Volume 29, Issue S1 e13219
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effectiveness and costs of invasive species control using different techniques to restore cerrado grasslands

Geissianny B. Assis

Geissianny B. Assis

Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, campus de Três Lagoas, Av. Ranulpho Marques Leal, 3484, Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul, 79620-080 Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Natashi A. L. Pilon

Natashi A. L. Pilon

Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, P.O. Box 6109, Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-865 Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Marinez F. Siqueira

Marinez F. Siqueira

Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Pacheco Leão, 915, Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 22460-030 Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Giselda Durigan

Corresponding Author

Giselda Durigan

Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, P.O. Box 6109, Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-865 Brazil

Floresta Estadual de Assis, Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo, P.O. Box 104, Assis, São Paulo, 19802-970 Brazil

Address correspondence to G. Durigan, email [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 June 2020
Citations: 44

Author contributions: GD, GBA, MFS conceived and designed the research; GBA, GD, NALP performed the experiments; GBA, NALP analyzed the data; GBA wrote the first draft of the manuscript; all other authors contributed critically to the draft and gave final approval for publication.

Guest Coordinating Editor: Lars Brudvig

Abstract

Invasion by exotic grasses is a severe threat to neotropical grasslands conservation and a major challenge for their restoration. To restore fire-prone cerrado grasslands in southeastern Brazil, which have been massively invaded by the African grass Urochloa decumbens, we tested prescribed fire, herbicides, and hoeing, by themselves or in different combinations. Techniques were compared using ecological indicators (decreasing invasive and increasing native vegetation cover and richness) and cost-effectiveness. All treatments, except fire alone, were similarly effective in controlling the invasive grass, which was reduced to less than 5% cover after 2 years. However, only hoeing was effective in recovering both ground cover and richness of the native vegetation, which was the restoration goal. Despite not changing ground cover by native vegetation or alien grasses, fire was successful as a complementary technique, by depleting the seed bank of the invasive grass by 40%. Hoeing preceded by fire and followed by a grass-selective herbicide was the most cost-effective, requiring US$40 per hectare to increase native ground cover by one percentage point compared to US$93 per hectare if only hoeing. Despite the low cost and efficacy of glyphosate application for controlling the invasive grass, it must be followed by reintroducing the native ground cover through active restoration. If the restoration target is to recover both structure and richness of the native vegetation without planting, hoeing is the best solution to control alien grasses.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.