Final report for GW24-011
Project Information
Cheatgrass/downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and ventenata (Ventenata dubia) are a large concern for producers in rangelands across the West. These species can reduce perennial forage grasses, negatively impacting ecosystem services and the sustainability of cattle operations. Managing these species is difficult, and many producers are interested in new viable weed management tools. One potential is the micronutrient soil amendment Nutrafix, designed to improve soil health and perennial forage. A potential side effect is the reduction in several weedy species, including cheatgrass and ventenata. However, damage to mature perennial grasses has been reported. Our goals are to improve our understanding of this soil amendment through its impacts on seed germination and establishment of native and non-native species, and its impacts on forage quality and soil health. We will address these goals through four studies. In a controlled environment we will assess the impact of Nutrafix on 1) germination and 2) seedling emergence of three native and two non-native grasses; and 3) on biomass and forage quality of mature native grasses. Our field study 4) will assess forage and soil quality in previously established plots assessing the impact of Nutrafix on cheatgrass management. We will share the outcomes of this research with producers through extension publications, peer reviewed publications, and scientific presentations. The findings from these studies will allow producers to make more informed decisions when considering using Nutrafix to improve their soil health and their native perennial forage quality, both of which can help improve the sustainability of their land.
The research goals of this project are to improve our understanding of how the soil amendment Nutrafix impacts seed germination and establishment of native and non-native grasses, as well as how it impacts forage quality of mature forage grasses. To achieve our goals we have four objectives.
Objective 1:
Determine the impact of different rates of Nutrafix on seed germination and dormancy of three native species (bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii)), and two non-native species (cheatgrass and ventenata) in non-soil media, in a growth chamber. (Fall 2024)
Objective 2:
Determine the impact of different rates of Nutrafix on seedling establishment of the same five native and non-native species in soil media, in a greenhouse. (Fall 2024)
Objective 3:
Determine the impact of the recommended rate of Nutrafix on mature native plant species biomass and forage quality in soil media, in a greenhouse. (Winter 2024/2025)
Objective 4:
Determine the impact of Nutrafix on a) forage quality of the native species and b) soil nutrient availability, four years post application in a field setting. (Summer 2024)
The educational goals of this project are to further educate Montana producers and managers about the specific impacts of Nutrafix on native and non-native species germination and emergence, as well as its impacts on the quality of native forage species and soil nutrient availability. To assess these goals we have one objective, with three sub-objectives.
Objective 5: Share our results about the impact of Nutrafix on native and non-native grass germination and establishment, as well as native forage and soil quality.
a) Supply condensed highlights of these results to producers and managers through extension fact sheets and online resources. (Winter-Fall 2025)
b) Present our results to producers and managers through local scientific meetings and field days. (Spring-Summer 2025)
c) Publish these results through peer-reviewed publications in research journals. (Fall 2025)
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
Objective 1: We performed a dose response assessment with seeds of the five different species (bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, western wheatgrass, cheatgrass, and ventenata) using an aqueous solution of boron (proxy for NutraFix) in Petri dishes (10 seeds/dish). In trial 1 we assessed six different rates of boron (0, 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60 ppm) with five replications of each rate and species combination. After eight days no seeds in any treated plates had germinated, and we concluded that our rates were too high. Data from trial 1 was not included in analysis. In trial 2 we adjusted our rates (0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 ppm). There was no germination of western wheatgrass in any dish, so it was not included in trial 3. Additionally, there was no germination of any species in the highest two rates, so they were dropped from the third trial. In the trial 3 we added two lower rates (0.05 and 0.1 ppm) for a total of six rates (0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.5 ppm). Additional Petri dishes were included for rates in trial 3 not included in trial 2, so we analyzed the combined data from trial 2 and trial 3, which resulted in a total of 10 Petri dishes for each species and rate combination, (excluding the 0.75 and 1.0-ppm treatments from trial 2) (n=240). For all trials the Petri dishes were placed in a growth chamber set to 20°/15°C with 10/14 light dark hours for 21 days; these conditions have been found to be optimal in a previous study (Sencenbaugh et al. 2024). We measured the radical and cotyledon length (cm) of each germinated seed at the end of the study and was reported for each individual seedling. Each non-germinated seed was visually assessed to differentiate between potentially viable and non-viable seeds. Percent germination was calculated from the number of potentially viable seeds present in each Petri dish.
Analysis Objective 1: We performed dose response curve analyses in R using the drc package (Ritz and Streibig 2016) to quantify the rate of boron that reduced germination by 50% and 90% (ED50 and ED90), and we performed linear mixed effects models to test for any significant reductions in radical and cotyledon lengths of the different species. Random effects were used to account for study design. Linearity and equal variance assumptions were not met for cotyledon and radical models, so the response was log transformed. All results are presented on the original scale.
Objective 2: We assessed emergence of the native and non-native species using three different rates of aqueous boron in a soil medium. In trial 1 we tested the same five species as Obj. 1 at three aqueous boron rates (0, 15, and 25 ppm), replicated five times (n=75). In trial 2, we added NutraFix treatments to directly compare the impacts of aqueous boron and the solid NutraFix applications. Ten replications of two levels (15 & 25 ppm) of NutraFix were included for each species, alongside the aqueous boron rates (n=175). For both trials seeds were planted in 12.5 cm diameter round pots (30 seeds/pot), and soil was an unpasteurized 3:1 loam:sand mix from the Plant Growth Center at Montana State University (PGC Primer 2023). The greenhouse was maintained at 23/6°C with 14/10 light/dark hours. The recommended rate of boron or water (control) was applied to the soil surface after planting. Pots were watered twice daily the first week (~50 ml each time) to promote germination. Watering was reduced to once daily for the remainder of the study. Once per week visible damage was assessed on a scale of 1-5 (1: not damaged – 5: very damaged). Aboveground biomass was harvested 28 days after planting and dried at 43°C for three days before dry weight per pot was obtained. Belowground biomass was harvested by gently washing the roots for six of the 10 species:treatment replications. All replicates were not sampled because this process was time intensive and analyses were expensive. During the first trial we observed that visible treatment differences did not occur until the second or third week of growth. This led us to wonder how mobile our treatments were in the soil. To assess this, we collected belowground biomass and soil at two depths (top 6 cm and bottom 6 cm) of each pot. Soil samples were sent to and analyzed by Agvise laboratories (Northwood, ND). Due to limited emergence and growth, belowground biomass and boron concentration in the soil was not assessed for ventenata.
Analysis Objective 2: Impact of boron and NutraFix on seedling emergence, final aboveground biomass/plant, belowground biomass/plant, and soil boron content were assessed with linear models, using data from trial 2 only. Above- and belowground biomass was collected on a per pot basis but were relativized by the number of plants that emerged to account for differences in emergence rate. Linearity and equal variance assumptions were not met for percent emergence, belowground biomass, or soil boron concentration, so those responses were log transformed. All results are presented on the original scale. Final visible damage to aboveground tissues was not assessed statistically but is presented graphically.
Objective 3: We assessed the impact of the recommended rate of NutraFix (aqueous boron, 10-ppm) on mature individuals of the native species (bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and western wheatgrass) grown under controlled conditions. Four replications and two trials were completed (n=48). For trial 1, plants were grown from seeds in tall, round pots (18 cm across and 40 cm tall), one plant per pot, in soil with a 1:2 loam:sand mix, and the same greenhouse conditions as in Obj. 2. Only six of the eight western wheatgrass individuals emerged, so there were only three replicates per treatment for that species in the first trial. Our native species were grown in individual pots for 20 weeks. Aboveground biomass was removed at weeks 10 and 20 to encourage growth. At the time of the second harvest, 50 ml of a 10-ppm boron solution (or water) was applied, and plants were placed in a cold storage growth chamber (4 °C /dark) for six weeks to simulate a winter dormancy period – field application is recommended in the fall so this mimics field conditions. Plants were then returned to the normal greenhouse and were allowed to grow for eight weeks before harvesting. The level of damage was also assessed visually prior to harvesting. Plants were rated on a scale of 1-5 (1: not damaged – 5: very damaged). Plants were then harvested, split into above and belowground biomass by gentle washing, and dried at 43°C for three days before dry weight is obtained. Three replicates of tissue samples (per species and treatment) were analyzed by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services (CVAS; Waynesboro, PA) for boron presence and crude protein content (n=18). Upon receival, CVAS determined there was not enough biomass in each sample for analysis, so two replicates of the same treatment/species combination were combined where possible. This reduction of replication limited our analysis of boron and crude protein content.
High levels of damage in treated plants lead to reevaluation of the treatment concentration. After considering the volume and area of soil in our pots, the volume of solution we applied, and talking with Dr. Clain Jones (Soil Extension Specialist, Montana State University), we determined that our application rate was higher than intended, 25-ppm not 10-ppm. The study was rerun, with an application rate of 15-ppm to reflect rates used in the field and Obj. 2. Due to time constraints, the second trial was shorter than the first. Plants were grown for 15 weeks before treatment application, 4 weeks in cold storage, and 6 weeks after removal from cold storage. Soil samples from the top and bottom of each pot were analyzed for boron content by Agvise laboratories. Additionally forage samples were performed by North Border Analytics (Chinook, MT) for this trial, because they accept smaller amounts of biomass for analysis. All other factors remained the same.
Analysis Objective 3: Impact of boron on above- and belowground biomass, boron presence in tissues, and forage quality were assessed with linear models. Trials 1 and 2 were analyzed separately due to the differences in treatment (25B or 15B) and growth time (34 or 25 weeks). Data on boron quantity and forage quality were limited, so full statistical analyses were not possible, but t-tests were performed where applicable, and the data are graphed. Final visible damage to aboveground tissues was not assessed statistically but is presented graphically.
Objective 4: We assessed the lasting impact of NutraFix on native perennial forage grasses four years post application using two previously established field sites (WSARE SW 20-915). A full factorial randomized study was established over two years at three sites. Two trials were established in the fall of 2020 (Red Bluff Research Ranch (Collaborator, Davis; Norris, MT) and the Highland ranch (Collaborator, Fleming; Livingston, MT)). Three additional trials were established in the fall of 2021 (Red Bluff Research Ranch, Highland ranch, and the Emigrant ranch (Emigrant, MT; collaborator Pierce). All sites are semi-arid grasslands in southwestern Montana. Each trial tested five replicates of seven treatments. In trial 1we assessed the first two field trials established in 2020, and the treatments important to this assessment were the non-treated control and the recommended rate of NutraFix (417 kg/ha, equivalent to 25-ppm). Individual plots were 1.25 x 2.5 m. Aboveground biomass of western wheatgrass and bluebunch wheatgrass were harvested from five replicates in each of the control and recommended NutraFix treatments in July 2024. However, at the time of sampling there were not abundant levels of western wheatgrass and bluebunch wheatgrass in all plots. A total of 13 western wheatgrass forage samples were collected (7 control, 6 NutraFix) and 3 bluebunch wheatgrass samples (2 control, 1 NutraFix). The aboveground plant tissue was assessed for boron presence and crude protein content by CVAS. Similarly to Obj. 3, several samples did not have enough biomass for analysis, and some replications were combined, limiting our analysis. Soil samples assessing boron, other micronutrients, NPK, SOM, pH, and conductivity were collected in the summer of 2024 (n=12) and analyzed by Agvise laboratories. To strengthen these results, we collected more forage samples in the summer of 2025 from the plots established in 2021, again giving us data on plots four years post treatment. This resulted in 6 western wheatgrass forage samples (3 control, 3 NutraFix) and 6 bluebunch wheatgrass samples (3 control, 3 NutraFix). These samples were analyzed by North Border Analytics because they accepted lower biomass quantities.
Analysis Objective 4: The impact of NutraFix on boron concentration and crude protein content in mature perennial grasses four years post treatment was assessed with linear models. The soil metrics were assessed with linear mixed effect models with random variables to account for trial design.
Objective 1: Dose response analysis showed that bluebunch wheatgrass was the least impacted by boron application, followed by cheatgrass, then ventenata and Idaho fescue which did not differ from each other (Fig. 1). It took 0.26 ppm of boron to reduce the germination of bluebunch wheatgrass by 50% and 0.81 ppm to reduce germination by 90% (Fig. 1). It took 0.11 ppm of boron to reduce the germination of cheatgrass by 50% and 0.43 ppm to reduce germination by 90% (Fig. 1). Germination of ventenata and Idaho fescue were reduced by 50% at 0.08 ppm and by 90% at 0.20 ppm (Fig. 1).
Increasing rates of boron impacted both radical (p<0.001) and cotyledon length (p<0.001), and some of those impacts varied by species (p = 0.025). Increasing the boron application by 0.1 ppm resulted in a 9% decrease in radical length for all species (p<0.001; Fig. 2). The same increase reduced cotyledon length by 5% for Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and ventenata (p<0.001; Fig. 3). Cheatgrass cotyledon length was more impacted and had a 10% reduction (p = 0.003; Fig. 3).
Objective 2: Mean seedling emergence varied by the species (p<0.001) and the treatment applied (p = 0.0169). Cheatgrass had the highest emergence rates, with 85% of seeds emerging in the control treatment. Bluebunch wheatgrass had the next highest emergence rates, with 32% of seeds emerging in the control treatment. Mean emergence for Idaho fescue, western wheatgrass, and ventenata was 2%, 2%, and 0.2% respectively. None of the treatments impacted seedling emergence relative to the controls (all p>0.05; Fig. 4). Emergence was decreased in the 25-ppm boron treatment (25B) relative to the 25-ppm NutraFix treatment (25N)(p = 0.009; Fig. 4). Additionally, no Idaho fescue or ventenata individuals emerged from the 25B treatment.
Similarly to emergence, mean aboveground biomass per plant varied by species (p<0.001) and there was weak evidence that aboveground biomass differed by treatment applied (p = 0.070). Cheatgrass individuals had the largest aboveground biomass, 5.6 mg per plant on average. Bluebunch wheatgrass and western wheatgrass individuals had similar biomasses, 3.7 and 3.5 mg respectively. Idaho fescue and ventenata were also similar to each other, 1.6 and 1.8 mg respectively. None of the treatments impacted individual aboveground biomass relative to the controls (all p>0.05; Fig. 5). Aboveground biomass was decreased in the 25B treatment relative to the 15N treatment (p = 0.039; Fig. 5). Visual observations revealed that plants treated with boron and NutraFix often appeared more damaged than control plants, with leaves displaying chlorosis or senescence (Fig. 6).
Belowground biomass was analyzed at two depths, biomass that was present in the top 6 cm of the pot and biomass that was present in the bottom 6 cm of the pot. Biomass per plant in the top 6 cm of the pots were not impacted by treatment (p = 0.988) but did differ between the species (p<0.001, Fig. 7). Cheatgrass had the highest amount of root biomass present in the top 6 cm, with a mean of 4 mg per plant in the control treatment (Fig. 7). Root biomass was much lower for all of our native species, and ventenata was not assessed due to low emergence (Fig. 7). Belowground biomass in the bottom 6 cm of the pots was impacted by the interaction between treatment and species (p = 0.019) indicating that root biomass in the lower 6 cm of the pots was impacted by the treatments in different ways. Belowground biomass in the bottom 6 cm of soil was not impacted by treatment for cheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, or western wheatgrass (Fig. 7). The lower segment of Idaho fescue’s belowground biomass was reduced in the 15B (p = 0.008) treatment relative to the control (Fig. 7).
Boron present in the soil was also sampled in the upper and lower 6 cm of the pots. The amount of boron present in the top 6 cm of the pot differed among species (p = 0.029) and was impacted by treatment (p<0.001). There was 0.8 ppm more boron in the top 6 cm of soil for the bluebunch wheatgrass pots than there was for cheatgrasspots (p = 0.040; Fig. 8). Boron was higher in the 15N treatment than the controls (p<0.001) for all species (Fig. 8). Boron was higher in the 15B, 25B, and 25N treatments than in both the control and 15N treatments (all p<0.05; Fig. 8). The amount of boron present in the bottom 6 cm did not differ among species (p = 0.085) but was impacted by treatment (p<0.001). Both boron treatments (15B & 25B) contained more boron than the controls (both p<0.001), and neither NutraFix treatments (15N & 25N) differed from the controls (both p>0.05; Fig. 8).
Objective 3: Due to the differences in treatment rates (25B or 15B), growth time (34 or 25 weeks), and perhaps analysis vendor, the first and second trials of this objective cannot be directly compared. In both trials we aimed to evaluate boron and crude protein content from individual plants, to understand variability between species and treatments. Unfortunately, the amount of biomass collected from individual plants was insufficient to perform the analyses, so replicates were combined. This greatly limited our ability to make statistical conclusions, but in all species, boron levels appear to be higher in the plants treated with 25-ppm boron than in the controls, but not in those treated with 15-ppm (Fig. 9).
More samples were able to be assessed for crude protein content (% dry matter), but still statistical analysis was limited. In trial 1 the mean crude protein in control bluebunch wheatgrass plants was 8.3% and increased to 14.3% in treated plants (p = 0.021; Fig. 10). Crude protein in the control Idaho fescue individuals was 14.4% and 12.6% in treated individuals (p = 0.683; Fig. 10). For western wheatgrass, crude protein was 8.5% in control plants and 17.8% in treated plants (Fig. 10). In trial 2 the mean crude protein in bluebunch wheatgrass was 9.5% in control plants and 10.1% in treated plants (p = 0.852; Fig. 10). Crude protein in the control Idaho fescueindividuals was 12.4% and 12.5% in treated individuals (Fig. 10). For western wheatgrass, crude protein was 7.8% in control plants and 6.2% in treated plants (p = 0.310; Fig. 10).
Analysis of aboveground biomass revealed that plants treated with 25-ppm boron were on average 1.4 g smaller than non-treated control plants (p<0.001; Fig. 11), and there were no differences between the control and 15B treatments (p = 0.882). On average aboveground biomass was 2.1 g lower in the second trial than the first (p<0.001; Fig. 11). Aboveground biomass did not differ among the three species (p = 0.411; Fig. 11). Visual observations revealed that plants treated with boron often appeared more damaged, with leaves displayingchlorosis or senescence (Fig. 12).
Boron application also had an impact on belowground biomass, plants in the 25B treatment had an average of 2.1 g less biomass accumulation than non-treated controls (p = 0.018), and there were no differences between the controls and 15B treatments (p = 0.875; Fig. 13). On average belowground biomass was 3.7 g lower in the second trial than the first (p<0.001; Fig. 13). Belowground biomass did not differ among the three species (p = 0.314; Fig. 13).
Soil samples from the second trial showed increased boron levels in the top layer of soil for the 15B treatment relative to the control (p<0.001; Fig. 14). There was no difference in boron concentration between the 15B and control treatments in the lower portion of the soil (p = 0.280), and there was no difference among any of the species (p = 0.344; Fig. 14).
Objective 4: We aimed to evaluate boron and crude protein content of NutraFix treated (25N) and control bluebunch wheatgrass and western wheatgrass plants from the field. In trial 1 (established in 2020, harvested in 2024, analyzed by CVAS), a total of 3 bluebunch wheatgrass samples were collected (2 control, 1 NutraFix) and 13 western wheatgrass forage samples (7 control, 6 NutraFix). From trial 2 (established in 2021, harvested in 2025, analyzed by North Border), we collected a total of six bluebunch wheatgrass samples (3 control, 3 NutraFix) and six western wheatgrass forage samples (3 control, 3 NutraFix). The aboveground plant tissue was assessed for boron presence and crude protein content. Boron concentration did not differ between species (p = 0.147) or our two treatments (p = 0.185; Fig. 15). The mean boron content of bluebunch wheatgrass plants was 9.0 ppm, and 35.9 ppm for western wheatgrass plants (Fig. 15). Crude protein content (% dry matter) also did not differ between species (p = 0.414) or treatment (p = 0.127; Fig. 16). Mean crude protein of bluebunch wheatgrass plants was 6.5%, and 7.8% for western wheatgrass plants (Fig. 16). The only soil characteristic that differed between the non-treated control and NutraFix treatments was an increased boron content, by 0.5 ppm, in the NutraFix plots (Table 1).
Research outcomes
In these studies, we saw the strongest impacts on all species during the germination trials in Petri dishes. Our findings suggest that boron, which is highly abundant in NutraFix, is reducing seed germination and early growth (length of radicals and cotyledons) of both non-native and native grass species at low concentrations. This is likely due to the vulnerability of germinating seeds and young seedlings, which makes them a common target of weed management. The close contact between the seeds and boron also likely contributed to the observed result. Bluebunch wheatgrass and cheatgrass appeared more resistant to the impacts of boron than both Idaho fescue and ventenata. Each species has its own unique growth rate, so it is difficult to compare between the species, but analyzing changes relative to control conditions provides information as to how strongly these species are impacted by boron exposure. For example, cheatgrass accumulated much more above- and belowground biomass than the native perennial grasses during the trials in soil medium. This highlights cheatgrass’s quick growth rate, a factor that contributes to its ability to invade semi-arid rangelands dominated by perennial grasses. However, we believe the phytotoxic activity of boron we observed could be contributing to NutraFix’s ability to reduce annual grass biomass over time and could raise concerns as to potential impacts to germinating native species. Impacts to seedling emergence and biomass were less apparent in the seedling emergence trials in soil medium. This is likely due to the boron and NutraFix interacting with the soil, leading to less direct contact between seeds and the treatments.
We also observed differences between aqueous boron applications and solid NutraFix applications when applied in soil medium. We originally decided to use aqueous boron applications as a proxy for NutraFix to simplify applications on small scales. However, we made some observations that led us to wonder how mobile the aqueous boron was in the soil, and we were concerned increased mobility of boron over NutraFix might impact the results of our study and limit our ability to translate our findings to field settings. Comparisons between belowground biomass allocation and boron concentration in the soil showed that the aqueous boron is more mobile than NutraFix and allowed boron to move lower in the soil profile than solid NutraFix applications did. This suggests NutraFix likely remains near the soil surface in the field and is not quickly reduced through leaching, with our greenhouse study showing little movement over four weeks.
We found that mature perennial grasses treated with NutraFix or boron were accumulating boron in their aboveground tissues, however, not at a rate likely dangerous to cattle or other ruminants. It is estimated ruminants would need to consume 2.66 g per kg of body weight to observe severe toxicity (Sisk et al. 1988). The higher rate of boron (25B) appeared to increase crude protein content of bluebunch wheatgrass in our controlled setting, but this was not observed in our field plots four years post application of 25-ppm of NutraFix. The higher rate of boron also reduced above- and belowground biomass of all the perennial grasses tested in a controlled setting and caused chlorosis of leaf tissues.
We believe having more information about how both boron and NutraFix work in controlled settings will aid producers and land managers when considering the use of this product in their integrated weed management approaches. Having a well-diversified approach to weed management helps increase the sustainability of agricultural productions, but it is important to have a strong understanding of how each potential tool is impacting both the target weed and desired vegetation. One concern we have from this study is the negative impacts we observed to the germination of native perennial grasses as well as non-native annual grasses in a non-soil medium. However, it appears the impacts to germination are mitigated when the seeds are in a soil medium, which is more reflective of field conditions. One claim this product makes is that it will improve the health and growth of perennial grasses. We did not find any evidence that this product improves establishment or growth of the native perennial grasses over the durations we tested (21 days to 4 years). There are many avenues of further research that could be taken from this study. It would be interesting to assess the impacts of boron and NutraFix on physiological processes of the different species, particularly differences in uptake and storage mechanisms. NutraFix is also proposed to help manage non-native forbs as well as non-native annual grasses, but there is no published research assessing the response of forbs to NutraFix. More research into specific field conditions like soil texture, weather, and community composition are also important next steps to further understand overall impacts NutraFix has and how that impacts the sustainability of this weed management tool.
Education and Outreach
Participation summary:
Objective 5a: Addressing this objective included summarizing the outcomes and implications of our studies into extension fact sheets and short videos (1-3 minutes).
Objective 5b: Addressing this objective included interactions with cooperating land managers and producers along with other interested individuals attending scientific meetings and field days organized by extension specialists and agents at Montana State University.
Objective 5c: Addressing this objective included preparing one to two papers for peer-reviewed publication.
Objective 5a: We created a fact sheet highlighting the results from work performed as part WSARE SW 20-915, as well as the objectives we explored in this grant, and a link to the preliminary report. This sheet was handed out to 51 producers and researchers at a field day held at MSU’s Red Bluff Research Ranch on June 4th, 2025. We have produced one short video describing the results and relevant information we learned from this project that we hope to have published online (Dr. Rew’s research website and social media) by end of February 2026. The video could also be published on the WSARE website if desired. We are also currently writing a summary of results to post as one of Dr. Mangold’s Monthly Weed Posts. All of these products acknowledge the funding provided by this WSARE grant.
Objective 5b: We participated in a field day on June 4th, 2025, at the Red Bluff Research Ranch, where I along with other researchers from MSU shared our results on a variety of annual grass research topics. It was attended by 51 producers and land managers from the surrounding counties; many of whom said their awareness of the topics was improved (34), we provided them new knowledge (34), they gained new skills (29), and some of their opinions were changed (26). Additionally, data from this project will be presented at the Society of Range Management (Feb. 8-12, 2026), the Montana Weed Control Association (Feb. 10-12, 2026), and Western Society of Weed Management (March 2-5, 2026) conferences this spring. These presentations will reach ~150 producers, educators, public land managers, policy makers, and researchers.
Objective 5c: After concluding these studies and addressing the various setbacks we encountered, we believe we will be able to produce one manuscript for peer-reviewed publication. We would like to perform one more trial of the experiment outlined in Obj. 2 to make our results more robust before submitting them to a journal, but we hope to have a manuscript describing the impacts of boron and NutraFix on seedling germination and establishment submitted to Weed Science for review in the near future. We will make sure to acknowledge the funding provided by this WSARE grant when we submit the manuscript.