. & Graebn.
  • Hordeum bobartiiAsch. & Graebn.
  • Cuviera aspera(Simonk.) Simonk.
  • Elymus caput-medusae var. asper(Simonk.) Halácsy
  • Cuviera bobartii(Asch. & Graebn.) Podp.
  • Cuviera crinita(Schreb.) Podp.
  • Taeniatherum asperum(Simonk.) Nevski
  • Taeniatherum crinitum(Schreb.) Nevski
  • Elymus caput-medusae subsp. crinitus(Schreb.) Maire
  • Hordelymus asper(Simonk.) Beldie
  • Hordelymus caput-medusae subsp. asper(Simonk.) Pignatti
  • Hordelymus caput-medusae subsp. crinitus(Schreb.) Pignatti
  • Taeniatherum caput-medusae var. crinitum(Schreb.) Humphries
  • Taeniatherum caput-medusae subsp. asper(Simonk.) Melderis
  • Taeniatherum caput-medusae subsp. crinitum(Schreb.) Melderis

Taeniatherum is a genus of Eurasian and North African plants in the grass family. [3] [4] [5]

Contents

The only recognized species is medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) which is native to southern and central Europe (from Portugal to European Russia), North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia), and Asia (from Turkey and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Kazakhstan). [2] [6] [7] [8] [9] It is also naturalized in southern Australia, Chile, and parts of North America. [10] [11] [12] [13]

This aggressive winter annual grass is changing the ecology of western rangelands in North America. [14] It was first observed in the United States in Oregon in 1903 by Thomas Howell. Forty-eight percent of the total land area of the United States is rangeland, pastureland, national parks, nature preserves, and other wildlands. These lands are essential for agriculture and for protecting the integrity of ecological systems. Natural areas contain many nonnative plant species that occur as self-sustaining populations in the continental United States, including medusahead. As of 2005, medusahead infested approximately 972,700 acres (3,936 km2) in the 17 western states (from North Dakota south to Texas and west to the Pacific coast), and spreads at an average rate of 12% per year. [15] As medusahead spreads, it can outcompete native vegetation in overgrazed rangelands, reduces land value, and creates a wildfire hazard. [16]

History and origin

Medusahead was first described Elymus caput-medusae by Carl Linnaeus. Nevski recommended in 1934 that the Russian types of medusahead should be classified in a separate genus, Taeniatherum. In the 1960s, it was suggested by Jack Major of the University of California that there are three geographic and morphologically distinct taxa: T. caput-medusae, T. asperum, and T. crinitum. After traveling in Russia, Major thought the proper classification for the plant introduced to North America was Taeniatherum asperum. The genus was revised in 1986 by the Danish scientist Signe Frederiksen. He made the previously mentioned distinct taxa into subspecies of Taeniatherum caput-medusae. [17]

The subspecies caput-medusae is a native species to Europe, and is mostly restricted to Spain, Portugal, southern France, Algeria, and Morocco. Subspecies crinitum is found from Greece and the Balkans east into Asia, and the range of subspecies asperum completely overlaps the other two subspecies. [17]

In Asia, medusahead is widespread in Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, and in the northern portion of Israel, inhabiting low mountains and plateau areas. It is both an agronomic and rangeland weed. It prefers soils rich in nitrogen, and is often found on stony or gravelly soils. Carbonized seeds of this weed have been found in early agricultural archaeological sites in Iran. Seeds were first found in strata corresponding to the early days of sheep and goat husbandry. [17]

Life cycle and growing habits

Medusahead is a winter annual, germinating in the fall and undergoing root growth in the winter and early spring. Since its roots develop early and reach deep in the soil, it outcompetes native plants for moisture. It flowers in early spring, and by June or July its seeds, which are covered with tiny barbs, are mature. The barbs help the seeds attach to livestock, humans or vehicles that pass by. As the grass grows it accumulates silica, making it unpalatable to livestock except for early in its life cycle. It creates a dense layer of litter, and because of the silica content, the litter decomposes more slowly than that of other plants. This litter suppresses native plant growth while encouraging the germination of its own seed, and after a few years it creates an enormous load of dry fuel that can lead to wildfires. [14]

Stands of medusahead vary in density from several hundred to 2,000 plants per square foot. This variance is directly related to annual precipitation, soil type, and other vegetation in the area. Research has suggested that medusahead is highly adaptable and can produce more seeds at a density of one plant per square foot than 1,000 plants per square foot. [14] Since it matures later than most other annuals, it is easy to identify as it is often bright green when the other annuals are brown. As it matures, it turns shades of purple and eventually tan. [14] This unique phenological signature can be utilized in the management of this invasive species. A recently developed method of assessing greenness in aerial color infrared (CIR) imagery using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values to differentiate between medusahead and other more desirable species may help land managers determine where control methods are necessary. [18]

Medusahead seeds disperse relatively short distances and dispersal decreases as distance from the plant increases. Seeds are very well adapted for dispersal by adhesion to moving objects. The relatively long period of medusahead seed dispersal from July to October may be an adaptation to increase the likelihood of adhesion to animals. [19]

Identification

Medusahead ranges in height from 20 to 60 centimeters. [20] It has slender, weak stems that often branch at the base. It has spike inflorescences similar to those of wheat or rye. The lemmas have long awns and the glumes have shorter ones, giving the seed head a layered look. [21] As the awns dry, they twist and spread in all directions, similar to the snake-covered head of the mythological Medusa. The barbs on the awns help the seed drive into the soil. [22] The grainlike seed may remain viable in the soil for a number of years. [14]

Effects on wildlife and grazing

The grazing capacity of land infested with medusahead can be reduced by up to 80%. [23] Wildlife habitat and biodiversity also suffer, and the weed can eventually lead to alterations in ecosystem functions. The impact medusahead can have on species relying on sagebrush is rarely mentioned. It can exacerbate the decline of sage-grouse (genus Centrocercus) as it replaces plant communities that provide critical habitat for the bird. [23]

Other species, such as mule deer and chukar partridges, tend to avoid areas overrun with medusahead because it is not a good food source. In the case of mule deer, a study in Oregon found that even though extensive stands of medusahead were available, those areas (when compared to other plant communities) were least preferred by feeding mule deer in winter, summer, and fall; and they ranked low in the spring. This decrease in feeding was related back to the dominance of medusahead, which deer do not eat, and the subsequent lack of forbs. [24] Chukar partridges will ingest medusahead seeds (caryopses ) if given no other choice. However, if they are given free access to all the medusahead seeds they will eat, they suffered from a significant loss in body weight. Largely undamaged seeds were found in their droppings, suggesting that the digestibility of medusahead by the birds was low. [25]

Control methods

No single control method will eradicate medusahead. For best results, it is often necessary use a form of integrated pest management that combines two or more of the following methods.

Mechanical

Plowing and disking are two methods of mechanical control. Both methods can effectively control medusahead and can reduce infestation by 65% to 95% the next growing season. Eradication of medusahead by mechanical control by itself is nearly impossible, but when followed by chemical control or revegetation chances for eradication increase dramatically. [14]

Burning

Fire is often considered a low cost method of improving rangeland condition. It has been given attention in the control of medusahead because many of the areas infested with it are too rocky or steep for other treatments. Control of medusahead with fire had differing results in California. In some areas, more desirable plant communities came back after a fire, while in other areas medusahead continued to dominate after fire. There are a few guidelines that should be followed when burning medusahead. The burn should be conducted when the seed is in the soft dough stage (when the seeds exude a milky substance when squeezed) in the late spring. The initial fire should be one that is slow burning, something that is easily achieved by burning into the wind. This prevents the fire from advancing too rapidly and ensures that the current year's herbage is burned and periods of maximum temperature are long enough to kill medusahead caryopses. Viable medusahead caryopses are found almost entirely in the litter and on the soil surface. [26]

Past studies on the effectiveness of burning may have given researchers false hope. The caryopses have severe temperature dependent afterripening requirements which prevent seeds from germinating at temperatures above 10˚C for about 180 days after maturity. If these conditions are met, many medusahead caryopses from the litter and soil in burned plots were viable. Since the seeds did not germinate during the afterripening period, researchers were misled into believing they were accomplishing more by burning than was actually the case. [26]

Chemical

Chemical control can be effective if used in conjunction with other control methods. Glyphosate (Roundup) applied at 0.375 lbs/acre in the early spring before seeds are produced can provide good results. This timing will also limit the damage to nontarget species that develop later in the growing season. Research suggests that burning before chemical application is more effective than chemicals alone. [14] In the late 1960s, a study was conducted that determined the effectiveness of paraquat on medusahead control in different areas of the United States. This study found that paraquat was effective in controlling medusahead in California, but did not suppress the grass in Reno, Nevada. This was significant because it determined that there was no effective herbicide for the simultaneous spraying and reseeding of medusahead infestations. [27]

Biological

Medusahead was found to be susceptible to certain root rot fungi including crown rot and take-all, but it was not susceptible to barepatch, browning root rot, and common root rot. The diseases did not reduce the overall weight of the roots, but take-all significantly reduced the overall dry weight of the aboveground shoots. Soil-borne pathogens can have a severe effect on grasses as long as the environmental conditions for the diseases are optimized. Take-all is associated with plants growing in high soil moisture, and like crown rot, it affected medusahead. In contrast, crown rot had the greatest impact on water-stressed plants and therefore may be an effective biological control of grassy weeds in the arid regions of the western U.S. It is also promising because it did not have a significant negative impact on desirable grasses such as western wheatgrass. [28]

Grazing

Grazing alone is not a good method of medusahead control. For best results, grazing is used as part of an integrated program. It is an efficient management tool as long as the timing and duration of grazing are controlled properly. For example, if grazing is carried out in conjunction with revegetation, the desirable grasses must be established before the grazing can take place, otherwise the revegetation will be futile. In areas where desirable grasses have completed their life cycle by the winter or early spring, grazing during this time can help reduce medusahead. It should still be in a vegetative stage and therefore more palatable to livestock. Grazing in the late spring, summer, and fall is not recommended because it will give medusahead a competitive advantage as cattle graze species other than medusahead. If livestock grazing is a method used to control mature stands of medusahead, the livestock must be moved to a holding area for 10 days to two weeks and fed weed-free feed before they are moved to weed-free areas. This will prevent the seeds that pass through the animals from germinating in areas that are free of medusahead. [14]

Restoration

Revegetation should be a part of any medusahead management plan. If medusahead is not first controlled, reseeding an infested area will not be successful. The existing medusahead has to be controlled and especially not allowed to produce more seed, and the seed bank in the soil also has to be reduced. This usually takes two or three years, depending on soil moisture and growing conditions. After this, seedling of desirable species can become established. Combining a tillage treatment followed by herbicide is most effective in controlling the weed and promoting desirable plant growth. Squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, Thurber's needlegrass, needle and thread, Indian ricegrass, sandberg bluegrass, and sheep fescue are all competitive grasses that work well when renovating an area previously infested with medusahead in the western United States. [14]

Prevention

Since medusahead seeds are often spread by adhering to humans, animals, and vehicles, it is recommended to restrict these kinds of traffic in infestations to prevent the spread of medusahead. Narrow containment zones of around 3 meters would successfully suppress the invasion of medusahead to surrounding areas. [19]

Plant communities that have high densities of large perennial bunchgrasses are more resistant to medusahead invasion, so managing rangelands to promote and maintain large perennial bunchgrasses is critical to prevent the spread of medusahead. This will reduce the establishment of new infestations, but successful management will also require searching for and eradicating new infestations. Controlling new infestations is more effective, and often more feasible, than trying to control large infestations. [23]

Even if attempts to prevent and control new infestations are not entirely successful, these efforts will slow the rate of spread and give researchers and land managers more time to develop better prevention, restoration, and control methods. Also, slowing the rate of invasion helps promote rangeland health and productivity in areas that are most at risk of invasion. Without an active prevention program, this weed will continue to spread and increase its negative ecological and economical impacts. Managing medusahead may seem expensive per acre, but when all the acres that are protected by managing an infestation are considered, the price is very reasonable. And, when taking into account the rising land prices, the cost of medusahead management to the individual livestock producer is rapidly becoming more reasonable compared to purchasing additional acreage to offset production losses from medusahead invasion. [23]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rotational grazing</span> System of grazing moving animals between paddocks around the year

In agriculture, rotational grazing, as opposed to continuous grazing, describes many systems of pasturing, whereby livestock are moved to portions of the pasture, called paddocks, while the other portions rest. Each paddock must provide all the needs of the livestock, such as food, water and sometimes shade and shelter. The approach often produces lower outputs than more intensive animal farming operations, but requires lower inputs, and therefore sometimes produces higher net farm income per animal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weed control</span> Botanical component of pest control for plants

Weed control is a type of pest control, which attempts to stop or reduce growth of weeds, especially noxious weeds, with the aim of reducing their competition with desired flora and fauna including domesticated plants and livestock, and in natural settings preventing non native species competing with native species.

<i>Bromus tectorum</i> Species of grass

Bromus tectorum, known as downy brome, drooping brome or cheatgrass, is a winter annual grass native to Europe, southwestern Asia, and northern Africa, but has become invasive in many other areas. It now is present in most of Europe, southern Russia, Japan, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, North America and western Central Asia. In the eastern US B. tectorum is common along roadsides and as a crop weed, but usually does not dominate an ecosystem. It has become a dominant species in the Intermountain West and parts of Canada, and displays especially invasive behavior in the sagebrush steppe ecosystems where it has been listed as noxious weed. B. tectorum often enters the site in an area that has been disturbed, and then quickly expands into the surrounding area through its rapid growth and prolific seed production.

<i>Onopordum acanthium</i> Species of flowering plant in the daisy family Asteraceae

Onopordum acanthium is a flowering plant in the family Asteraceae. It is native to Europe and Western Asia from the Iberian Peninsula east to Kazakhstan, and north to central Scandinavia, and widely naturalised elsewhere, with especially large populations present in the United States and Australia. It is a vigorous biennial plant with coarse, spiny leaves and conspicuous spiny-winged stems.

<i>Halogeton glomeratus</i> Species of flowering plant

Halogeton glomeratus is a species of flowering plant in the family Amaranthaceae known by the common names saltlover, Aral barilla, and halogeton. It is native to Russia, Central Asia and China, but the plant is probably better known in the western United States, where it is an introduced species and a notorious noxious weed. This annual herb is a hardy halophyte, thriving in soils far too saline to support many other plants. It also grows in alkali soils such as those on alkali flats and disturbed, barren habitat. It can be found in sagebrush and shadscale habitat, and it grows well in areas with cold winters.

<i>Melilotus albus</i> Plant species in the bean family

Melilotus albus, known as honey clover, white melilot (UK), Bokhara clover (Australia), white sweetclover (US), and sweet clover, is a nitrogen-fixing legume in the family Fabaceae. Melilotus albus is considered a valuable honey plant and source of nectar and is often grown for forage. Its characteristic sweet odor, intensified by drying, is derived from coumarin.

<i>Aegilops triuncialis</i> Species of grass

Aegilops triuncialis, or barbed goatgrass, is a grass species of the family Poaceae. It is a winter annual native to many areas in Eastern and Mediterranean Europe and Western Asia. It is considered an introduced, invasive species in North America, mainly in the Western coast of the United States. In its native lands, the grass thrives in mainly rocky, serpentine soil, but also does well in grasslands and ruderal/disturbed ground as well as oak woodlands.

<i>Agropyron cristatum</i> Species of grass

Agropyron cristatum, the crested wheat grass, crested wheatgrass, fairway crested wheat grass, is a species in the family Poaceae. This plant is often used as forage and erosion control. It is well known as a widespread introduced species on the prairies of the United States and Canada.

<i>Echium plantagineum</i> in Australia Species of flowering plant

Paterson's curse or Salvation Jane is an invasive plant species in Australia. There are a number of theories regarding where the name Salvation Jane originated, and it is mostly used in South Australia. These explanations include "salvation jane" referring to the flower which looks similar to the bonnets of Salvation Army ladies, its “salvation” to beekeepers because it is often in flower when the honeyflow is down, and due to its use as a source of emergency food for grazing animals when the less drought-tolerant grazing pastures die off. Other names are blueweed, Lady Campbell weed, Riverina bluebell, and purple viper's bugloss.

<i>Carthamus lanatus</i> Species of flowering plant

Carthamus lanatus is a species of thistle known as woolly distaff thistle, downy safflower or saffron thistle. It is closely related to safflower. This annual plant is a native of the Mediterranean Basin, but it is familiar in other places where it was introduced and has become a noxious weed, such as in parts of North America and southern Australia with similar climates.

<i>Pseudoroegneria spicata</i> Species of grass

Pseudoroegneria spicata is a species of perennial bunchgrass known by the common name bluebunch wheatgrass. It is native to western North America.

Medusahead is the common name of more than one species of plant, including:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land imprinter</span>

The land imprinter is a no-till device for establishing grass cover in arid environments and deserts. The imprinter consists of a metal roller, with steel angles welded to the surface in various configurations. The angled teeth of the imprinter cut through weeds and brush to form a mulch, while the teeth press seeds of grasses and other plants into the soil. The imprints remain stable for approximately two years. During that time, imprints funnel water toward seedlings, protect them from wind, and concentrate nutrients for plant growth.

<i>Elymus lanceolatus</i> Species of grass

Elymus lanceolatus is a species of grass known by the common names thickspike wheatgrass and streamside wheatgrass. It is native to North America, where it is widespread and abundant in much of Canada and the western and central United States. There are two subspecies, subsp. lanceolatus occurring throughout the species' range and subsp. psammophilus occurring in the Great Lakes region.

<i>Artemisia filifolia</i> Species of flowering plant

Artemisia filifolia, known by common names including sand sagebrush, sand sage and sandhill sage, is a species of flowering plant in the aster family. It is native to North America, where it occurs from Nevada east to South Dakota and from there south to Arizona, Chihuahua, and Texas.

<i>Calochortus coxii</i> Species of flowering plant

Calochortus coxii is a rare species of flowering plant in the lily family known by the common names Cox's mariposa lily and crinite mariposa lily. It is endemic to Oregon in the United States, where it is known only from Douglas County.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecologically based invasive plant management</span>

Ecologically based invasive plant management (EBIPM) is a decision-making framework to improve the management of invasive plant species. When land managers are faced with infestations of invasive plants, a step by step framework to develop integrated management plans will improve their success at managing these plants. EBIPM is founded on the principles of ecology to manage invasive weed infestations and restore landscapes. The framework combines an ecosystem health assessment, a method to recognize how ecological processes affect causes of succession, ecological principles to guide the choices of tools and strategies to manage invasive plants and how to use adaptive management to generate a step-by-step decision model. The focus of EBIPM is to encourage managers to move away from simply killing the weeds and move toward management efforts that repair the underlying causes of invasion.

<i>Centaurea stoebe</i> Species of flowering plant in the family Asteraceae

Centaurea stoebe, the spotted knapweed or panicled knapweed, is a species of Centaurea native to eastern Europe, although it has spread to North America, where it is considered an invasive species. It forms a tumbleweed, helping to increase the species' reach, and the seeds are also enabled by a feathery pappus.

<i>Euphorbia virgata</i> Species of flowering plant

Euphorbia virgata, commonly known as leafy spurge, wolf's milk leafy spurge, or wolf's milk is a species of spurge native to Europe and Asia, and introduced in North America, where it is an invasive species.

Annual grasslands are a type of grassland ecosystem characterized by the dominance of annual grasses and forbs. They are most commonly found in regions with Mediterranean climates, such as California, and provide important habitats for a variety of wildlife species.

References

  1. ↑ In: Trudy Sredne-Aziatskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 8b, Botanika 17: 38. 1934. "Name – Taeniatherum Nevski". Tropicos. Saint Louis, Missouri: Missouri Botanical Garden . Retrieved April 15, 2010. Type Specimens: Taeniatherum crinitum (Schreb.) Nevski
  2. 1 2 Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families
  3. ↑ Nevski, Sergei Arsenjevic. 1934. Trudy Sredne-Aziatskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 8b, Botanika 17: 38
  4. ↑ Grassbase – The World Online Grass Flora
  5. ↑ Frederiksen, S. 1986. Revision of Taeniatherum (Poaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 6(4): 389–397
  6. ↑ Altervista Flora Italiana genere Taeniatherum
  7. ↑ Danin, A. (2004). Distribution Atlas of Plants in the Flora Palaestina area: 1–517. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem
  8. ↑ Cope, T.A., Knees, S.G. & Miller, A.G. (2007). Flora of the Arabian peninsula and Socotra 5(1): 1–387. Edinburgh University Press
  9. ↑ Dobignard, D. & Chatelain, C. (2010). Index synonymique de la flore d'Afrique du nord 1: 1–455. Éditions des conservatoire et jardin botaniques, Genève
  10. ↑ Biota of North America 2013 county distribution map
  11. ↑ Meghan Skaer, 24 Jan 2014, Global Invasions Network, New Kid on the Block: A novel invader in an invaded community
  12. ↑ Ausgrass2, Grasses of Australia, Taeniatherum caput-medusae
  13. ↑ Zuloaga, F.O., Morrone, O., Belgrano, M.J., Marticorena, C. & Marchesi, E. (eds.) (2008). Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares del Cono Sur. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 107: 1–3348
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Zimmerman, J.R., et al. Medusahead: Economic Impact and Control in Nevada. University of Nevada-Reno Fact Sheet FS-02-37.
  15. ↑ Duncan, C.A., et al. (2004). Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technology 18:1411–1416
  16. ↑ Dremann, Craig C. Field Notebook No. 260, page 20, Soil samples from the U.C. Sierra Foothill Research & Extension Center, Browns Valley, CA. June 2016
  17. 1 2 3 Kostivkovsky, V. and J. A. Young. (2000). Invasive exotic rangeland weeds: A glimpse at some of their native habitats. Rangelands 22:6 3–6.
  18. ↑ Malmstrom, C.M., H.S. Butterfield, L. Planck, C.W. Long, and V.T. Eviner. (2017). Novel fine-scale aerial mapping approach quantifies grassland weed cover dynamics and response to management. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0181665.
  19. 1 2 Davies, K. W. (2008). Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61: 110–115.
  20. ↑ Jepson Manual Treatment
  21. ↑ Stubbendieck, J.L., et al. (2004). North American Wildland Plants: A Field Guide. University of Nebraska Press.
  22. ↑ US Forest Service Fire Ecology
  23. 1 2 3 4 Davies, K.W. and D. D. Johnson. (2008). Managing medusahead in the intermountain west is at a critical threshold. Rangelands. 30:13–15
  24. ↑ Bodurtha, T.S., et al. (1989). Mule deer habitat use related to succession in a bunchgrass community. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:2 314–319.
  25. ↑ Savage, D.E., et al. (1969). Utilization of medusahead and downy brome caryopses by Chukar Partridges. The Journal of Wildlife Management 33:4 975–978.
  26. 1 2 Young, J.A., et al. (1972). Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. Journal of Range Management 25:5 372–375.
  27. ↑ Young, J.A., et al. (1971). Response of medusahead to paraquat. Journal of Range Management 24:1 41–43.
  28. ↑ Grey, W.E., et al. (1995). Potential for biological control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) with crown and root rot fungi. Weed Technology 9:2 362–365.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.