Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (9) (learn more)

Overview

Comprehensive Description

Derivation of specific name

inermis: unarmed, without spines
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© Mark Hyde, Bart Wursten and Petra Ballings

Source: Flora of Zimbabwe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments

The majority of Brome grasses (Bromus spp.) have been introduced from Eurasia (either deliberately or accidentally). Many of these species are weedy and aggressive, and Smooth Brome is no exception. It can be distinguished from other Brome grasses by the absence of awns on its spikelets (rarely with awns up to 2 mm. long); almost all other Brome grasses in Illinois have spikelets with conspicuous awns (greater than 2 mm. long). An exception is Bromus catharticus (Rescue Grass), which has been collected only once in Champaign County, Illinois. Rescue Grass is occasionally planted in the southern states as a source of winter forage. It is an annual grass with leaf blades up to ¼" (6 mm.) across. In contrast, Smooth Brome is a perennial grass with leaf blades greater than ¼" (6 mm.) across. Another common name of Bromus inermis is Hungarian Brome.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

This perennial grass is 2¼–3½' tall and usually unbranched. The culms are light green, hairless or short-pubescent, and terete. The blades of alternate leaves are up to 12" long and 16 mm. (2/3") across; they are greyish blue on the upper side, green on the lower side, hairless, and flat. The leaf blades are ascending to spreading and rather floppy in habit. The leaf sheaths are greyish blue, hairless, and closed, although they usually split open near the ligules. Each culm terminates in a panicle of floral spikelets about 4-8" long; the entire panicle has a tendency to lean sideways or droop from the weight of the spikelets. The branchlets of this panicle are ascending to spreading during the period of bloom, otherwise they are more erect and contracted. The branchlets occur in whorls along the central stalk of the inflorescence, and they often divide into secondary branchlets. These branchlets are green, hairless, and somewhat wiry. Each elongated spikelet is about ¾–1¼" (2-3 cm.) in length; it consists of a pair of glumes and 5-10 fertile lemmas that are arranged in 2 overlapping ranks. During the period of bloom, the spikelets are whitish green, sometimes with purplish or reddish tints. The glumes are about 5-7 mm. in length; they are elliptic-lanceolate, convex to slightly keeled along their outer surfaces, hairless, and shorter than the lemmas. The individual lemmas are about 8-12 mm. in length; they are elliptic-lanceolate, convex along their outer surfaces, hairless, and usually awnless. On rare occasions, some plants may have lemmas with awns up to 2 mm. in length. The outer surface of each lemma has several longitudinal veins. The blooming period occurs during early to mid-summer. Shortly afterwards, the spikelets and culms become light tan. Disarticulation of the spikelets is above the glumes. The elongated grains are about 8 mm. long and light tan or brown. The root system is fibrous and rhizomatous. Dense clonal colonies of plants are often formed from the rhizomes. Cultivation
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Bromus inermis, smooth brome, is a leafy, sod-forming, perennial, cool season grass that spreads by rhizomes. This species is both native and introduced. The stems vary in height from 2 to 4 feet. The plant produces numerous basal and stem leaves that vary in length from 4 to 10 inches. Frequently the leaves are marked by a transverse wrinkle resembling a “W” a short distance below the tip. The flower head develops a characteristic rich purplish-brown color when mature. The seed is produced in semi-compact 5 inch long panicles with ascending branches. The flat compressed seed is usually awnless, about 1/3 inch long, and smooth. There are approximately 136,000 seeds per pound. Smooth brome is the most widely used of the cultivated bromegrasses and has been cultivated in the U.S. since the early 1880s.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Alternative names

bromegrass, Austrian brome, Hungarian brome, Russian brome

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Range and Habitat in Illinois

Smooth Brome is a common grass that occurs in every county of Illinois (see Distribution Map). It was introduced as a pasture or forage grass from Eurasia. Habitats include railroad prairies, woodland edges, savannas, pastures, fallow fields, grassy areas along roads, weedy meadows, little-mowed areas of city parks, and waste areas. Smooth Brome has the capacity to invade native prairies and savannas to a greater extent than other Brome grasses (Bromus spp.) from Eurasia. If anything, its population within the state continues to increase. This grass is found primarily in degraded natural areas and habitats with a history of human-related disturbance, where it can form dense colonies that exclude other plant species. Faunal Associations
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: Bromus inermis Leyss. is a Eurasian species ranging from France to Siberia, apparently introduced in the United States by the California Experiment Station in 1884 (Kennedy 1899, Archer and Branch 1953).

Within the United States smooth brome has been introduced in the northeastern and northern Great Plains states as far south as Tennessee, New Mexico and California. It has become naturalized from the maritime provinces to the Pacific coast north to Alaska to California and through the plains states.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America

     AK  CA  CO  CT  DE  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA
     KS  KY  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MO  MT  NE
     NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR
     PA  RI  TN  TX  UT  VT  WA  WV  WI  WY
     DC  AB  BC  MB  NB  NF  NT  NS  ON  PE
     PQ  SK  YT

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Smooth brome is native to Eurasia.  In North America it occurs from
Alaska and all the Canadian provinces and territories south to southern
California and New Mexico, northern Oklahoma, and North Carolina
[6,61,67,90,99,110].
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 6.  Atkins, M. D.; Smith, James E., Jr. 1967. Grass seed production and        harvest in the Great Plains. Farmers' Bulletin 2226. Washington, DC:        U.S. Department of Agriculture. 30 p.  [5535]
  • 61.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]
  • 67.  Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.        Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p.  [13403]
  • 90.  Newell, L. C. 1973. Smooth bromegrass. In: Heath, M. E.; Metcalfe, D.        S.; Barnes, R. F., eds. Forage grasses and legumes. Ames, IA: Iowa State        University Press: 254-262.  [158]
  • 99.  Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of        the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of        North Carolina Press. 1183 p.  [7606]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    4  Sierra Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    7  Lower Basin and Range
    8  Northern Rocky Mountains
    9  Middle Rocky Mountains
   10  Wyoming Basin
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   12  Colorado Plateau
   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont
   14  Great Plains
   15  Black Hills Uplift
   16  Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution in Egypt

Nile region.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Source: Bibliotheca Alexandrina - EOL Ar

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Distribution

Native over much of Europe and temperate Asia.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Source: Bibliotheca Alexandrina - EOL Ar

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Gansu, Guizhou, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Jiangsu, Jilin, Liaoning, Nei Mongol, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Xizang, Yunnan [Japan, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan; SW Asia (Caucasus), Europe].
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution: Kashmir; Europe and temperate Asia.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution and adaptation

Smooth brome is best adapted to cooler climates and is generally hardier than tall fescue or orchardgrass. It is resistant to drought and extremes in temperature. This plant is very susceptible to disease in areas of high humidity. Smooth brome grows best on slightly acid to slightly alkaline well drained clay loam soils with high fertility but it will also grow well on lighter textured soils where adequate moisture and fertility are maintained. Smooth brome performs best in a pH range of 6.0 to 7.5. Stands are difficult to obtain and growth is poor on soils high in soluble salts.

Smooth brome is distributed throughout most of the United States. For a current distribution map, please consult the Plant Profile page for this species on the PLANTS Website.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

More info for the term: cool-season

Smooth brome is an exotic, cool-season grass from 1.3 to 3.2 feet
(0.4-1.0 m) tall.  Blades are flat.  The inflorescence is an open
panicle from 2.4 to 6.8 inches (6-17 cm) long bearing 6 to 11-flowered
spikelets.  Lemmas have short awns ( less than 2 mm) or are unawned [53,54,61].

Two principle types of smooth brome are recognized, the northern and
southern.  The northern type is weakly rhizomatous, with leaves well up
on the stem and short glumes.  A few northern cultivars are actually
bunchgrasses.  The southern type is strongly rhizomatous, with leaves
near the base of the stem and long glumes.  Other notable differences
are earlier spring growth of the southern type and more even growth of
the northern type through the growing season [55].

In a meadow in West Virginia on shallow silty loam, smooth brome roots
grew to a depth of 18 inches (46 cm), with most of the root biomass
occurring in the first 3 inches (7.6) of soil.  (Average root
productivity was 717.7 lbs/acre inch at 0-3 inches below ground [52].)
Witte [127] found roots as long as 9.4 feet (2.87 m).

Due to cloning, smooth brome is a long-lived species.  Plantings have
persisted for at least 60 years [98].
  • 127.  Witte, K. 1929. Beitrag zu den Grundlagen des Grasbaus. Landw. Jahrb.        69: 253-310.  [25717]
  • 52.  Gist, George R.; Smith, R. M. 1948. Root development of several common        forage grasses to a depth of eighteen inches. Journal of the American        Society of Agronomy. 40: 1036-1042.  [8138]
  • 53.  Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of        northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New        York Botanical Garden. 910 p.  [20329]
  • 54.  Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.        Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p.  [1603]
  • 55.  Hafenrichter, A. L.; Schwendiman, John L.; Harris, Harold L.; [and        others]
  • 61.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]
  • 98.  Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.        Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah        Division of Fish and Game. 183 p.  [4554]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Perennials, Terrestrial, not aquatic, Rhizomes present, Rhizome elongate, creeping, stems distant, Stems nodes swollen or brittle, Stems erect or ascending, Stems solitary, Stems caespitose, tufted, or clustered, Stems terete, round in cross section, or polygonal, Stem internodes hollow, Stems with inflorescence less than 1 m tall, Stems, culms, or scapes exceeding basal leaves, Leaves mostly cauline, Leaves conspicuously 2-ranked, distichous, Leaves sheathing at base, Leaf sheath mostly closed, Leaf sheath smooth, glabrous, Leaf sheath and blade differentiated, Leaf blades linear, Leaf blades 2-10 mm wide, Leaf blades mostly flat, Leaf blades mostly glabrous, Leaf blades scabrous, roughened, or wrinkled, Ligule present, Ligule an unfringed eciliate membrane, Inflorescence terminal, Inflorescence an open panicle, openly paniculate, branches spreading, Inflorescence a contracted panicle, narrowly paniculate, branches appressed or ascending, Inflorescence solitary, with 1 spike, fascicle, glomerule, head, or cluster per stem or culm, Inflorescence branches more than 10 to numerous, Flowers bisexual, Spikelets pedicellate, Spikelets laterally compressed, Spikelet 3-10 mm wide, Spikelets with 3-7 florets, Spikelets with 8-40 florets, Spikelets solitary at rachis nodes, Spikelets all alike and fertille, Spikelets bisexual, Spikelets disarticulating above the glumes, glumes persistent, Spikelets disarticulating beneath or between the florets, Glumes present, empty bracts, Glumes 2 clearly present, Glumes equal or subequal, Glumes distinctly unequal, Glumes shorter than adjacent lemma, Glumes 1 nerved, Glumes 3 nerved, Lemmas thin, chartaceous, hyaline, cartilaginous, or membranous, Lemma 5-7 nerved, Lemma glabrous, Lemma body or surface hairy, Lemma apex dentate, 2-fid, Lemma awnless, Lemma margins thin, lying flat, Lemma straight, Palea present, well developed, Palea membranous, hyaline, Palea shorter t han lemma, Palea longer than lemma, Palea 2 nerved or 2 keeled, Palea keels winged, scabrous, or ciliate, Stamens 3, Styles 2-fid, deeply 2-branched, Stigmas 2, Fruit - caryopsis, Caryopsis ellipsoid, longitudinally grooved, hilum long-linear, Caryopsis hairy at apex.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Dr. David Bogler

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Rhizomatous perennial; culms solitary or loosely tufted, up to 120 cm high. Leaf-blades up to 35 cm long, 4-8 mm wide, glabrous or sparsely ciliate on the margins; sheaths glabrous or very shortly pubescent. Panicle 10-20 cm long, usually rather dense, occasionally loose and open. Spikelets narrowly oblong, 8-13-flowered, 15-30(-35) mm long, pallid or slightly purple-tinged; glumes narrowly lanceolate, glabrous, the lower 3.5-8 mm long, 1-nerved, the upper 6-11 mm long, 3-nerved; lemmas oblong-lanceolate, the lower 9.5-13 mm long, 5-7-nerved, usually glabrous or often sparsely hairy at the base, rarely sparsely appressed hirsute all over, truncate at the tip, shortly and bluntly 2-toothed, awnless or with an awn up to 1.5 mm long, rarely the awn as much as 4-6 mm; palea almost as long as the lemma, ciliate on the back and keels or glabrous on the back; rhachilla pubescent; anthers (3-)3.5-5.5(-7) mm long.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Perennial, with spreading rhizomes. Culms loosely tufted, erect, 50–120 cm tall, glabrous or retrorsely hairy below nodes. Leaf sheaths glabrous or shortly hairy; leaf blades flat, 20–30 cm × 4–8 mm, both surfaces and margins scabrid, glabrous or margins sparsely ciliate, apex acuminate, ligule 1–2 mm. Panicle dense at first, spreading after anthesis, 10–20 cm; branches 3–5 per node, up to 10 cm, scabrid, each bearing 2–6 spikelets. Spikelets 15–25 mm, florets 6–12; rachilla internodes 2–3 mm, spinulose; glumes lanceolate, margins membranous, lower glume 4–7 mm, 1-veined, upper glume 6–10 mm, 3-veined; lemmas oblong-lanceolate,8–12 mm, 5–7-veined, glabrous, base scabrid, apex obtuse or emarginate; awn up to 3–4 mm, or awnless; palea shorter than lemma, keels ciliate. Anthers 3–4 mm. Fl. and fr. Jul–Sep. 2n = 14, 28, 56.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

The ascending or stiff branches of the open panicle are a key characteristic distinguishing Bromus inermis and Bromus erectus from a group of similar native bromegrasses. The awnless lemmas, from which the species derives its Latin name, distinguish Bromus inermis from both the introduced and similar Bromus erectus and from the native Bromus pumpellianus.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Synonym

Bromopsis inermis (Leysser) Holub; Bromus pskemensis Pavlov; Zerna inermis (Leysser) Lindman.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Type Information

Type fragment for Bromus inopinatus Brues
Catalog Number: US 3168443
Collection: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany
Verification Degree: Card file verified by examination of alleged type specimen
Preparation: Pressed specimen
Collector(s): B. Brues
Year Collected: 1904
Locality: Milwaukee, McKinley Park, along shores of Lake Michigan., Wisconsin, United States, North America
  • Type fragment: Brues, B. B. 1911. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. 17: 73.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany

Source: National Museum of Natural History Collections

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Range and Habitat in Illinois

Smooth Brome is a common grass that occurs in every county of Illinois (see Distribution Map). It was introduced as a pasture or forage grass from Eurasia. Habitats include railroad prairies, woodland edges, savannas, pastures, fallow fields, grassy areas along roads, weedy meadows, little-mowed areas of city parks, and waste areas. Smooth Brome has the capacity to invade native prairies and savannas to a greater extent than other Brome grasses (Bromus spp.) from Eurasia. If anything, its population within the state continues to increase. This grass is found primarily in degraded natural areas and habitats with a history of human-related disturbance, where it can form dense colonies that exclude other plant species. Faunal Associations
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: In its native range smooth brome grows on roadsides, riverbanks, edges of fields and woods and pastures. Bromus inermis was first recognized as a potential forage grass in Europe because of its drought resistance (Kennedy 1899).

Within the United States a variety of agricultural strains have been developed from two natural strains, a "northern" and a "southern" strain. The southern strain is more tolerant of drought and heat than the northern strain (Newell and Keim 1943).

Greenhouse and field tests in Wisconsin suggest that smooth brome has better root growth in sandy than in silty soils (Lamba et al. 1949). Artificial aeration of silt loam produced better root growth than in unaerated soils (Lamba et al. 1949). Smooth brome has a high mortality rate on organic soils (Myhr et al. 1966). The possible relationship between poor soil aeration and mortality has not been investigated. Tolerance of smooth brome to spring flooding is estimated at 24 days (Seamands 1979). Salt tolerance is considered "moderate" (Seamands 1979). The sun-loving habit of smooth brome is substantiated by research showing that seed production, numbers of shoots and rhizomes, and dry weight of all plant parts are reduced by shade (Watkins 1946, Dibbern 1947).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat characteristics

More info for the term: cover

Smooth brome is widely adapted to a variety of sites.  It is common in
riparian zones, valley bottoms, and dryland sites.  [48,56,119].  It is
adapted to all soil textures [49,55,90], although it may not thrive on
sand or heavy clay [119].  Smooth brome tolerates acid soils; it
comprised the dominant cover on a coal spoil of pH 4.5 in British
Columbia [56].  It does not grow on soils that are more than moderately
alkaline [55].  It is fairly saline tolerant [56].  Smooth brome grows
best on moist, well-drained soils [49], but tolerates poorly drained
soils [32].  Smooth brome is best adapted to regions receiving more than
15 inches (380 mm) of annual precipitation [98,119].  Eleven inches (280
mm) of annual precipitation is the minimum that will support smooth
brome without irrigation [98].

Some cultivars of smooth brome are adapted to northern latitudes and
high elevations [60,102].  Smooth brome persists to about 9,000 feet
(2,743 m) elevation in the northern Rocky Mountains [24,119] and to
about 11,000 feet (3,300 m) in the central and southern Rocky Mountains
[119].  General elevational ranges in several states are:

     from 7,000 to 10,000 feet (2,134-3,048 m) in Arizona [69]
     below 8,900 feet (2,700 m) in California [61]
     from 4,500 to 10,000 feet (1,372-3,048 m) in Colorado [57]
     from 4,096 to 10,352 feet (1,280-3,235 m) in Utah [121]
  • 102.  Sampson, Arthur W.; Chase, Agnes; Hedrick, Donald W. 1951. California        grasslands and range forage grasses. Bull. 724. Berkeley, CA: University        of California College of Agriculture, California Agricultural Experiment        Station. 125 p.  [2052]
  • 119.  Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful        in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington,        DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office        of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p.        Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023.  [2458]
  • 121.  Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry        C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,        UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.  [2944]
  • 24.  Brown, Ray W. 1973. Transpiration of native and introduced grasses on a        high-elevation harsh site. In: Ecology and reclamation of devestated        land. London: Gordon & Breach Science Publ., L.T.D.: 467-481.  [10702]
  • 32.  Coulman, B. E. 1987. Yield and composition of monocultures and mixtures        of bromegrass, orchardgrass and timothy. Canadian Journal of Plant        Science. 67: 203-213.  [2704]
  • 48.  Frank, Douglas A.; McNaughton, Samuel J. 1992. The ecology of plants,        large mammalian herbivores, and drought in Yellowstone National Park.        Ecology. 73(6): 2043-2058.  [18434]
  • 49.  Fulbright, Timothy E.; Redente, Edward F.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982.        Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume II:        Grasses and grasslike plants. FWS/OBS-82/29. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p.  [3709]
  • 55.  Hafenrichter, A. L.; Schwendiman, John L.; Harris, Harold L.; [and        others]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]
  • 57.  Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2d ed.        Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc. 666 p.  [6851]
  • 60.  Heide, O. M.; Hay, R. K. M.; Baugerod, H. 1985. Specific daylength        effects on leaf growth and dry-matter production in high-latitude        grasses. Annals of Botany. 55: 579-586.  [2844]
  • 61.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]
  • 69.  Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,        Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of        California Press. 1085 p.  [6563]
  • 90.  Newell, L. C. 1973. Smooth bromegrass. In: Heath, M. E.; Metcalfe, D.        S.; Barnes, R. F., eds. Forage grasses and legumes. Ames, IA: Iowa State        University Press: 254-262.  [158]
  • 98.  Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, Stephen B. 1968.        Restoring big-game range in Utah. Publ. No. 68-3. Ephraim, UT: Utah        Division of Fish and Game. 183 p.  [4554]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Rangeland Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following Rangeland Cover Types (as classified by the Society for Range Management, SRM):

More info for the term: cover

   Smooth brome occurs in most SRM Cover Types.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

More info for the term: cover

   Smooth brome occurs in most SAF Cover Types.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

   Smooth brome occurs in most FRES ecosystems.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Introduced agricultural weed.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Source: Bibliotheca Alexandrina - EOL Ar

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Gullies on slopes, roadsides, river banks, dominant species of mountain meadows; 1000–3500 m.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Dispersal

Establishment

A clean firm seedbed is needed. Due to the slow germination and establishment of smooth brome, spring seedings are especially preferred in the northern states. In southern areas, late summer seedings are a second option. Fall seedings should be made at least 6 weeks before a killing frost is expected. Seeding rates are typically 5-10 pounds per acre in mixtures, and about 15 pounds when seeded alone. When smooth brome is seeded in a mixture with alfalfa, the alternate row method will give the best results. For seed production plantings under irrigation, seed in rows 30 to 42 inches apart at a rate of 3 to 4 pounds per acre. Seedings should be drilled at a depth of 1/2 to 3/4 inch. If broadcast increase the seeding rate and cultipack after planting.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: association, cool-season, cover, forbs, litter, stand-replacing fire, tiller

If smooth brome is growing in association with a legume and an
increase in smooth brome productivity is desired, early spring rather
than late summer or early fall fire is generally recommended.
Late-season fire harms many legume species [62,74,94].

Fire control:  An important management goal in remnant prairie is to
maintain or increase diversity of native species and depress growth and
production of exotic invaders such as smooth brome.  Becker [11]
concluded that annual spring burning on Pipestone National Monument
prairie helped control smooth brome and other cool-season exotic
grasses, and that the structure, composition, and diversity of the
severely degraded native prairie was improved by annual burning.
Similarly, two consecutive spring fires on portions of an eastern South
Dakota tallgrass prairie where smooth brome was dominant reduced smooth
brome and Kentucky bluegrass coverage [15].

Blankespoor and Larson's [16] prescribed fire-water treatment study
suggests that prescribed late spring fire will most effectively control
smooth brome in wet years.  They recommend continuing a program of
prescribed burning through drier years, however.  Since they found that
smooth brome increased in importance without burning, and that increases
were greatest when initial smooth brome biomass was low, they concluded
that failing to burn smooth brome in dry years is likely to accelerate
its expansion.

For control, Willson [124] recommended burning smooth brome in late
spring after it has produced five or more green leaves per tiller;
unelongated tillers, which are not greatly damaged by fire, generally
have fewer than five green leaves per tiller.
 
Postfire plantings:  Smooth brome has been extensively planted to
increase forage and/or reduce erosion in burned areas
[14,29,34,35,61,79,106].  This practice has been questioned because
native species appear to be at least equally effective in reducing
erosion, and exotic grasses such as smooth brome may interfere with the
growth of native forbs and grasses [34].

Postfire plantings of smooth brome have been successful across a wide
range of habitats and climates.  For example, big sagebrush-threetip
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata-A. tripartita) rangeland in Idaho was
burned in summer 1937 and seeded with one of six grasses to reduce
sagebrush cover and increase forage production.  On plots seeded to
smooth brome, smooth brome yield increased from 57 pounds per acre in
1940 to 148 pounds per acre in 1948.  Sagebrush coverage was lower on
smooth brome plots than on plots of any of the five other grasses
planted [14].

In Montana smooth brome seeded in after stand-replacing fire in
lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) showed "fair" vigor (density of 4.4
plants/sq ft) on slopes with a southwestern exposure and "good" vigor
(density of 8.2 plants/sq ft) on slopes with a northeastern exposure
[45].

Litter accumulation:  Bleak [18] reported a 39 percent average rate of
decay of bagged smooth brome litter in direct contact with snow cover
over two consecutive winters.
  • 106.  Slinkard, A. E.; Nurmi, E. O.; Schwendiman, J. L. 1970. Seeding        burned-over lands in northern Idaho. Current Information Series No. 139.        Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Agriculture, Cooperative        Extension Service, Agricultural Experiment Station. 4 p.  [19669]
  • 11.  Becker, Donald A. 1989. Five years of annual prairie burns. In: Bragg,        Thomas A.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history        and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988        August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 163-168.        [14037]
  • 124.  Willson, Gary D. 1992. Morphological characteristics of smooth brome        used to determine a prescribed burn date. In: Smith, Daryl D.; Jacobs,        Carol A., eds. Recapturing a vanishing heritage: Proceedings, 12th North        American prairie conference; 1990 August 5-9; Cedar Falls, IA. Cedar        Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa: 113-116.  [24725]
  • 14.  Blaisdell, James P. 1949. Competition between sagebrush seedlings and        reseeded grasses. Ecology. 30(4): 512-519.  [461]
  • 15.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W. 1987. The effects of prescribed burning on a        tall-grass prairie remnant in eastern South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist.        19(3): 177-188.  [2757]
  • 16.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W.; Larson, Eric A. 1994. Response of smooth brome        (Bromus inermis Leyss.) to burning under varying soil moisture        conditions. American Midland Naturalist. 131: 266-272.  [23035]
  • 18.  Bleak, Alvin T. 1970. Disappearance of plant material under a winter        snow cover. Ecology. 51(5): 915-917.  [27328]
  • 29.  Clary, Warren P. 1988. Plant density and cover response to several        seeding techniques following wildfire. Res. Note INT-384. Ogden, UT:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research        Station. 6 p.  [5609]
  • 34.  Crane, M. F.; Habeck, J. R. 1982. Vegetative responses after a severe        wildfire on a Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. In: Baumgartner, David        M., compiler. Site preparation and fuels management on steep terrain:        Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 February 15-17; Spokane, WA. Pullman,        WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 133-138.        [18539]
  • 35.  Crane, M. F.; Habeck, James R.; Fischer, William C. 1983. Early postfire        revegetation in a western Montana Douglas-fir forest. Res. Pap. INT-319.        Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain        Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p. plus chart.  [710]
  • 45.  Evanko, Anthony B. 1953. Performance of several forage species on newly        burned lodgepole pine sites. Res. Note. 133. Missoula, MT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Rocky Mountain        Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.  [7905]
  • 61.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]
  • 62.  Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Prescribed        burning guidelines in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-760.        Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension        Service, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 36 p.        [14185]
  • 74.  Kruse, Arnold D.; Higgins, Kenneth F. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire        upon wildlife habitat in northern mixed-grass prairie. In: Alexander, M.        E.; Bisgrove, G. F., technical coordinators. The art and science of fire        management: Proceedings, 1st Interior West Fire Council annual meeting        and workshop; 1988 October 24-27; Kananaskis Village, AB. Inf. Rep.        NOR-X-309. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern        Forestry Centre: 182-193.  [14146]
  • 79.  Lyon, L. Jack. 1984. The Sleeping Child Burn--21 years of postfire        change. Res. Pap. INT-330. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p.        [6328]
  • 94.  Olson, Wendell W. 1975. Effects of controlled burning on grassland        within the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge. Fargo, ND: North Dakota        University of Agriculture and Applied Science. 137 p. Thesis.  [15252]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Broad-scale Impacts of Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: competition, cool-season, fire use, prescribed fire, warm-season

Late spring burning has sometimes been only marginally effective in
controlling smooth brome [23,93].  Kirsh [70] reported that smooth brome
was actually stimulated by an early May prescribed fire.  This variable
response may be due, in part, to the fact that control effects have been
targeted against several cool-season exotic grasses rather than smooth
brome alone.  Since phenologies of cool-season grasses differ, timing of
a particular fire may reduce other cool-season species but not smooth
brome [16].

In a defoliation experiment, Harrison and Romo [58] found that smooth
brome regrowth was related to both growth stage and soil moisture
conditions.  After defoliation in the vegetative stage, smooth brome
resumed growth in 45 to 75 growing days when soil moisture was
favorable.  Smooth brome did not resume growth until the next growing
season after clipping in dry years.  When plants were defoliated during
reproduction, new tillers did not emerge until the next fall regardless
of soil moisture conditions.

Blankenspoor and Larson [16] used a prescribed fire and watering
treatment to determine smooth brome's response to late spring (9 May,
1989) fire under low and high soil moisture levels.  They found the
following changes in percent smooth brome biomass after treatment:

               Burned     Unburned
               ------     --------
high-water     -17.0       +10.5
low-water       -8.2       +11.7
 
Decreases in the two burned treatments were significantly different
(p=0.05), but increases in the unburned treatments were not.  Apparently
when soil moisture is high, warm-season grasses are able to outcompete
fire-injured smooth brome for water.  With less soil moisture available,
warm-season grasses may be less able to take competitive advantage of
fire-injured smooth brome [16].

In the same study, Blankespoor and Larson [16] found that on unburned
plots, increases in smooth brome biomass were greatest on plots with low
initial smooth brome biomass.  This relationship approached significance
(p=0.06) for unburned, high-water plots and was strongly significant
(p=0.001) for unburned, low-water plots.  As a cool-season species with
substantial growth occurring early in the growing season, smooth brome
apparently encounters little competition from water-stressed,
warm-season plants in the absence of fire.

Lyon's Research Paper (Lyon 1971) provides further information on
prescribed fire use and postfire response of plant species including
smooth brome.
  • 16.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W.; Larson, Eric A. 1994. Response of smooth brome        (Bromus inermis Leyss.) to burning under varying soil moisture        conditions. American Midland Naturalist. 131: 266-272.  [23035]
  • 23.  Branhagen, Alan J. 1990. Gravel prairie, sedge meadow and fen        restoration underway at Kieselberg Forest Preserve. Restoration &        Management Notes. 8(2): 102-103.  [14157]
  • 58.  Harrison, T.; Romo, J. T. 1994. Regrowth of smooth bromegrass (Bromus        inermis Leyss.) following defoliation. Canadian Journal of Plant        Science. 74: 531-537.  [24126]
  • 70.  Kirsch, Leo M. 1974. Habitat management considerations for prairie        chickens. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2(3): 124-129.  [27330]
  • 93.  Old, Sylvia M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an        Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs. 39(4): 355-384.  [154]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: cool-season, cover, density, frequency, fuel, prescribed fire, tiller, warm-season

Early spring (late March-April) or late-season (late summer-fall) fire
can increase smooth brome productivity [62,65], especially when smooth
brome has become sod-bound.  Late spring fire generally damages
cool-season grasses such as smooth brome [8,82].  Old [93], Kirsch and
Kruse [71], and Blankespoor [15] have reported reductions in smooth
brome with late spring burning.

Old [93] attributed decreases in smooth brome after late April fire to
the advanced stage of development of smooth brome.  Rate of smooth brome
regrowth after fire cannot always be predicted based solely upon season
of burning and attendant phenological stage, however.  Blankenspoor and
Larson [16] cited soil moisture and nutrient levels and soil texture as
factors other than phenological stage that may affect smooth brome rate
of recovery.

In order to determine at which stage of growth smooth brome is most
susceptible to fire, Willson [124] prescribe-burned smooth brome at
tiller emergence (late March at the Mead, Nebraska, study site), tiller
elongation (mid-May), and heading (late May).  Late March fire had no
significant effect on smooth brome.  Mid-May or late May fire reduced
fall tiller density approximately 50 percent when compared to controls.

Examples of late spring fire:  Short- and mid-grass prairie of Pipestone
National Monument, Minnesota, was spring-burned (mid- to late April)
annually from 1983 to 1987.  The prairie had been severely degraded by
invasion of cool-season exotic grasses including smooth brome,
quackgrass (Elytrigia repens), and Kentucky bluegrass.  Fire severity
was low to moderate except in 1984, when high fuel levels were present.
Smooth brome postfire coverage was [11]:

             1984           1985          1987
             ----           ----          ----
season       spring        spring        summer 
cover (%)     21.3          22.4          26.4(a)
             -------------------------------------
             a = data pooled with quackgrass
 
Lack of flower and seed production was noted in the cool-season grasses
including smooth brome, while native warm-season grasses increased
height growth and seed production.  Height (cm) of smooth brome was
as follows [11]:

       Prefire                       Postfire
   --------------      -------------------------------------
        1983                1984            1985       1987
   ---------------     ---------------     ------     ------
   spring   summer     spring   summer     spring     summer   
     60       50         60       60         50         40

Smooth brome flowering was inhibited by a 2 May, 1972, prescribed fire in
Minnesota prairie [95]. 

Examples of fire in seasons other than late spring:  On the Rathbun
Wildlife Area in southern Iowa, smooth brome is managed as ring-necked
pheasant cover.  Smooth brome showed a significant (P less than 0.05) increase in
percent coverage following September or April prescribed burning.
February burning resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in smooth brome
coverage, with significant declines in smooth brome frequency in some
years [51]. 

A 22 April, 1983, prescribed fire on the Hillendale Game Farm of central
Pennsylvania increased smooth brome production.  On 5 October, 1983,
production was 69 kilograms per hectare on the unburned control and 612
kilograms per hectare on the burn [65].

In Iowa, three consecutive early spring (23-28 March, 1986; 11-12 April,
1987; 13-20 April, 1988) prescribed fires in pastureland excluded from
grazing had no significant effect on smooth brome.  On some plots,
atrazine was applied 7 to 10 days after burning; the fire plus atrazine
treatments had no significant effect on smooth brome [101].
  • 101.  Rosburg, Thomas R.; Glenn-Lewin, David C. 1992. Effects of fire and        atrazine on pasture and remnant prairie plant species in southern Iowa.        In: Smith, Daryl D.; Jacobs, Carol A., eds. Recapturing a vanishing        heritage: Proceedings, 12th North American prairie conference; 1990        August 5-9; Cedar Falls, IA. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern        Iowa: 107-112.  [24724]
  • 11.  Becker, Donald A. 1989. Five years of annual prairie burns. In: Bragg,        Thomas A.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history        and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988        August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 163-168.        [14037]
  • 124.  Willson, Gary D. 1992. Morphological characteristics of smooth brome        used to determine a prescribed burn date. In: Smith, Daryl D.; Jacobs,        Carol A., eds. Recapturing a vanishing heritage: Proceedings, 12th North        American prairie conference; 1990 August 5-9; Cedar Falls, IA. Cedar        Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa: 113-116.  [24725]
  • 15.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W. 1987. The effects of prescribed burning on a        tall-grass prairie remnant in eastern South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist.        19(3): 177-188.  [2757]
  • 16.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W.; Larson, Eric A. 1994. Response of smooth brome        (Bromus inermis Leyss.) to burning under varying soil moisture        conditions. American Midland Naturalist. 131: 266-272.  [23035]
  • 51.  George, Ronnie R.; Farris, Allen L.; Schwartz, Charles C.; [and others]
  • 62.  Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Prescribed        burning guidelines in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-760.        Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension        Service, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 36 p.        [14185]
  • 65.  Hughes, H. Glenn. 1985. Vegetation responses to spring burning in an        improved pasture in central Pennsylvania. In: Long, James N., ed. Fire        management: the challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a        symposium; 1985 April 17-19; Logan, UT. [Place of publication unknown]
  • 71.  Kirsch, Leo M.; Kruse, Arnold D. 1973. Prairie fires and wildlife. In:        Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9;        Lubbock, TX. Number 12. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:        289-303.  [8472]
  • 8.  Bailey, Arthur W. 1978. Use of fire to manage grasslands of the Great        Plains: Northern Great Plains and adjacent forests. In: Hyder, Donald        N., ed. Proceedings, 1st international rangeland congress; 1978 August        14-18; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 691-693.        [372]
  • 82.  Masters, Robert A.; Vogel, Kenneth P. 1989. Remnant and restored prairie        response to fire, fertilization, and atrazine. In: Bragg, Thomas B.;        Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and        culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988        August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 135-138.        [14030]
  • 93.  Old, Sylvia M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an        Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs. 39(4): 355-384.  [154]
  • 95.  Pemble, R. H.; Van Amburg, G. L.; Mattson, Lyle. 1981. Intraspecific        variation in flowering activity following a spring burn on a        northwestern Minnesota prairie. In: Stuckey, Ronald L.; Reese, Karen J.,        eds. The prairie peninsula--in the "shadow" of Transeau: Proceedings,        6th North American prairie conference; 1978 August 12-17; Columbus, OH.        Ohio Biological Survey: Biological Notes No. 15. Columbus, OH: Ohio        State University, College of Biological Sciences: 235-240.  [3435]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

Smooth brome is probably top-killed by fire.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: rhizome, tussock

   Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
   Tussock graminoid

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the term: litter

Most smooth brome cultivars are rhizomatous [56,110], and survive fire
by sprouting from rhizomes.  Weakly rhizomatous or bunchgrass types
probably regenerate after fire primarily by tillering.  Rates of
postfire recovery probably differ between cultivars, with rhizomatous
types recovering more quickly than bunchgrass types, but such
differences have not been documented in the literature.

Periodic early spring or fall fire promotes rhizomatous smooth brome by
removing litter from sod-bound plants [56,110].
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: cover, shrubs

Smooth brome generally invades after disturbance and persists
[19,20,37].  It is a common invader of disturbed prairie throughout the
Great Plains [112,125,126].  In Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming,
smooth brome cover was similar in young eastern cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), mature eastern cottonwood, and grassland areas [19].  Boggs
and Weaver [20] reported that along the Yellowstone River, moderate
grazing increased the occurrence of shrubs in mature eastern cottonwood,
and severe grazing converted the area to smooth brome, timothy (Phleum
pratense), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis).

Smooth brome tolerates moderate shade to full sun [49,56]
  • 112.  Tilman, David. 1987. Secondary succession and the pattern of plant        dominance along experim experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecological        Monographs. 57(3): 189-214.  [27331]
  • 125.  Wilson, Scott D. 1989. The suppression of native prairie by alien        species introduced for revegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 17:        113-119.  [6811]
  • 126.  Wilson, Scott D.; Belcher, Joyce W. 1989. Plant and bird communities of        native prairie and introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada.        Conservation Biology. 3(1): 39-44.  [27332]
  • 19.  Boggs, Keith Webster. 1984. Succession in riparian communities of the        lower Yellowstone River, Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University.        107 p. Thesis.  [7245]
  • 20.  Boggs, Keith; Weaver, T. 1992. Response of riparian shrubs to declining        water availability. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah,        Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and        management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley,        ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 48-51.  [19094]
  • 37.  D'Antonio, Carla M.; Vitousek, Peter M. 1992. Biological invasions by        exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review        of Ecological Systems. 23: 63-87.  [20148]
  • 49.  Fulbright, Timothy E.; Redente, Edward F.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982.        Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume II:        Grasses and grasslike plants. FWS/OBS-82/29. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p.  [3709]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the terms: cool-season, fresh

Smooth brome reproduces by seed, rhizomes, and tillers.  Spread by seed
has been rated moderate, and vegetative spread has been rated good [97].

Smooth brome is usually cross-pollinated [72,86], although it may
self-fertilize from different spikelets of the same plant [86].  McKone
[72] found that seed set was significantly lower in smooth brome than in
other brome species.  Insect herbivory has been cited as a factor
reducing seed set in smooth brome [86,91].  Seed yield of smooth brome
broadcast-planted in Michigan 174 pounds per acre when grown with
alfalfa and 121 pounds per acre when grown alone [122].  Seed has
remained viable for 22 months to over 14 years [49,55].  Seed stored in
a shed for 19 years showed 20 percent germination [66].  Seed requires
stratification to germinate.  Germinative capacity of fresh, stratified
seed has varied from 83 to above 95 percent in the laboratory [49].
Optimal temperatures for germination in the greenhouse were from 68 to
86 degrees Fahrenheit (20-30 deg C) [49].  Like all cool-season species,
however, smooth brome can germinate at lower temperatures.  Bleak [17]
reported that smooth brome seed sown in late fall to early winter in
central Utah germinated and produced roots and shoots under deep snow
cover.  Light enhances germination but is not required [49].

Seedling growth is rapid [56,59].  Knobloch [72], who described
germination and seedling development in detail, reported that 54 days
after sowing, greenhouse-grown seedlings had 150-millimeter-long roots,
five leaves, and had begun tillering.  Baker and Jung [9] found that
under greenhouse conditions, the optimal day temperature for growth was
between 64.9 and 76.8 degrees Fahrenheit (18.3-24.9 deg C), and that food
reserves were depleted less with low night temperatures than with warm
night temperatures.  Cultivars differ in rate of growth and drought
tolerance [30].
  • 122.  Wheeler, W. A.; Hill, D. D. 1957. Grassland seeds. The Grassland Farm        Series. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 734 p.  [25754]
  • 17.  Bleak, A. T. 1959. Germinative characteristics of grass seed under snow.        Journal of Range Management. 12: 298-302.  [27327]
  • 30.  Cook, C. W. 1943. A study of the roots of Bromus inermis in relation to        drought resistance. Ecology. 24(2): 169-182.  [231]
  • 49.  Fulbright, Timothy E.; Redente, Edward F.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982.        Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume II:        Grasses and grasslike plants. FWS/OBS-82/29. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p.  [3709]
  • 55.  Hafenrichter, A. L.; Schwendiman, John L.; Harris, Harold L.; [and        others]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]
  • 59.  Hassell, Wendell G.; Carlson, Jack; Doughty, Jim. 1983. Grasses for        revegetation of mountain sites. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy,        compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range &        wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin        Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden,        UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest        and Range Experiment Station: 95-101.  [1105]
  • 66.  Hull, A. C., Jr. 1974. Species for seeding arid rangeland in southern        Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 27(3): 216-218.  [2891]
  • 72.  Knobloch, Irving William. 1944. Development and structure of Bromus        inermis Leyss. Iowa State College Journal of Science. 19: 67-98.  [118]
  • 86.  McKone, Mark J. 1985. Reproductive biology of several bromegrasses        (Bromus): breeding system, pattern of fruit maturation, and seed set.        American Journal of Botany. 72(9): 1334-1339.  [1618]
  • 9.  Baker, Barton S.; Jung, G. A. 1968. Effect of environmental conditions        on the growth of four perennial grasses. I. Response to controlled        temperature. Agronomy Journal. 60: 155-158.  [202]
  • 91.  Nielson, E. L.; Burks, B. D. 1958. Insect infestation as a factor        influencing seed set in smooth bromegrass. Agronomy Journal. 50:        403-405.  [157]
  • 97.  Plummer, A. Perry. 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area        sites. In: Thames, J. C., ed. Reclamation and use of disturbed lands of        the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: 302-337.  [171]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: hemicryptophyte

  
   hemicryptophyte

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the term: graminoid

Graminoid

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: phenology

Smooth brome undergoes fall green-up.  Inflorescences are initiated
during cool, short fall days [90].  In colder climates, smooth brome is
dormant in winter.  It may remain green year-round in southern climates
[76].  Spring growth begins early in the season [110,107].  Lengthening
culms expose the panicles in late spring to early summer [90], and
smooth brome flowers in summer.  In Minnesota, flowering occurred from
early to late June [80,86].  It occurred in late May or early June in
Ames, Iowa, with later, sporadic flowering [72].  Phenology is delayed
in northern latitudes and high elevations.  Smooth brome on the Wasatch
Plateau of Utah flowers 85 to 102 days after snowmelt [44].  Seed
matures in early to late summer [49].  Smooth brome grows throughout the
growing season when soil water is adequate.  Under dry soil conditions
it becomes dormant, but it resumes growth when soils moisten [16].
  • 107.  Smoliak, S.; Penney, D.; Harper, A. M.; Horricks, J. S. 1981. Alberta        forage manual. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Agriculture, Print Media Branch. 87        p.  [19538]
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 16.  Blankespoor, Gilbert W.; Larson, Eric A. 1994. Response of smooth brome        (Bromus inermis Leyss.) to burning under varying soil moisture        conditions. American Midland Naturalist. 131: 266-272.  [23035]
  • 44.  Ellison, Lincoln. 1954. Subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau,        Utah. Ecological Monographs. 24: 89-184.  [861]
  • 49.  Fulbright, Timothy E.; Redente, Edward F.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982.        Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume II:        Grasses and grasslike plants. FWS/OBS-82/29. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p.  [3709]
  • 72.  Knobloch, Irving William. 1944. Development and structure of Bromus        inermis Leyss. Iowa State College Journal of Science. 19: 67-98.  [118]
  • 76.  Lamson-Scribner, F. 1900. Economic grasses. Bulletin No. 14. Washington,        DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Agrostology. 85 p.        [4282]
  • 80.  Marten, G. C.; Sheaffer, C. C.; Wyse, D. L. 1987. Forage nutritive value        and palatability of perennial weeds. Agronomy Journal. 79: 980-986.        [3449]
  • 86.  McKone, Mark J. 1985. Reproductive biology of several bromegrasses        (Bromus): breeding system, pattern of fruit maturation, and seed set.        American Journal of Botany. 72(9): 1334-1339.  [1618]
  • 90.  Newell, L. C. 1973. Smooth bromegrass. In: Heath, M. E.; Metcalfe, D.        S.; Barnes, R. F., eds. Forage grasses and legumes. Ames, IA: Iowa State        University Press: 254-262.  [158]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Flower/Fruit

Fl. & Fr.Per.: June-August.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Cycle

Persistence: PERENNIAL

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Expectancy

Perennial.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Source: Bibliotheca Alexandrina - EOL Ar

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Smooth brome is a cool season grass, beginning its growth early in the spring and growing late into the fall. New shoots emerge in the Chicago region as early as mid-March, when night temperatures are below freezing (Lamp 1952). Flowering primordia first become observable in early April in the Chicago region (Lamp 1952, Gall 1947) reaching 1 to 1.5 cm in length by early May near Ames, Iowa (Knobloch 1944).

Stem elongation varies from early May (Reynolds and Smith 1962) to late April in Wisconsin and Illinois (Lamp 1952). Boot stage is reached in mid-to-late May in Illinois and Wisconsin (Lamp 1952, Reynolds and Smith 1962, Knieval et al. 1971, Okajima and Smith 1964). In Illinois, plants are fully headed and blooming occurs during the first two weeks of June (Lamp 1952) whereas in Alberta, full head occurs in mid-June and pollination in July (Evans and Wilsie 1946). Seeds ripen in July in Illinois (Lamp 1952) and in August in Alberta (Evans and Wilsie 1946). Carbohydrate levels are lowest in the spring when the plant is at boot stage, but increase during internode elongation until heading (Teel 1956). In Wisconsin field studies, Reynolds and Smith (1962) report maximum total stored carbohydrates in mid-July when seed is mature, with smaller peaks in earliest spring in the pre-boot stage and in the fall.

Because of the importance of smooth brome as a forage crop, reliable seed crops are necessary and numerous studies have been conducted to determine the requirement for floral initiation and optimal conditions for seed production.

Smooth brome generally requires a period of vernalization under short day conditions followed by a long photoperiod for panicle production (Newell 1950, Kirshin et al. 1974, 1977) best fulfilled by short autumn days and longer spring days. The required time of exposure to low temperatures is short, 1 to 14 nights (Gardner and Loomis 1951) enabling some early- emerged spring shoots to grow under short days of early spring, be vernalized during a cold spell, and develop flowering panicles within the same year.

In greenhouse studies in the Chicago area, Lamp (1952) found a relationship between internode elongation and reproductivity. A minimum of 5 to 14 leaves must be developed during or before primordia formation if the plant is to flower in any given year. Flowering occurs at daylengths of 17 to 18 hours (Gall 1947, Evans and Wilsie 1946) when temperatures are warm. In Alberta studies Evans and Wilsie (1946) observed little flowering when air temperatures were below 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

Under experimental conditions the requirements for floral induction and flowering can differ from those reported above. Sprague (1948) observed some flowering in plants that had been maintained in a heated greenhouse and Allard and Evans (1941) report a critical period of 13 hours of daylength for flowering to occur.

Smooth brome is an open-pollinated self-incompatible species. Synchronous flowering is common (McKone 1985) with pollination occurring from plants up to 50 m away (Jones and Newell 1946). In Minnesota field studies seed set of open pollinated plants were 29% and in nurseries as high as 36% (Lowe and Murphy 1955) to 37% (Nielson 1951). The number of seeds produced has a very wide range. Lowe and Murphy (1955) report 47 to 160 seed heads per plant, with 156 to 10,080 viable seeds per plant. Maturing seeds are subject to predation by Itonidid midges and Chalcid flies (Nielson and Burks 1958). Kramer (1975) suggests that seeds may be transported and sequestered by ants, resulting in creation of new brome patches on anthills.

Smooth brome is a rhizomatous, sod-forming species. The first adventitious roots develop within 5 days of germination (Knobloch 1944). Rhizome formation begins as early as 3 weeks after germination (Wagner 1952) to as late as 6 months (Knobloch 1944).

The drought resistance of smooth brome is probably accounted for in part by its deeply penetrating root system. Dibbern (1947) reports Bromus roots reaching a depth of 4.7 feet. Lamba et al. (1949) found 21% by weight of brome roots between depths of 16 and 40 inches, 10% between 8 and 16 inches and 64% in the top 8 inches. This heavy concentration of total root mass near the surface is the result of smooth brome's creeping rhizomatous habit. Individual rhizomes are reported to have a longevity of one year (Evans and Ely 1935). Old brome fields develop a "sod bound" condition in which shoot density is reduced and symptoms of nitrogen deficiency are exhibited (Meyers and Anderson 1942). Benedict (1941) attributes this condition to a carbon/nitrogen imbalance (perhaps because of the sheer mass of dead rhizomes) but Grant and Sallans (1964) suggest that the decomposing roots may actually produce an allelopathic substance inhibitory to further brome root development.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Bromopsis inermis

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Bromopsis inermis

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 2
Specimens with Barcodes: 9
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Barcode data: Bromus inermis

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Bromus inermis

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 22
Specimens with Barcodes: 32
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TNR - Not Yet Ranked

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TNR - Not Yet Ranked

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TNR - Not Yet Ranked

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N4 - Apparently Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Status

Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). This plant has threatened status in Michigan.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Increase of 10 to >25%

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Comments: Smooth brome has been widely planted as a forage and cover crop. Although perhaps not as invasive as Poa pratensis, with which it often grows, it is highly persistent. It forms a dense sod that often appears to exclude other species, thus contributing to the reduction of species diversity in natural areas. Within the Rocky Mountain range of the native Bromus pumpellianus, hybrid introgression is occurring and disjunctive hybrid plants have also been found in the Great Lakes Region (Elliot 1949).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Pests and potential problems

Grasshoppers and seedling blight are influences that may impede establishment. Foliar diseases are more common in humid areas and seasons. The bromegrass seed midge, Stenodiplosis bromicola, can seriously hinder seed production.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Management Requirements: Bromus inermis has become established in overgrazed pastures and old fields, especially around the edges and in haystack areas. It is most often a problem in discrete patches which would appear to be amenable to selective treatment, but also appears to be invading native prairie from roadsides.

One of the difficulties in understanding how best to manage for Bromus inermis is that because of its cool season habit it is often lumped together with Poa pratensis both in research results and management decisions. Yet it appears from the species' biology and its response to various management experiments that there is a difference in the timing of the most susceptible phenological stages of the two species. Because there is some overlap in the species' times of vulnerability to fire or defoliation, dual management produces partial control of Bromus. Casual observation of the two species in southwestern Minnesota suggests that there can be a 2 to 2 1/2 week lag period between the optimal spring fire date for Poa (before it is in flower) and that for Bromus (when it is still in boot) (Sather, personal observation).

More effective management of smooth brome might be achieved by first understanding the relative proportions of Bromus inermis and Poa pratensis and their spatial distribution in the mosaic of the vegetation. Treatment schedules could then be adjusted to impact smooth brome in the boot stage in areas where it is the rightful target species.

MECHANICAL: Both experimental studies and management experience indicate that cutting smooth brome in the boot stage, i.e. while the flowering head is still enclosed within the sheath, is perhaps the most effective means of control. Martin (pers. comm.) reports successful reduction of Bromus inermis in Minnesota test plots when cut during boot stage, which occurs the time it reaches a height of 18 to 24 inches, in late May. The best conditions for damage are hot, moist weather at the time of cutting, followed by a dry period (Martin pers. comm). Experimental studies comparing the effects of growth stage and height at time of cut in Saskatchewan suggest that the greatest subsequent winter injury can be attained by cuttings at the shot blade stage (i.e just before the plant changes from vegetative to early elongation of reproductive stage) than by waiting until flowers have developed (Lawrence and Ashford 1964). Cutting at 3.8 cm produced greater subsequent winter injury than did cutting at progressively taller heights up to 14 cm (Lawrence and Ashford 1964). Cutting at "shot blade" or "boot" stage just after the apical meristem has begun to elongate within the sheath takes advantage of the low root carbohydrate levels at that time (Paulsen and Smith 1969, Reynolds and Smith 1962, Knievel et al. 1971).

Carbohydrate levels can be kept at slightly lower than normal levels throughout the summer by repeated cuttings (Paulsen and Smith 1968). Martin and Hovin (1980) found in Minnesota field trials that persistence of smooth brome over a 4-year period was more greatly reduced by 4 cuts a year than by 2 or 3 cuts. However, it should be noted that their experimental results are somewhat confounded by the fact that only the 4- cut schedule included a cut during the boot stage. Paulsen and Smith (1968) found that bromegrass harvested in boot was as adversely affected as plants managed under a 3-cut harvest schedule. Slow recovery was associated with the removal of apical meristems when tiller buds were poorly developed.

It therefore appears that a single well-timed close cut in boot stage (approximately 18 inches) may be an effective method of control. Managers of natural areas such as parks might wish to try repeated lawnmowing of brome beginning in late May and mowing at least 4 times during the season where brome patches are contiguous and pure.

FIRE: Fire does not appear as effective in reducing smooth brome as it is with Poa pratensis. Kruse (pers. comm.) reports that in North Daktoa smooth brome can be kept from spreading, but not appreciably reduced with fire. Old (1969) reports decreases in July dry matter production but not elimination of smooth brome after April fire in Illinois. One difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of burning for control of Bromus inermis is the dearth of literature that clearly separates this species from "cool season exotics" as a group.

Cosby (1972) reports the comparative effects of late May mowing and June 1 burning at Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. There biomass production in August of the treatment year was 80 lb/acre of Bromus inermis following mowing and 5 lb/acre following burning. These data suggest that a well-timed burn that treats Bromus in boot (or early bloom?) may be more effective than mowing at the same susceptible period. At Kilen Woods State Park, Minnesota, there was no visible, discernible reduction in Bromus in the first or second season after an April 22 burn (Sather 1986, 1987, pers. obs.). At Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge where nine years of burning have followed a summer schedule (mid-June and late July to mid-August) to reduce woody encroachment, smooth brome has actually increased in areas that formerly had heavy litter build-up or dense Symphoricarpos growth (Smith, pers. comm.). There, May burns are planned to help target the bromegrass. It appears that late May burns would be optimal in the northern plains for reduction of smooth brome.

HERBICIDES: Several chemicals have been tried to control cool season grasses for the purpose of sod-seeding legumes and improving pastures.

In an early study of brome control, McCarty and Scifres (1966) tested picloram, dicamba and 2,4-D and found picloram most effective at rates of 1.1 to 2.2 kg/ha, dicamba somewhat less effective and 2,4-D ineffective.

In pastures where increased legumes are desired, late April applications of paraquat, glyphosate and atrazine at 2.24 kg/ha and glyphosate at 1.12 kg/ha have been used successfuuly to shift dominance from cool to warm season grasses on Nebraska rangelands (Waller and Schmidt 1983). Herbage yields of smooth brome from atrazine treated plots were not significantly different than from glyphosate treated plots. An application of this technique is presently in the experimental stage in a brome-infested area of Sioux Prairie, South Dakota (Wells pers. comm.).

Dalapon and pronamide have been used to suppress or kill smooth brome during the establishment of birdsfoot trefoil (Martin et al. 1983, Rayburn et al. 1981). In Minnesota trials Martin et al. (1983) found both dalapon (at rates of 3.4 to 9.0 kg/ha) and glyphosate (at rates of 0.6 to 1.1 kg/ha) more effective in April and May than in June applications. In New York trials Rayburn et al. (1981) found glyphosate at 2 kg/ha more effective than dalapon (at 3.0, 4.0 and 9.0 kg/ha) or pronamide (at 0.4, 1.0 and 2.0 kg/ha). In the same study, rates of application of glyphosate as low as 0.5 kg/ha produced some effect but control was better as rates approached 2 kg/ha. In Nebraska field trials Vogel et al. (1983) found paraquat somewhat less effective than glyphosate in April applications to control smooth brome. It appears that April or May applications of glyphosate at 2 kg/ha may be an effective management technique for controlling smooth brome in pure patches.

Management Programs: Management programs in which Bromus inermis has been specifically singled- out as the target species are few. The following individuals are involved in programs that specifically target smooth brome:

Karen Smith, Refuge Manager, Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, R. Rt. 2, Box 98, Kenmare, N.D. 58746.

Dr. Darrell Wells, Route 4, Box 233, Brookings, South Dakota 57006.

Dr. Gary Larson, Dept. of Biology, Ag. Hall 304, South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D. 57007.

Monitoring Programs: Permanent markers have been placed at the edge of brome patches at the Helen Allison Savannah, Minnesota, to allow for tracking of these patches over time. contact: Dr. D.B. Lawrence, 1420 34th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55406. 612/729-8206.

The following individuals are monitoring the frequency and/or cover of Bromus as a measure of responses to prairie management practices:

Arnold Kruse, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, P.O. Box 1747, Jamestown, N. Dakota 54801.

Karen Smith, Refuge Manager, Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, R.Route 2, Box 98, Kenmare, ND 58746.

Bromus patches at Sioux Prairie, South Dakota, are being monitored to measure success of eradication methods using herbicides. Contact: Dr. Gary Larson, Dept. of Biology, Ag. Hall 304, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.

Bromus is one of several species being monitored as part of a dissertation study on old field succession at the Cedar Creek Natural history Area, Minnesota. Contact: Barb Delaney, Dept. of Botany, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Management Research Programs: The only research program specifically addressing control of smooth brome is that at Sioux Prairie, South Dakota, where response of bromus to atrazine is being tested. Contact: Dr. Gary Larson, Dept. of Biology, Ag. Hall 304, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007.

Management Research Needs: Bromus is often considered in conjunction with Poa pratensis in management programs because both are rhizomatous, cool season exotic grasses. There is a need to relate the dates of management procedures specifically to the physiological/phenological growth stage of Bromus at the time of management and to directly measure the response of Bromus separate from Poa.

Some specific research questions that would appear to be useful to managers of natural areas in their attempts to understand and control Bromus include: Is a single cut in boot as effective in reducing Bromus persistence as the documented first cut in boot? (Most studies in which Bromus has been cut in boot have been addressing the frequency of cutting and the boot cut has been an artifact of efforts to increase cutting frequency.) Is burning in boot as effective as cutting in boot for lowering the persistence of Bromus over a period of years? What is the response of Bromus to fall fires and/or grazing, which might enhance survival of its native cool season competitors, particularly in the northern part of its range? What is the actual rate of invasiveness of Bromus into established prairie sod? Are chemical treatments such as atrazine as effective in pure brome stands as they are in mixed stands of brome and warm season natives?

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management considerations

More info for the terms: cool-season, fire exclusion, forbs, prescribed fire, restoration, rhizome

Range:  Smooth brome's tolerance to grazing is generally rated as high
[56].  It is highly adaptable, having persisted in many of the habitats
where it was planted to increase forage production including
pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) [39], quaking aspen (Populus
tremuloides) [21], and subalpine and alpine ranges [56,102].  It has
persisted on old saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) meadows with saline
soils once the saltgrass was removed [84,85].

Smooth brome may not tolerate grazing on all habitat or site types.
Currie and Smith [36] reported that smooth brome planted on
low-fertility ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest soils in Colorado
declined under even light-intensity cattle grazing.  They speculated
that smooth brome is more likely to persist under cattle grazing on
fertile soils.

Laycock and Conrad [77] used cattle to test several grazing systems on
rangeland seeded to crested wheatgrasses (Agropyron cristatum and A.
desertorum) and smooth brome in mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata spp. vaseyana) habitat in Utah.  They found that average
cattle weight gain was the same under all systems, but heavy June
grazing in alternate years best promoted grass production.

Ungulates in Yellowstone National Park utilized smooth brome growing in
association with other graminoids and forbs, but did not graze smooth
brome where it grew in a monoculture [48].

Forestry:  In British Columbia, height and biomass of lodgepole pine
(Pinus contorta var. latifolia) seedlings established from a mix of
lodgepole pine seed and smooth brome and other grass seed were less
than height and biomass of lodgepole pine seedlings established from
lodgepole pine seed sown alone [28].

Native grassland restoration:  Smooth brome dominates many native
grasslands and old fields [2].  Masters and Vogel [82] stated that on
tallgrass prairie, it is usually found in areas with a history of
overgrazing and/or fire exclusion.  Grassland restoration efforts often
include controlling smooth brome with cool-season grass herbicides such
as atrazine and glyphosate, mowing, and/or prescribed fire [73].

Anderson [2] found that near Lincoln, Nebraska, fall application of
glyphosate helped control smooth brome.  Atrazine may not be as
effective; other studies [83,96] have reported that while atrazine
controlled other exotic cool-season grasses, it did not significantly
reduce smooth brome.

Establishment and maintenance:  Seed handling and planting guidelines
for smooth brome are available [49,116,117].  Cultivars adapted to
selected environments and/or regions are sold commercially
[56,103,104,108,119,123].

Smooth brome requires fertile soil in order to maintain nutritional
quality.  On infertile soils it needs periodic fertilization or a
companion nitrogen fixer.  On rangelands smooth brome is usually planted
in a mix with alfalfa (Medicago sativa), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus
officinalis), or other legume species.  Fertilization affects growth
allocation:  Watkins [120] found that fertilizers increased leaf and
shoot growth but reduced rhizome and root growth.

Rhizomatous cultivars become sod-bound after several years unless litter
is removed by grazing and/or fire [56,110].
  • 102.  Sampson, Arthur W.; Chase, Agnes; Hedrick, Donald W. 1951. California        grasslands and range forage grasses. Bull. 724. Berkeley, CA: University        of California College of Agriculture, California Agricultural Experiment        Station. 125 p.  [2052]
  • 103.  Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 1988. Select native grasses. Establishment and        management of warm-season grasses. Amarillo, TX: Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 11        p.  [18000]
  • 104.  Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 1989. Grasses and forbs for erosion control. Fact        Sheet. Amarillo, TX: Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 2 p.  [18015]
  • 108.  Sours, John M. 1983. Characteristics and uses of important grasses for        arid western rangelands. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Shaw, Nancy, compilers.        Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife        habitats: Proceedings of a symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls,        ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and        Range Experiment Station: 90-94.  [2201]
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 116.  Waddington, John; Dyck, F. Ben; Bowes, Garry G.; McCartney, Duane H.        1994. Drill seeding in western Canada. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen,        Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual        rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313.        Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain        Research Station: 307-310.  [24302]
  • 117.  Wambolt, Carl. 1976. Montana range seeding guide. Bulletin 347. Bozeman,        MT: Montana State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 23 p.  [99]
  • 119.  Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful        in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington,        DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office        of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p.        Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023.  [2458]
  • 120.  Watkins, James M. 1940. The growth habits and chemical composition of        bromegrass, Bromus inermis Lyess, as affected by different environmental        conditions. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 32: 527-538.        [4532]
  • 123.  Wheeler, W. A.; Hill, D. D. 1957. Grassland seeds. Princeton, NJ: D. Van        Nostrand Company, Inc. 628 p.  [18902]
  • 2.  Anderson, Bruce. 1994. Converting smooth brome pasture to warm-season        grasses. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe,        Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy:        Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9;        Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Department of Parks and Recreation: 157-160.        [24687]
  • 21.  Bowes, Garry. 1981. Improving aspen poplar and prickly rose-covered        rangeland with herbicide and fertilizer. Canadian Journal of Plant        Science. 61: 401-405.  [12464]
  • 28.  Clark, M. B.; McLean, A. 1979. Growth of lodgepole pine seedlings in        competition with grass. Res. Note No. 86. Victoria, BC: Province of        British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 12 p.  [15610]
  • 36.  Currie, Pat O.; Smith, Dwight R. 1970. Response of seeded ranges to        different grazing intensities in the ponderosa pine zone of Colorado.        Prod. Rep. No. 112. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service. 41 p.  [2700]
  • 39.  Despain, Del W. 1987. History and results of prescribed burning of        pinyon-juniper woodland on the Hualapai Indian Reservation in Arizona.        In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper        conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Tep. INT-215.        Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain        Research Station: 145-151.  [4754]
  • 48.  Frank, Douglas A.; McNaughton, Samuel J. 1992. The ecology of plants,        large mammalian herbivores, and drought in Yellowstone National Park.        Ecology. 73(6): 2043-2058.  [18434]
  • 49.  Fulbright, Timothy E.; Redente, Edward F.; Hargis, Norman E. 1982.        Growing Colorado plants from seed: a state of the art: Volume II:        Grasses and grasslike plants. FWS/OBS-82/29. Washington, DC: U.S.        Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 p.  [3709]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]
  • 73.  Knoop, Paul E., Jr. 1983. Tallgrass prairie management at the Aullwood        Audubon Center and Farm--Dayton, Ohio. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed.        Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6;        Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 253-254.  [3225]
  • 77.  Laycock, W. A.; Conrad, P. W. 1981. Responses of vegetation and cattle        to various systems of grazing on seeded and native mountain rangelands        in eastern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 34(1): 52-58.  [6261]
  • 82.  Masters, Robert A.; Vogel, Kenneth P. 1989. Remnant and restored prairie        response to fire, fertilization, and atrazine. In: Bragg, Thomas B.;        Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and        culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988        August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 135-138.        [14030]
  • 83.  Masters, Robert A.; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mitchell, Robert B. 1992.        Response of central plains tallgrass prairies to fire, fertilizer, and        atrazine. Journal of Range Management. 45(3): 291-295.  [16897]
  • 84.  McGinnies, William J. 1960. Effects of moisture stress and temperature        on germination of six range grasses. Agronomy Journal. 52(3): 159-162.        [167]
  • 85.  McGinnies, W. J. 1975. Renovating saltgrass meadows. Agricultural        Research. 23(10): 7.  [11203]
  • 96.  Plumb, Glenn. 1988. Atrazine of little value on a native grassland        reseeding (South Dakota). Restoration and Management Notes. 6(2): 90-91.        [6662]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Cultivars, improved and selected materials (and area of origin)

Northern type cultivars: ‘Superior’, ‘Manchar’, ‘Carlton’, ‘Jubilee’, ‘Saratoga’ (various), ‘Polar’, ‘Bravo’

Southern type cultivars: ‘Lincoln’ (Hungary), ‘Achenbach’, ‘Elsberry’, ‘Lancaster’, ‘Lyon’, ‘Southland’, ‘Rebound’, ‘Baylor’ (various), ‘Beacon’

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Smooth brome requires heavy early spring and fall applications of nitrogen to maintain high yields in a pure stand. Mixtures with alfalfa will require less nitrogen but the alfalfa will usually need P205 each year to maintain vigor. Alfalfa cannot be maintained in pasture seedings without rotation. Best forage production is obtained from smooth brome when used in a planned cropping system and plowed out after 3 to 4 years. Its heavy sod makes it an excellent soil conditioning crop when included in cropping systems. In deep, well-drained soils it will root to 4 feet.

Smooth brome performs best in grassed waterways, field borders, and other conservation uses where the forage can be cut and removed while in early bloom. Do not graze the new seeding; cut the first crop for hay.

In bromegrass-legume pastures, allow the legume to go to bud or early-bloom stage before turning cattle in to avoid bloat hazard, and manage thereafter for

optimum regrowth of the legume. Pastures should not be grazed prior to smooth brome attaining a minimum height of about 10 inches at the beginning of the grazing season. Grazing pressures should be adjusted throughout the season to avoid grazing this grass to less than a minimum height of 4 inches. Grazing schedules should be so arranged that a regrowth period of 28 to 35 days between grazing periods is available.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Weediness

This plant may become weedy or invasive in some regions or habitats and may displace desirable vegetation if not properly managed. Please consult with your local NRCS Field Office, Cooperative Extension Service office, or state natural resource or agriculture department regarding its status and use. Weed information is also available from the PLANTS Web site at plants.usda.gov.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Economic Uses

Uses: FORAGE/BROWSE, Pasture

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Cover Value

More info for the term: cover

The cover value of smooth brome has been rated as follows [40]:

                           UT     CO     WY      MT      ND
upland game birds        fair    ----   ----    good    good
waterfowl                fair    ----   ----    ----    fair
small nongame birds      good    fair   ----    fair    fair
small mammals            good    fair   ----    good    ----
  • 40.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Nutritional Value

More info for the term: fresh

The National Academy of Sciences [89] found the nutritional content of
fresh, flowering smooth brome in the United States was as follows:

dry matter (%)         27.1
ash (%)                 1.9
crude fiber (%)         8.3
ether extract (%)       0.9
N-free extract(%)      13.2
protein (%, N x 6.25)   2.8
digestible energy (Mcal/kg)
  cattle                0.79
  domestic sheep        0.78

Nutritional content of fresh smooth brome in immature, early bloom,
milk, dough, overripe, and weathered stages, and of cured smooth brome
in each stage, is also available [89].

The nutritional value of smooth brome for wildlife has been rated as
follows [40]:
                         UT     CO     WY     MT     ND
elk                    good    good   ----   poor   ----
mule deer              good    fair   ----   ----   poor
white-tailed deer      ----    ----   ----   ----   poor
upland game birds      good    ----   ----   ----   poor
small nongame birds    fair    ----   ----   ----   ----
waterfowl              fair    ----   ----   fair   ----
small mammals          good    good   ----   ----   ----
  • 40.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 89.  National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United        States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.        772 p.  [1731]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Palatability

Early growth of smooth brome is highly palatable.  Palatability and
nutritional quality drop rapidly after flowering.  Fall green-up
provides palatable forage later in the year [110].

The palatability of smooth brome has been rated as follows [40]:

                    UT       CO       WY       MT       ND
cattle             good     good     good     good     good  
domestic sheep     good     good     good     good     good
horses             good     good     good     good     good
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 40.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Importance to Livestock and Wildlife

More info for the term: cover

Livestock:  Smooth brome cultivars have been bred for nutritional
quality and adaptation to selected climates.  This has made smooth brome
one of the most important exotic forage grasses in the United States and
Canada.  It is widely planted in pastures and rangelands from Texas to
Alaska and Yukon Territory [87,88,110].

Wildlife:  Grazing wildlife utilize smooth brome to varying degrees,
depending upon wildlife species and smooth brome quality.  Elk use it as
a winter food [63].  Mule deer in central Utah were found to use it only
lightly [7], but deer utilization of smooth brome is generally
considered good [40,110].  Geese [26] and small rodents such as pocket
gophers [81] also graze smooth brome.  The seeds may not be preferred by
granivores.  Everett and others [46] found that when offered the seed of
18 herbaceous species, deer mouse selected smooth brome seed the least.

Smooth brome provides cover for birds and small mammals [10].  Ducks,
[33,78], gray partridge [27], American bittern, northern harrier, and
short-eared owl [41] use it as nesting cover.
  • 10.  Bechard, Marc J. 1982. Effect of vegetative cover on foraging site        selection by Swainson's hawk. Condor. 84(2): 153-159.  [22656]
  • 110.  Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992.        North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska        Press. 493 p.  [25162]
  • 26.  Burgess, Harold H. 1969. Habitat management on a mid-continent waterfowl        refuge. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(4): 843-847.  [14506]
  • 27.  Carroll, John P.; Crawford, Richard D. 1991. Roadside nesting by gray        partridge in north-central North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin.        19(3): 286-291.  [16687]
  • 33.  Cowardin, Lewis M.; Gilmer, David S.; Shaiffer, Charles W. 1985. Mallard        recruitment in the agricultural environment of North Dakota. Wildlife        Monographs No. 92. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 37 p.  [18150]
  • 40.  Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information        network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and        Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,        Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.  [806]
  • 41.  Duebbert, Harold F.; Lokemoen, John T. 1977. Upland nesting of American        bitterns, marsh hawks, and short-eared owls. Prairie Naturalist. 9(3/4):        33-40.  [22255]
  • 46.  Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Stevens, Richard. 1978. Deer        mouse preference for seed of commonly planted species, indigenous weed        seed, and sacrifice foods. Journal of Range Management. 31(1): 70-73.        [896]
  • 63.  Hobbs, N. Thompson; Baker, Dan L.; Ellis, James E.; Swift, David M.        1981. Composition and quality of elk winter diets in Colorado. Journal        of Wildlife Management. 45(1): 156-171.  [7421]
  • 7.  Austin, Dennis D.; Stevens, Richard; Jorgensen, Kent R.; Urness, Philip        J. 1994. Preferences of mule deer for 16 grasses found on Intermountain        winter ranges. Journal of Range Management. 47(4): 308-311.  [24240]
  • 78.  Lokemoen, John T.; Duebbert, Harold F.; Sharp, David E. 1990. Homing and        reproductive habits of mallards, gadwalls, and blue-winged teal.        Wildlife Monographs. 106: 1-28.  [18102]
  • 81.  Martinsen, Gregory D.; Cushman, J. Hall; Whitham, Thomas G. 1990. Impact        of pocket gopher disturbance on plant species diversity in a shortgrass        prairie community. Oecologia. 83: 132-138.  [11828]
  • 87.  Mitchell, W. W. 1982. Forage yield and quality of indigenous and        introduced grasses at Palmer, Alaska. Agronomy Journal. 74: 899-905.        [16172]
  • 88.  Mitchell, William W. 1987. Notice of release of 'Kenai' polargrass.        Agroborealis. 19(1): 5.  [16519]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites

Smooth brome has been extensively used for rehabilitation.  It is cold
hardy and fairly resistant to saline soils and drought [117].  The
ability of most cultivars to spread rhizomatously makes smooth brome a
good soil binder [56,103,104].  It is recommended for erosion control
and streambank and stream bottom stabilization in all areas of the
United States except the Southeast [104,118].  Southern cultivars tend
to be more strongly rhizomatous than northern cultivars, and generally
give the best erosion control [64].  Some southern cultivars will grow
in northern latitudes of the United States [25].  Smooth brome has also
been successful in rehabilitating mined lands [38,43], game ranges
[51,65], roadsides [42], and ski areas [12].  Smooth brome establishes
on high-elevation sites [56].  It can be an aggressive colonizer on many
sites, however, and may crowd out native species [107].

Smooth brome showed poor survivorship on semiarid canyonland in
northwestern Idaho that was disked and seeded with several grass species
to remove yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) [92].
  • 103.  Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 1988. Select native grasses. Establishment and        management of warm-season grasses. Amarillo, TX: Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 11        p.  [18000]
  • 104.  Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 1989. Grasses and forbs for erosion control. Fact        Sheet. Amarillo, TX: Sharp Bros. Seed Co. 2 p.  [18015]
  • 107.  Smoliak, S.; Penney, D.; Harper, A. M.; Horricks, J. S. 1981. Alberta        forage manual. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Agriculture, Print Media Branch. 87        p.  [19538]
  • 117.  Wambolt, Carl. 1976. Montana range seeding guide. Bulletin 347. Bozeman,        MT: Montana State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 23 p.  [99]
  • 118.  Ward, Don; Thompson, Robert; Kelly, Dennis. 1986. Willow planting guide.        R-4 Hydrograph No. 54. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Range and Watershed Management. 12 p.  [2936]
  • 12.  Behan, Mark J. 1983. The suitability of commercially available grass        species for revegetation of Montana ski area. Journal of Range        Management. 36(5): 565-567.  [425]
  • 25.  Bultsma, Paul M.; Haas, Russell J. 1989. Grass varieties for North        Dakota. R-794 (Revised). Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, North        Dakota State University Extension Service. 7 p.  [19474]
  • 38.  DePuit, Edward J. [n.d.]
  • 42.  Ehley, Alan M. 1992. Integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM): a        county approach to roadside management in Iowa. In: Smith, Daryl D.;        Jacobs, Carol A., eds. Recapturing a vanishing heritage: Proceedings,        12th North American prairie conference; 1990 August 5-9; Cedar Falls,        IA. Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa: 159-160.  [24734]
  • 43.  Elliott, Charles L.; McKendrick, Jay D.; Helm, D. 1987. Plant biomass,        cover, and survival of species used for stripmine reclamation in        south-central Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 19(4): 572-577.        [6116]
  • 51.  George, Ronnie R.; Farris, Allen L.; Schwartz, Charles C.; [and others]
  • 56.  Hardy BBT Limited. 1989. Manual of plant species suitability for        reclamation in Alberta. 2d ed. Report No. RRTAC 89-4. Edmonton, AB:        Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 436 p.  [15460]
  • 64.  Holzworth, Larry; Lacey, John. 1993. Species selection criteria for        seeding dryland pastures in Montana. Extension Bulletin 19. Bozeman, MT:        Montana State Univeristy, Extension Service. 12 p.  [21134]
  • 65.  Hughes, H. Glenn. 1985. Vegetation responses to spring burning in an        improved pasture in central Pennsylvania. In: Long, James N., ed. Fire        management: the challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a        symposium; 1985 April 17-19; Logan, UT. [Place of publication unknown]
  • 92.  Northam, F. E.; Callihan, R. H. 1990. Grass adaptation to semi-arid,        yellow starthistle infested canyonland. Research Progress Report. [Place        of publication unknown]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Uses

Livestock: Smooth brome may be used for hay, pasture, or silage. It is compatible with alfalfa or other adapted legumes. The grass is highly palatable and is high in protein content and relatively low in crude-fiber content.

Erosion Control: Since the plant has a massive root system and is a sod former it can be used effectively for critical area planting and grassed waterways if the areas can be irrigated or where annual precipitation exceeds 20 inches.

Wildlife: Smooth brome can be used as a component in various upland wildlife and conservation cover mixes for nesting cover and food. Note: This species is no longer recommended for wildlife use in some states because of its aggressive nature.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Risks

Stewardship Overview: Smooth brome is a cool season exotic that is especially troublesome in disturbed portions of old pastures in the tallgrass and mixed prairie regions. Although less invasive than Kentucky bluegrass, with which it often occurs and is managed, it is also less responsive to management.

The optimal timing for control of smooth brome by burning appears to be in boot stage, which may be as early as mid-April in the central Great Plains or in the northern plains. This is somewhat later than would be recommended for other management purposes such as control of Kentucky bluegrass. However, its habit of occurring frequently in nearly pure swards renders Bromus inermis a good target for selective control by timed close mowing or use of herbicides. One close mowing when the plants are 18-24 inches tall (followed ideally by 3 repetitions), or treatment with glyphosate at 0.5 to 1.1 kg/ha before flowering, may improve chances of selectively controlling this species.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Caution

Caution: This plant may become invasive. Please consult a specialist in your area.
Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Bromus inermis

"Smooth brome" redirects here. This name is also applied to Bromus racemosus, another Bromus species..

Bromus inermis is a species of the true grass family (Poaceae). This bunchgrass is native to Europe.

The plant is characterized by an erect, leafy, long-lived perennial, 46 to 91 cm (1 12 to 3 ft) tall, rhizomatous and commonly producing a dense sod. It starts growth in early spring; flowers May to July; reproduces from seeds, tillers, and rhizomes. It may regrow and re flower in the fall if moisture is sufficient. [1] The leafs are glabrous or occasionally pubescent, particularly on the sheaths; blades 20 to 38 cm (8 to 15 in) long, 0.6 to 1.3 cm (14 to 12 in) wide, flat, with a raised and keeled midrib below; sheaths closed, except near collar, and papery when dry; leaves rolled in the bud; ligates up to 0.3 cm (18 in) long, rounded, and membranous; auricles absent.

Common names[edit]

References[edit]

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Notes

Comments

Awnless Brome, as interpreted here, is part of a species complex grading into awned and/or hairy forms especially in Asia. It shows quite clear connections with Bromus stenostachyus Boiss. and the Caucasian Bromus biebersteinii Roem. & Schult. Its distinction from Bromus confines is also rather ill-defined.

A very useful fodder grass introduced into the British Ises and North America for this reason.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments

This species has been spread worldwide through seed production for pasture and fodder.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Treated in most older floras as native to Europe, however, if the w. U.S./Canada native B. pumpellianus is included as a subspecies of B. inermis (as in Kartesz 1994), the full species is considered native to these countries as well. Kartesz 1999 includes 'pumpellianus' in Bromus inermis as a subspecies, as well as two varieties of B. inermis ssp. pumpellianus (B. inermis ssp. pumpellianus var. arcticus and B. inermis ssp. pumpellianus var. pumpellianus). Subspecies pumpellianus and its varieties are considered native to North America while the other subspecies of Bromus inermis, B. inermis ssp. inermis is non-native.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

More info for the term: introgression

The currently accepted scientific name of smooth brome is Bromus inermis
Leyss. Infrataxa are [54,61,68]:

B. inermis ssp. inermis Leyss
B. inermis ssp. inermis var. divaricatus Rohlena
B. inermis ssp. inermis var. inermis Leyss

Kartesz [68] recognizes Pumpelly brome as a subspecies of B. inermis, B.
inermis ssp. pumpellianus (Scribn.) Wagnon. FEIS follows the treatment
of other authorities in recognizing Pumpelly brome as a separate
species, B. pumpellianus Scribn. [54,58,61,67,115,121]. (A literature
summary of B. pumpellianus is available in FEIS.) Considerable
hybridization and introgression have occurred between smooth brome, an
introduced species, and Pumpelly brome, a native species [5,53,121].
Smooth brome does not hybridize with other North American species [4].
  • 115.  Voss, Edward G. 1972. Michigan flora. Part I. Gymnosperms and monocots.        Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI:        University of Michigan Herbarium. 488 p.  [11471]
  • 121.  Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry        C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,        UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.  [2944]
  • 4.  Armstrong, K. C. 1981. The evolution of Bromus inermis and related        species of Bromus sect. Pnigma. Botanische Jahrbucher Syst. 102(1-4):        427-443.  [2933]
  • 5.  Armstrong, K. C. 1982. Hybrids between the tetraploids of Bromus inermis        and B. pumpellianus. Canadian Journal of Botany. 60(4): 476-482.        [22833]
  • 53.  Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of        northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New        York Botanical Garden. 910 p.  [20329]
  • 54.  Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.        Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p.  [1603]
  • 58.  Harrison, T.; Romo, J. T. 1994. Regrowth of smooth bromegrass (Bromus        inermis Leyss.) following defoliation. Canadian Journal of Plant        Science. 74: 531-537.  [24126]
  • 61.  Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of        California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p.        [21992]
  • 67.  Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.        Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p.  [13403]
  • 68.  Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of        the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II--thesaurus. 2nd ed.        Portland, OR: Timber Press. 816 p.  [23878]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

smooth brome
Austrian brome
awnless brome
bromegrass
Hungarian brome
Russian brome

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!