Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:32:09.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Management with Imazapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Keith W. Duncan and
Kirk C. McDaniel
Keith W. Duncan
Affiliation:
Artesia Agricultural Science Center, Artesia, NM 88210
Kirk C. McDaniel
Affiliation:
Animal and Range Science Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the 20th century, naturalized saltcedar has become common within major tributaries throughout the western United States. Often growing in nearly monocultural stands, saltcedar is suspected of lowering water tables, thus destroying wetlands and wildlife habitats. Management efforts have primarily relied on mechanical and cultural practices, but recent success in controlling saltcedar with imazapyr has led to wider herbicide use. Based on a number of research/extension field trials in New Mexico from 1987 to present, imazapyr applied alone or in combination with glyphosate was found to control saltcedar to levels of 90% or greater, especially when applied in August or September. For fixed-wing aircraft applications, we recommend applying imazapyr at 1.1 kg ai/ha or imazapyr plus glyphosate at 0.56 plus 0.56 kg/ha. For individual plant treatments, we recommend spraying the foliage to wet with imazapyr at 1% v/v in water, or imazapyr plus glyphosate at 0.5 plus 0.5% v/v. Herbicide activity may be reduced as saltcedar height and stem number increases.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineimazapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidsaltcedar, Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. #3 TAARAAerial applicationcultural controlground applicationmechanical controlphreatophytearsenalglyphosatetriclopyr2,4-DTAARANWR, National Wildlife RefugePRNRRP, Pecos River Nature Riparian Restoration Project

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1998, pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Allred, K. W. 1996. Vegetative changes in New Mexico rangelands. In Herrera, E. A. and Huennke, L. F., eds. New Mexico Journal of Science. Volume 36. Albuquerque, NM. pp. 168–231.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1951. Saltcedar Interagency Task Force for New Mexico Report to Saltcedar Interagency Council. Albuquerque, NM. 29 p.Google Scholar
Baum, B. R. 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 209 p.Google Scholar
Bowser, C. W. 1957. Introduction and spread of the undesirable tamarisles in the Pacific Southwest section of the United States and comments concerning the plants' influence upon the indigenous vegetation. Am. Geophys. Union Trans. 38:415–416.Google Scholar
Brock, J. H. 1994. Tamarix spp. (Saltcedar), an invasive exotic woody plant in arid and semi-arid riparian habitats of western USA. In De Wall, L. C., ed. Ecology and Management of Invasive Riverside Plants. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 27–44.Google Scholar
Brotherson, J. D. and Field, D. 1987. Tamarix: impacts of a successful weed. Rangelands 9:110–112.Google Scholar
Brown, J. P., Peters, A. J., and Pieper, R. D. 1993. Vegetational history of the Pecos Basin in New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. 46 p.Google Scholar
Clary, W. P., McArthur, E. D., Bedunah, D., and Wambolt, C. L., eds. 1991. Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 232 p.Google Scholar
DeLoach, C. J., Gerling, D., Forrasari, L., et al. 1996. Biological control programme against saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States of America: progress and problem. In Moran, V. C. and Hoffman, J. H., eds. Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, January 19–26, 1996. Stellenbosch, South Africa. pp. 253–260.Google Scholar
DeLoach, C. J. 1991. Saltcedar, an Exotic Weed of Western North American Riparian Areas: A Review of its Taxonomy, Biology, Harmful and Beneficial Values, and its Potential for Biological Control. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 7-AG-30-04930. Yuma, AZ: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 443 p.Google Scholar
de Waal, L. C., Child, L. E., Wade, P. M., and Brock, J. H., eds. 1994. Ecology and Management of Invasive Riverside Plants. New York: J. Wiley. 217 p.Google Scholar
di Tomaso, J. and Bell, C. E., eds. 1996. Proceedings of the Saltcedar Management Workshop, June 12, 1996, Rancho Mirage, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California-Davis Cooperative Extension Service. 61 p.Google Scholar
Duncan, K. W. and McDaniel, K. C. 1996a. Summary of Range Brush Control Research Demonstration Trials in New Mexico. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University Range Improvement Task Force Rep. 42. 52 p.Google Scholar
Duncan, K. W. and McDaniel, K. C. 1996b. Chemical Weed and Brush Control Guide for New Mexico Rangelands. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service Rep. 400 B-17. 10 p.Google Scholar
Emory, W. H. 1948. Notes of a Military Reconnaissance, from Ft. Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California. New York: H. Long. (Reprinted in 1951 by University of New Mexico Press, as Lieutenant Emory Reports, with Introduction Notes by Ross Calvin.) 208 p.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. L. 1980. Ecology of saltcedar—a plea for research. Environ. Geol. 3:77–84.Google Scholar
Finch, D. M. and Tainter, J. A., eds. 1995. Ecology, Diversity, and Sustainability of the Middle Rio Grand Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 186 p.Google Scholar
Frasier, G. W. and Johnsen, T. N. Jr. 1991. Saltcedar (Tamarix) classification, distribution, ecology and control. In James, L. F., ed. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 377–386.Google Scholar
Gesink, R. W., Tomanele, G. W., and Hulett, G. K. 1970. A descriptive survey of woody phreatophytes along the Arkansas River in Kansas. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 73:55–69.Google Scholar
Graf, W. L. 1978. Fluvial adjustments to the spread of tamarisk in the Colorado Plateau region. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 89:1491–1501.Google Scholar
Graf, W. L. 1979. Potential Control Measures for Phreatophytes in the Channels of the Salt and Gila Rivers. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW09-79-C-0059. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 68 p.Google Scholar
Graf, W. L. 1982. Tamarisk and river-channel management. Environ. Manage. 6:283–296.Google Scholar
Great Western Research, Inc. 1989. Economic Analysis of Harmful and Beneficial Aspects of Saltcedar. Final Report, USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region. Boulder City, NV: U.S. Department of the Interior. 259 p.Google Scholar
Harris, D. R. 1966. Recent plant invasions in the arid and semi-arid southwest of the United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 56:408–412.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, E. B. 1973. Summary Report Phreatophyte Research, Los Lunas, New Mexico 1961–1972. Los Lunas, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 18 p.Google Scholar
Horton, J. S. 1977. The development and perpetuation of the permanent Tamarisk type in the phreatophyte zone of the southwest. In Johnson, R. R. and Jones, D. A., eds. Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 217 p.Google Scholar
Horton, J. S., Mounts, F. C., and Kraft, J. M. 1960. Seed Germination and Seedling Establishment of Phreatophyte Species. USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Paper 48. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 26 p.Google Scholar
Kerpez, T. A. and Smith, N. S. 1987. Saltcedar Control for Wildlife Habitat Improvement in the Southwestern United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Pub. 169. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 16 p.Google Scholar
Konkle, R. C. 1996. Small Mammal and Herpetofaunal Use of a Tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis)-Dominated Riparian Community in Southeastern New Mexico. M.S. thesis. New Mexico Stale University, Las Cruces, NM. 121 p.Google Scholar
Kuntzman, M. R., Johnson, R. R., and Bennett, P. S., eds. 1987. Proceedings of the Tamarisk Conference on Tamarisk Control in Southwestern United States. Special Rep. 9. Tucson, AZ: Cooperative National Park Research Studies Unit. 141 p.Google Scholar
Lindwauer, I. E. 1967. Ecology of phreatophytes on the Arkansas River in southeastern Colorado. J. Colo.-Wyo. Acad. Sci. 5:65.Google Scholar
Livingston, M. F. 1996. Bird, Vegetation, and Arthropod Associations in Tamarisk (Saltcedar) and Grassland Habitat During Summer Along the Pecos River, Southeastern New Mexico. M.S. thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. 94 p.Google Scholar
Lovich, J. E., Egan, T. B., and DeGouvenion, R. C. 1994. Tamarix control on public lands in the desert of Southern California: Two case studies. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual California Weed Conference. Calif. Weed Sci. pp. 166–177.Google Scholar
Mayeux, H. S. and Crane, R. A. 1983. The brunchroller—an experimental herbicide application with potential for range weed and brush control. Rangelands 5:53–56.Google Scholar
Noffke, W. G. 1996. Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Control Using Various Herbicide Applications. M.S. thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM. 121 p.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. W. 1965. Introduction, Spread and Aerial Extent of Saltcedar (Tamarix) in the Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 12 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. User's Guide. Release 6.03. Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Tellman, B., Cartner, H. J., Wallace, M. G., DeBaro, L. F., and Hamre, R. H., tech. coords. 1993. Riparian Management: Common Threads and Shared Interest. A Western Regional Conference on River Management Strategies. Feb. 4–6, 1993, Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rep. RM-226. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 419 p.Google Scholar
Vallentine, J. F. 1989. Range Development and Improvement. San Diego. CA: Academic Press. 516 p.Google Scholar
Warner, R. E. and Hendrix, K. M., eds. 1984. Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference—Ecology, Conservation and Productive Management. University of California, Davis, Sept. 17–19, 1981. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Warren, D. K. and Turner, R. T. 1975. Saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) seed production, seedling establishment and response to inundation. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 10:135–144.Google Scholar
Watson, J. R. 1912. Plant geography on north central New Mexico. Contribution from the Hull Botanical Laboratory 160:194–217.Google Scholar