DOI: 10.5061/dryad.55vk20v
title: Data from: Mowing effects on woody stem density and woody and herbaceous vegetation heights along Mississippi highway right-of-ways

description: 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 &lt;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.
description: Reference A1. Roadside
 Reveg An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native
 PlantsReference 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 highwaysReference 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.pdfReference A3. Endangered
 by sprawl: how runaway development threaten America’s
 wildlifeReference 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 applicatorsReference 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 potentialReference 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.pdfReference A6. Alternative mowing regimes’ influence on native plants and deerReference 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.pdfReference A7. Native warm-season grass restoration in MississippiReference 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 senseReference 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 variablesReference 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 managementReference 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 butterfliesReference 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-wayReference 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.pdfReference A13. Roadside best management practices that benefit pollinators: handbook for supporting pollinators through roadside maintenance and landscape designReference 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 MakersReference 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.pdfReference A15. Best practices handbook on roadside vegetation managementReference 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 MississippiReference 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 TexasReference 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 managementReference 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.pdfReference A19. A management guide for invasive plants in southern forestsReference 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: 2016–2018Reference 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.pdfReference A21. Deer-vehicle crash, ecological, and economic impacts of reduced roadside mowing – final reportReference 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 IndianaReference 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.pdfReference A23. A landowner’s guide to prairie management in MinnesotaReference 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 roadsReference 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 pavementReference 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 IIReference 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.pdfData A1. Entsminger Vegetation Height DataData 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 (&lt; 18 inches, 18–36 in., &gt; 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 hectaresData 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 CountData 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 &lt;18-in. height, nshrub1836=native shrub 18-36-in. height category, nshrub36=native shrub &gt;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 (&lt;18-in. tall, 18–36-in. height category, &gt; 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 DataData 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 (&lt; 18 in. tall, 18–36-in. height category, &gt; 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).