Plant Materials Today, October 2009 Issue

A Quarterly Newsletter of the Montana/Wyoming Plant Materials Program

If you encounter any problems with the file provided on this page, please contact Technical Resources at 406-587-6822.

Volume 16, Number 4, October 2009.

This is a quarterly field office newsletter to transfer plant materials technology, services, and needs. The plant materials personnel will be featuring short articles on project results, new cultivar releases and establishment techniques, seed collection, and field planting needs, and so forth. All offices are encouraged to submit articles about plant material-related activities relative to plant performance, adaptation, cultural and management techniques, etc. Direct inquiries to USDA NRCS, Plant Materials Center, 98 South River Road, Bridger, MT 59014, Phone 406-662-3579, Fax 406-662-3428; or Jim Jacobs, Plant materials Specialist, USDA NRCS Montana State Office, Federal Bldg., Rm 443, 10 East Babcock Street, Bozeman, MT 59715-4704, Phone 406-587-6995, Fax 406-587-6761.

• BPMC Welcomes New Employees
• Teaming Up to Test Forages
• Weed Management in Wildflower Seed Production Fields
• Field Plantings 2010
• Montana Noxious Weed Technical Notes

This newsletter is also available in Adobe Reader format.

Plant Materials Today, October 2009 (PDF; 84 KB)

BPMC Welcomes New Employees

Hi, my name is Ross Oyler.  I am the new Biological Science Technician at the BPMC, as of June 2009. My duties include irrigating, spraying, cultivating, harvesting, seed processing, and maintenance of farm equipment. I will also be very active in maintaining cooperative projects for the National Park Service and the Development of Acid and Heavy Metal-Tolerant Releases Project (DATR). I spent the first 24 years of my life in Bozeman, Montana (Go Cats!), moving to Bridger in the fall of 1997 after marrying my wife Sonya. We have two beautiful girls Alyssa 11, and Serena, 7. Our hobbies included hunting and fishing, and then a little more fishing if we don’t have any cattle to gather or work.

Hi. I’m Bob Fisher, a part-time biological technician for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) project at the BPMC, effective September 2009. I’ve worked for over a year in different projects at the BPMC, involving native plant container production, seed harvest and processing, and equipment maintenance. The variety of work keeps me interested. My former job was as a supervisor for a Northwestern Energy gas field where I retired after 35 years. The outside interests I enjoy include hunting, fishing, camping, gardening, and wood working. My wife, Kea, and I enjoy spending time with our 4 grandchildren. People say I can fix anything, and I do admit to being handy and like to troubleshoot. I’ve been on the Bridger Volunteer Fire Department for 18 years.

Teaming Up to Test Forages

There is a continual need for current forage grass production research by livestock producers in Montana and Wyoming. To satisfy that demand, four cool-season grass variety trials were established in early May of 2009 at MSU’s Central Agricultural Research Center (CARC) at Moccasin and the Northern Agricultural Research Center (NARC) at Havre. Each of these trials is a randomized complete block design with four replications.

At Havre, a dryland trial was planted, composed of 17 species of 32 varieties. In addition, an irrigated variety trial was established, consisting of 17 varieties of 12 species; included were two grass/legume mixtures.

At the CARC, the same dryland trial was planted, along with an alternate-row, grass/alfalfa trial. It was composed of 12 grass species and ‘Shaw’ alfalfa planted in alternate rows. This means there is a row of grass, then a row of alfalfa, a row of grass, a row of alfalfa and so on. Percentage stand measurements were taken in early August on all four of these trials and several significant differences were noted among the varieties of the same species in the dryland trial at Moccasin and the irrigated trial at Havre. Look for the preliminary findings in a future issue of the newsletter.

Future plans are for forage harvests to be taken at both locations in early June and late September 2010-2014. In 2015, the dryland trial at Havre will be fenced for observing sheep preference/palatability of these cool-season grasses. Appreciation is extended to the cooperators of the trials: Superintendent Dave Wichman at MSU-CARC and Dr. Darrin Boss, Animal Scientist, and Julia Dafoe, Technician, at MSU-NARC. Interested central and northern Montana producers and County Extension agents will have the chance to view these trials at Field Days beginning in the summer of 2010.

The alternate-row grass/alfalfa and irrigated grass variety trials will be established at the BPMC via a dormant planting in November 2009.

Roger Hybner, PMC Manager

Updates from the Plant Materials Specialist

Weed Management in Wildflower Seed Production Fields

The BPMC’s April 2009 newsletter reported on the effects of broadleaf herbicides on wildflower seedlings grown in a controlled environment greenhouse. We learned linuron (Lorox®) reduced the growth of blanketflower, halosulfuron (Permit®) and imazapic (Plateau®) injured and reduced the growth of prairie coneflower, blanketflower, and silverleaf phacelia; and pendimethalin (Prowl®) was the least injurious of the four herbicides tested. But what happens in the real world of the seed production field?

We are starting to get some answers from a study done by Jessie Wiese, Masters of Science from Montana State University at Bozeman. Jessie’s field experiments at the Bridger PMC and Bozeman looked at the performance of silverleaf phacelia, blanketflower, white prairie clover, fuzzytongue penstemon, and prairie coneflower under different combinations of weed management treatments. These included the pre-emergence herbicide trifluralin (Treflan®), the post-emergence herbicides listed above, and hand weeding. Jessie started with well prepared, firm, weed-free seed beds. At each of the planting sites, trifluralin treatments were applied approximately 1 week prior to seeding in late October and early November 2006, and the post-emergence herbicides were applied in June 2007 and May 2008. Hand weeding was done throughout the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons.

The preliminary analysis is showing some interesting field results. For example, at Bridger, trifluralin interacted with imazapic to reduce the density of blanketflower in both hand-weeded plots and plots that were not hand weeded. In the weeded plots where only imazapic was sprayed, there were 4.6 plants per row foot compared to 2.5 plants per row foot where both imazapic and trifluralin were sprayed. Where there was no hand weeding, the density reduction was from 2.9 to 1.5 plants per row foot. Also, pendimethalin, the least injurious herbicide in the greenhouse experiment, reduced blanketflower density in the field when combined with trifluralin. The precautionary lessons from these results are to be careful how herbicide chemistries are combined, and to keep track of where in production fields herbicides with long residual activities are applied to avoid unintended injurious herbicide interactions. In addition to Jessie’s study, the BPMC will be analyzing their study’s data on the effects of broadleaf herbicide applications in wildflower seed production fields.

As we crunch the numbers from these data sets, our aim is to write a technical note with recommendations on weed control for the wildflower species tested. What we can recommend now is to start with a firm, weed free seed bed, hand weed during establishment or use weed cloth, and use broadleaf herbicides only when weeds become unmanageable by hand labor. With the focus of many programs in the 2008 Farm Bill on pollinators, wildlife such as sage-grouse, and plant community diversity, we anticipate the demand for native wildflower seed to increase. To meet this demand, and to keep the price of conservation seed mixes reasonable, we need more producers growing wildflower seed.

Field Plantings 2010

It’s never too soon to plan for Field Plantings. Field Plantings are our way of testing new releases and new technology under conditions producers normally experience. We improve our understanding of how plant materials or technology perform throughout our service region.

In 2010, we are again looking for severe noxious weed infestations to try innovative revegetation techniques. If there is one thing we’ve learned battling noxious weeds, it is no weed control method - whether chemical, biological, or mechanical - will be effective for very long unless there are competitive desirable plants to fill the voids left by eliminating the weed. Where there are severe infestations, the competitive plants have often been lost through mismanagement or weed competition--these are the types of sites we want. Restoring competitive plants involves herbicidal control of the weed(s) and proper seeding of the desirable plant species. We learn how the seeded plants tolerate the chemical and how they compete with re-emerging weeds under different management scenarios. What is ideal about the Field Plant process is the plantings are evaluated for 10 years (years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10) and this gives us the long-term picture, one not often seen in weed management research.

We also want to address some of the other conservation issues currently challenging the Field Offices and the producers they serve. On the top of the list are pollinator habitat, sage-grouse habitat, and plant community diversity. We need more information on how forbs and shrubs establish, survive, and function to address resource concerns throughout our region. And, if there are producers interested in wildflower seed production, we can discuss seed quantity and quality as part of the evaluation variables.

Look for our call for field plantings in the winter newsletter and the list of plant species we have seed available. Don’t let that be a limitation though, if you have a species you would like to try; we can try to get the seed.

Montana Noxious Weed Technical Notes

Speaking of noxious weeds, we all know there are good, bad, and really bad plant materials. The really bad ones, noxious weeds, have characteristics like rapid growth rates, high seed production, persistent rhizomes, and the ability to tolerate stress and adapt to a changing environment (hmmm, some of the very characteristics we would like to see in our desirable species). We spend considerable time, energy, and money to reduce the influence of noxious weeds on agriculture. In order to help the Field Office folks advise producers on cost-effective and sustainable noxious weed management, I have been writing technical notes for each of Montana’s listed noxious weeds (there’s job security since the list keeps growing).

The technotes focus on the biology and ecology of the weeds and the most recent technology on their management. The biology and ecology part is important because knowing how weed populations establish, grow, and move are fundamental to preventing invasion and developing management strategies for different phases of infestation from initial establishment to naturalized populations. And, each weed is different. Knowing the life cycle of the weed helps target management to hit the weed’s weaknesses for the most cost effective method of control. The most recent noxious weed technotes can be found on the Bridger PMC website. All the ones completed to date are located on the Montana NRCS website under Technical Resources, Invasive Species, and Invasive Species Technical Notes. Check them out; the most recent one is on blueweed. You probably don’t have it, but you can learn why you don’t want it, and how to reduce the risk of getting it. You will also find a technote on revegetating a leafy spurge infested pasture, developing weed prevention areas, and links to other invasive species resources.

By Jim Jacobs, PM Specialist.

< Back to Plant Materials Publications

Last Modified: 10/30/2009