Roadside right-of-ways (ROWs) undergo regular disturbances such as mowing, maintenance, wrecks, and road developments, which affect soils, groundwater, surface hydrology, and the composition of vegetation. Roadsides can provide and support an environment for diverse plant communities, but management practices have reduced native grasses, wildflowers, and woody plants. Woody plants are not desirable for traffic safety, maintenance, and visibility along road ROWs. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate effects of roadside mowing frequency on native and nonnative herbaceous and woody plant vertical height coverage, and native and nonnative woody stem density within plant communities along highway ROWs. Ten research plots, systematically situated along Highway 25 in Oktibbeha and Winston counties, Mississippi, were subdivided to receive (a) four or more mowings annually, (b) one mowing during fall, and (c) one mowing during fall with supplemental native wildflower seeding. Upland plots were differentiated based on soil drainage in upward hills. Riparian (lowland) areas were influenced by overbank inundations from streams and drainages, and were typically spanned by bridges or box culverts. Line transects were used to sample vegetation. Two hundred seventy-seven plant species were detected, which included native and nonnative forbs, legumes, grasses, rushes, sedges, and woody perennials (vines, shrubs, and trees). Nonnative grasses exhibited the greatest percent coverage ({greater than or equal to} 90%) in all treatments. Woody plants, including vines, trees, and shrubs, comprised {less than or equal to} 8% coverage throughout the study. Percent coverage of all vegetation in different height categories differed between upland and riparian elevations (F1, 59 {greater than or equal to} 4.65, P {less than or equal to} 0.04), seasons (F1, 59 {greater than or equal to} 12.78, P {less than or equal to} 0.01), and between years (F1, 59 {greater than or equal to} 4.91, P {less than or equal to} 0.03), but did not differ in height categories among treatments. Of the {less than or equal to}8% coverage of woody plants, woody vines comprised most ({greater than or equal to}68%) of the stem counts, whereas 24% were trees and <8% were shrubs. Woody stem density did not differ among treatments nor seasons, but between elevations (F1, 59 = 3.34, P = 0.07) and during the two-year study (F1, 59 = 3.21, P = 0.08) trend was in the predicted direction (α = 0.05). Thickets of woody vines, and low-lying trees and shrubs along the roadside ROWs did not compromise height requirements needed for roadside visibility and safety. At least one mowing per year would be needed to control tree and shrub species for visibility along roadside ROWs. We concluded that a 2-year study mowing regimen found no difference between once annual and greater than three times annual mowing in the plant communities in east central Mississippi. However, one mowing per year retained agronomic plant coverage, which is useful for erosion control and soil stabilization during roadside maintenance. Proactive management implementations can include native plantings, selective herbicide use to decrease nonnatives, continual mowing from roadside edge to 10 meters (m), and only one mowing in late fall with an extension of the boundary to reach beyond 10 m from the roadside edge to suppress invasion of woody plants. Adopting this less frequent mowing regimen could reduce long-term maintenance costs for Mississippi highways.
Reference A1. Roadside Reveg An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants
Reference A1. Armstrong A, Christians R, Erickson V, Hopwood J, Horning M, Kim T, Kramer A, Landis T, Moore L, Remley D, Riley L, Riley S, Roberts S, Skinner M, Steinfeld D, Teuscher T, White A, Wilkinson K. 2017. Roadside revegetation: an integrated approach to establishing native plants and pollinator habitat. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). Available: http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual_2017/#tech_doc (25.9 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722QP9aSz).
Reference A2. Wildflowers for Indiana highways
Reference A2. Dana MN, Kemery RD, Boszor BS. 1996. Wildflowers for Indiana highways. West Lafayette, Indiana: Joint Transportation Research Program, U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Paper 227. Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-96/01. Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, Purdue Libraries, Purdue e-Pubs Civil Engineering, 1–162. Found at https://datadryad.org//resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.960dh/2; also available: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/227/ (5.78 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-09-14. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/72QusaKKN).
Reference A2. Wildflowers for Indiana Highways 1996.pdf
Reference A3. Endangered by sprawl: how runaway development threaten America’s wildlife
Reference A3. Ewing R, Kostyack J, Chen D, Stein B, Ernst M. 2005. Endangered by sprawl: how runaway development threaten America’s wildlife. Washington, D. C.: National Wildlife Federation, Smart Growth America, and Nature Serve. Available: https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Wildlife/EndangeredbySprawl.pdf (1.44 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722S0vrY9).
Reference A4. Ohio pesticide applicator training: a study guide for commercial industrial vegetation applicators
Reference A4. Folck C, Kick-Raack J. 2005. Ohio pesticide applicator training: a study guide for commercial industrial vegetation applicators. The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 841–5. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension. Available: https://extensionpubs.osu.edu/ohio-pesticide-applicator-training-a-study-guide-for-commercial-industrial-vegetation-applicators/ (1.21 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722Sg2rKk).
Reference A5. Light disking to enhance early successional wildlife habitat in grasslands and old fields: wildlife benefits and erosion potential
Reference A5. Greenfield KC, Burger LW Jr., Golden L, Graham P. 2005. Light disking to enhance early successional wildlife habitat in grasslands and old fields: wildlife benefits and erosion potential. USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Technical Note No. 190–32. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/3; also available at http://www.fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/nrcs.pdf (2.55 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722T5Z8Y2).
Reference A5. Light disking to enhance early successional wildlife habitat in grasslands and old fields wildlife benefits and erosion potential.pdf
Reference A6. Alternative mowing regimes’ influence on native plants and deer
Reference A6. Guyton JW, Jones JC, Entsminger ED. 2014. Alternative mowing regimes’ influence on native plants and deer. SS228 Final Project Report, Report No. FHWA/MDOT–RD–14–228. Jackson, Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Transportation. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/4; also available at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1340960 (2.24 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722TLRWc9).
Reference A6. Alternative mowing regimes influence on native plants and deer.pdf
Reference A7. Native warm-season grass restoration in Mississippi
Reference A7. Hamrick R, Burger LW Jr., Jones JC, Strickland BK. 2007. Native warm-season grass restoration in Mississippi. Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2435:1–12. Mississippi State, Mississippi: Mississippi State University. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/5; available at http://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/publications/p2435.pdf (1.44 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722TgGXwm).
Reference A8. A guide to successful wildlife food plots blending science with common sense
Reference A8. Harper CA. 2008. A guide to successful wildlife food plots blending science with common sense. University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Service Publication 1769. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee. Found at ISBN 978-0-9795165-1-1; available: https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/PB1769.pdf (8.87 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722UAmJEY).
Reference A9. Estimating wildlife habitat variables
Reference A9. Hays RL, Summers C, Seitz W. 1981. Estimating wildlife habitat variables. Washington, D.C.: Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-81/47, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/6; also available at http://tidalmarshmonitoring.org/pdf/Hays1981_EstimatingWildlifeHabitatVariables.pdf (1.31 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722ULnfhp).
Reference A10. Assessment of alternatives in roadside vegetation management
Reference A10. Hill K, Horner R. 2005. Assessment of alternatives in roadside vegetation management. Washington State Transportation Commission. Seattle, Washington: Final Research Report Agreement T2695, Task 67: Roadside Vegetation. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/7; also available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/0cb59701-542e-4df2-b8c8-1aca3cb72172/0/finaluwreport.pdf (633 KB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722UUtY2v).
Reference A11. Pollinators and roadsides managing roadsides for bees and butterflies
Reference A11. Hopwood J. 2010. Pollinators and roadsides managing roadsides for bees and butterflies. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, Oregon: Invertebrate Conservation Guidelines. Available: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/roadside-guidelines_xerces-society1.pdf (408 KB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722Uf8Yvy).
Reference A12. Literature review: pollinator habitat enhancement and best management practices in highway rights-of-way
Reference A12. Hopwood J, Black SH, Lee-Mäder E, Charlap A, Preston R, Mozumder K, Fleury S. 2015. Literature review: pollinator habitat enhancement and best management practices in highway rights-of-way. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and ICF International. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. Available: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/pollinators_BMPs_in_highway_ROW.pdf (893 KB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722UrkxsW).
Reference A12. Literature review pollinator habitat enhancement and best management practices in highway rights-of-way.pdf
Reference A13. Roadside best management practices that benefit pollinators: handbook for supporting pollinators through roadside maintenance and landscape design
Reference A13. Hopwood J, Black SH, Fleury S. 2015. Roadside best management practices that benefit pollinators: handbook for supporting pollinators through roadside maintenance and landscape design. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), Report No. FHWA-HEP-16-059. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1455556 and http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/BMPs_pollinators_landscapes.pdf (2.97 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722X5EVnY).
Reference A14. Pollinators and Roadsides: Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers
Reference A14. Hopwood J, Black SH, Fleury S. 2016. Pollinators and Roadsides: Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), Report No. FHWA-HEP-16-020. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/8; also available at https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/Pollinators_Roadsides/BMPs_pollinators_roadsides.asp (5.76 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722XGezsj).
Reference A14. Pollinators and Roadsides Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers.pdf
Reference A15. Best practices handbook on roadside vegetation management
Reference A15. Johnson AM. 2000. Best practices handbook on roadside vegetation management. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Minnesota Technology Transfer. Minnesota Technology Transfer (T2)/LTAP Program, Center for Transportation Studies Report Number: Mn/DOT 2000–19. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/11; also available at http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200019.pdf (2.46 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722XOKehZ).
Reference A16. Forest soils of Mississippi
Reference A16. Kushla JD, Oldham L. 2017. Forest soils of Mississippi. Mississippi
State University Extension Service Publication 2822:1–7. Mississippi State, Mississippi: Mississippi State University. Found at https://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/publications/p2822.pdf (244 KB PDF). Accessed: 2018-09-05. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/72D7yVfaC).
Reference A17. Successional establishment, mowing response, and erosion control characteristics of roadside vegetation in Texas
Reference A17. Li MH, Schutt JR, McFalls J, Bardenhagen EK, Yong Sung C, Wheelock L. 2008. Successional establishment, mowing response, and erosion control characteristics of roadside vegetation in Texas. Austin, Texas: Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation Office. Technical Report: FHWA/TX-08/0-4949-1. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/12; also available at https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4949-1.pdf (1.54 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722XiNERv).
Reference A18. Policy for roadside vegetation management
Reference A18. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. 2000. Policy for roadside vegetation management. Louisiana Register: 1–60. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/13; also available at http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Misc%20Documents/Policy%20For%20Roadside%20Vegetation%20Management.pdf (1.32 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722ZSGlTi).
Reference A18. Policy For Roadside Vegetation Management.pdf
Reference A19. A management guide for invasive plants in southern forests
Reference A19. Miller JH, Manning ST, Enloe SF. 2015. A management guide for invasive plants in southern forests. Asheville, North Carolina: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report GTR–SRS–131. Found at ISBN: 9780160936326 and http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/14; also available at http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs131.pdf (5.23 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722ZgndOA).
Reference A20. National Invasive Species Council Management Plan: 2016–2018
Reference A20. National Invasive Species Council. 2016. Management plan: 2016–2018. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; Available: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/2016-2018-nisc-management-plan.pdf (11.8 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722Zq3Qkp).
Reference A20. National Invasive Species Council Plan 2016-2018.pdf
Reference A21. Deer-vehicle crash, ecological, and economic impacts of reduced roadside mowing – final report
Reference A21. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2012. Deer-vehicle crash, ecological, and economic impacts of reduced roadside mowing – final report. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. Available: http://www.deercrash.org/DVC%20Mowing.pdf (2.70 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-09-04. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/72BlSKPmp).
Reference A22. Wildlife use of roadside woody plantings in Indiana
Reference A22. Roach GL, Kirkpatrick RD. 1985. Wildlife use of roadside woody plantings in Indiana. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. The Roadside Environment Transportation Research Record 1016:11–15. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=271902 (4.09 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722blBI0O).
Reference A22. Wildlife Use of Roadside Woody Plantings Indiana.pdf
Reference A23. A landowner’s guide to prairie management in Minnesota
Reference A23. Svedarsky WD, Kuchenreuther MA, Cuomo GJ, Buesseler P, Moechnig H, Singh A. 2002. A landowner’s guide to prairie management in Minnesota. Crookston, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/15; also available at https://www.crk.umn.edu/sites/crk.umn.edu/files/landowners-guide-to-prairie-management-in-minnesota-svedarsky.pdf (2.49 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722bxCZ7o).
Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads
Reference A24. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2005. Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Found at https://doi.org/10.17226/11535; also available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11535/assessing-and-managing-the-ecological-impacts-of-paved-roads (2.43 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722c53iro).
Reference A25. Assessment of alternatives in vegetation management at the edge of pavement
Reference A25. Willard R, Morin J, Tang O. 2010. Assessment of alternatives in vegetation management at the edge of pavement. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Transportation. Washington State Department of Transportation, Pavement Edge Vegetation Management, Final Report: WA-RD 736.1. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/18; also available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/736.1.pdf (5.15 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722cMjOpT).
Reference A26. Evaluating alternative methods for vegetation control and maintenance along roadsides: study II
Reference A26. Young S, Claassen V. 2007. Evaluating alternative methods for vegetation control and maintenance along roadsides: study II. Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation/University of California Davis. Research Technical Agreement #65A0137. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/19; also available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_la_design/research/docs/Veg_Conversion_Final_Report.pdf (3.07 MB PDF). Accessed: 2018-08-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/722cTZPU7).
Reference A26. Evaluating alternative methods for vegetation control and maintenance along roadsides.pdf
Data A1. Entsminger Vegetation Height Data
Data A1. Raw data from over 276 plant species heights that were collected along a 48.28-km stretch of roadside right-of-ways in east central Mississippi from 2010 to 2012. The data are categorized by a unique identification field with elevation (lowland, upland), site location number (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), treatments (mow = mowing, no-mow = no-mowing, and seeded = no mowing with seeding), and season/year (fall 2010, spring 2011, …). Elevation (upland, lowland), season/year (fall 2010, spring 2011,…), season (fall, spring), year (2010, 2011, 2012), sites (lowland 1, lowland 2,…upland 1, upland 2,…), treatments (mow, no-mow, and seeded), and status (native, nonnative, unknown status)/veg type (vegetation type = forb, grass, legume,…)/height of vegetation (< 18 inches, 18–36 in., > 36 in. height category) are displayed for an overall value of percent coverage within the each height category. Found at https://figshare.com/s/26f1e6ad7e6b98921434 (46 KB XLSX).
Data A2. Entsminger Woody Density in hectares
Data A2. Raw data from over 1,942 woody plants stem counts and densities in hectares collected along a 48.28-km stretch of roadside right-of-ways in east central Mississippi from 2010 to 2012. The data are categorized by season/year (fall 2010, spring 2011,…), elevation (low=lowland, up=upland), site location number (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), TRT=treatments (mow=mowing, no mow=no mowing, and seed=no mowing with seeding), native woody stem counts, nonnative woody stem counts, total woody stem counts, total stems per hectare, total stems per meter square, native total stems per hectare, and nonnative total stems per hectare are displayed for an overall value of woody stem counts within the each category. Found at https://figshare.com/s/8cc03d40774e6e9bba8d (23 KB XLSX).
Data A3. Entsminger Woody Plant Species Count
Data A3. Raw data from over 1,942 woody plant species stem count that were collected along a 48.28-km stretch of roadside right-of-ways in east central Mississippi from 2010 to 2012. The data are categorized by site/elevation (low1, low2,... up1, up2, …), TRT=treatments (mow=mowing, no mow=no mowing, and seed=no mowing with seeding), season/year (fall 2010, spring 2011, …), status/veg type/height (nshrub18=native shrub <18-in. height, nshrub1836=native shrub 18-36-in. height category, nshrub36=native shrub >36-in. height category, …), scientific names, percent coverage, native/nonnative/vegetation type/height, status (n=native, nn= nonnative, un=unknown status), vegetation type (shrub, tree, vine), and height category (<18-in. tall, 18–36-in. height category, > 36-in. height category) are displayed for an overall value of woody stem counts within the each category. Found at https://figshare.com/s/6203a6d324e049de32a7 (121 KB XLSX).
Data A4. Entsminger Percent Coverage All Data
Data A4. Raw data from over 276 vegetation percent coverage within each status and height category that were collected along a 48.28-km stretch of roadside right-of-ways in east central Mississippi from 2010 to 2012. The data are categorized by a unique identification field with elevation (low = lowland, up = upland), site location number (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), treatments (mow = mowing, nmow = no-mowing, and seed = no mowing with seeding), and season/year (f10 = fall2010, sp11 = spring 2011…). The status (n = native, nn = nonnative, un = unknown status), vegetation type (forb, grass, legume…), and the height of vegetation (< 18 in. tall, 18–36-in. height category, > 36-in. height category) are displayed for an overall value of percent coverage. Found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.960dh/21 (32 KB XLSX).