Upload
audrey-thorpe
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)
THE GOOD Windbreak Wildlife habitat Wildlife feed source Drought tolerant Nitrogen fixation
Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)
THE BAD Spread by suckers and
seeds Displaces native
vegetation Reduces bio-diversity Reduces land use and
values
Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)
THE UGLY!
Propagation
Sexual—spread by birds and other wildlife Asexual—Stressed or damaged trees readily
sucker
Key—Kill the crown before plant removal
A Noxious WeedIn some Utah CountiesCarbon Sevier
Duchesne Uintah
Grand Wayne
San Juan
Chemical Application Methods
Foliar Spray Basal Bark Spray Frill Cut Stump Cut
Foliar spraying—complete control is difficult Care must be taken to apply herbicide to
every branch Increased the risk of contaminating the
environment or damaging non-target plants. Dilution of the chemical is usually required.
Apply herbicide to the lower area of the main trunk(s) of the tree
Chemical is absorbed through the bark Reduced the risk of environmental
contamination Less effective on trees with corky bark Penetrating oil or diesel may help with
absorption to cambium
Cut notches through the bark and into the sap wood of the tree
Undiluted herbicide is poured or injected into each notch
Cuts are made with a downward motion so the notches will hold the herbicide
Do not girdle the tree with the chop marks. Environmentally friendly application method that
makes very efficient use of herbicide The main difficulty is getting through the thorny lower
branches of the tree to access the trunk Undiluted herbicide is applied in small amounts (2cc
or less per inch of trunk diameter)
Frill Cut
The tree is cut down and the stump is immediately (within ten minutes) sprayed or painted with herbicide
Cutting down the tree and applying the chemical immediately usually requires two or more people to accomplish
Anecdotal evidence indicates this may not be as effective as the frill cut method
Undiluted chemical is more effective with this application method
Used the Frill Cut method for accuracy of placement and ease of metering
Three chemicals Habitat (Arsenal)—28.7% 2-4,D—47.3% Roundup—41.0%
Three rates (cc/inch trunk diameter) 1.00 1.50 2.00
Control trees were cut and marked but nothing was applied to the cuts
The tress were treated October 12, 2005
and evaluated September 5, 2006
Results
Control trees showed no evidence of stress or damage
Results
Results
Results
Results
Chemical Effectiveness
Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree #3 Average
Control 0 0 0 0.00
2-4,D--1.0 100 100 95 98.33
2-4,D--1.5 90 100 100 96.67
2-4,D--2.0 100 100 100 100.00
Roundup--1.0 100 100 80 93.33
Roundup--1.5 100 100 100 100.00
Roundup--2.0 100 100 100 100.00
Habitat--1.0 100 95 95 96.67
Habitat--1.5 100 100 95 98.33
Habitat--2.0 95 100 100 98.33
0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00
100.00
Control 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 2
Treatment
Chemical Effectiveness Average
2,4-D Roundup Habitat
Results
The frill-cut method is effective and reduces environmental contamination
Lower application rates appear to be as effective as the higher rates
No significant difference in the effectiveness of the different chemicals used
The greatest cost, regardless of chemical and application method, is labor to remove the plants
Recommendations
Treat trees with the frill-cut method Take care to not girdle the tree with frill cuts Apply 1.0 cc of undiluted chemical into each
cut Use of a soil-active chemical could hinder re-
vegetation efforts
Time-of-year effectiveness Biocontrol--goats