Hoffman, Garlyn O.

Texas A&M University

l-766
MAINTENANCE CONTROL FOR MESQUITE
Garlyn O. Hoffman • Extension Range Brush and Weed Control Specialist • Texas A&M University
lVlesquite control reduces competition to native
forage plants and results in increased production.
Both chemical and mechanical methods are useful
tools in mesquite control, but a well-developed
grassland management program is necessary for
long-term range condition improvement.
During the past 20 years, more than 20 million
acres of mesql,lite have been controlled by chemi-
cal and mechanical methods. Eradication, how-
ever, is not possible with current methods because
of resprouting and seedling establishment. There-
fore, a complete control program must be carried
out over a 10 to 15-year period or longer to keep
forage production high and control mesquite.
MAINTENANCE CONTROL PROBLEMS
Mesquite will continue a major problem on in-
fested rangelands because of the maDy seeds dor-
mant in the soil. Experiments at the T AMU
Agricultural Experiment Station at Spur show mes-
quite's ability to reproduce, following complete
removal of the existing infestation.
Mesquite was first removed at the Station in
1940 by handgrubbing. Subsequent seedlings were
removed by grubbing before large enough to pro.
duce beans. The area was kept free of mesquite
bean seed except for those brought in by wildlife
and those dorman t in the soil before removal of
the original stand. The re-infestation of mesquite
by seedlings per acre over a 25-year period is listed
below:
1940 - 213 trees removed.
1945 - 109 seedlings removed.
1952 - 185 additional seedlings removed.
1957 - 75 additional seedlings removed.
1964 - 107 additional seedings removed.
A total of 689 mesquite plants per acre were
removed in 25 years, with 473 being seedlings
plants. This points out the necessity for a con-
tinued, long-term mesquite control program.
28.2
The germination and establishment of new mes-
quite plants are high when the seed are passed
through the animal's digestive tract. Therefore,
keep animals grazing mesquite-infested rangelands
in confinement from 3 to 6 days. This allows
animals to expel the beans from their digestive
tract before grazing an area where mesquite is
controlled.
Some reasons why mesquite-controlled areas
require a planned program are:
To control sprouts from roots and stems and
regrowth of plants not killed completely by the
initial treatment.
To control seedling plants. Mesquite seed
may remain dormant in the soil or may be carried
into the treated area by livestock, wildlife or water.
To control other noxious woody plants. Other
brush may be released by the original treatment,
creating a secondary problem as serious as mes-
quite. Problem species are:: lotebush, pricklypear,
tasajillo, sand sagebrush, sand shinnery oak, yucca,
catclaw, juniper, sumac, skunkbush, wliitebush,
agarito, live oak, blackbrush, granjeno and Texas
persimmon.
To maintain a low level of brush and weed
competition. The area remains open to invasion
by other noxious plants until a vigorous stand of
perennial grass vegetation is restored to the treated
area.
To control annual and perennial weed inva-
sion following chemical or mechanical control.
Problem species are those common to a specific
range site. These include: annual broomweed,
perennial broomweed, sunflower, coneflower, rag-
weed, . bitterweed, snow-on-the-prairie, Russian
thistle, bitter sneezeweed and others.
To provide improved range conditions, regu-
late deferment of grazing and intensity of use to
provide favorable conditions for the development
of better grasses. Ranch operators must recognize
Texas A&M University • Agricultural Extension Service • John E. Hutchison, Director • College Station
problems encountered with the grazing manage-
ment of specific range sites. Some problems are:
length of deferment, season of deferment, degree
of use, re-establishment of desirable species by
natural and artificial seeding, proper kinds and
numbers of grazing animals.
Primary objectives, in carrying out an effec-
tive mesquite control program must be control of
mesquite and its seed source and improvement of
range condition.
This program should be carried out in con-
junction with sound grazing management. Cost of
the various treatments should be amortized over
the program duration. Since long-term programs
are necessary to cope with the mesquite problem,
each step must be well planned and carefully
carried out.
MAINTENANCE CONTROL GUIDELINES
To maintain effective control of mesquite
where basal sprouts, root sprouts, branch flagging
or seedling development is a problem, the follow-
ing methods have proved successful:
Individual plant treatments by hand applica-
tion using basal pour of kerosene or basal spray
of 2,4,5-T in diesel oil to begin 2 years after initial
control. Apply when soil is dry for penetration of
the solution around the bud zone.
Foliage spray treatments with ground or aerial
equipment using 2,4,5-T a.t a rate to obtain both
mesquite and weed control. Regrowth mesquite
should have about 4 seasons of growth or be about
4 feet tall for the herbicide to be most effective.
A type of power sprayer that has proven successful
for treating indvidual plants by the trunk basal 01'
foliage wetting sprays. Knapsack handsprayers are
useful tools also.
Removal by upyooting of individual live plants
using a tree grubber. Undercut below the bud
zone of these plants for maximum mesquite kill.
Seed pits to adapted native forage species at the
time of uprooting.
Front-end and rear-end mounted tree grubbers are
most effective for control of small mesquite trees
and sprouts.
Periodic retreatment by aerial spraying. Apply
2,4,5-T, according to the best specifications known
for a specific locality. Retreatment may be neces-
sary every 3 to 7 years to control mesquite and
keep regrowth from maturing seed.
Chaining of sprayed areas to clear the land by
uprooting large sprouting mesquite and removing
Aerial spraying with herbicides is an economical
and fast method to retreat regrowth mesquite at
3 to 5-year intervals. Resistant species of lotebush J
algeritaJ huisacheJ blackbrushJ granjeno and cat-
claw are not susceptible to low volume applications
us£ng 2)4)5-T.
dead standing top growth. Mesquite can be
chained successfully and substantial maintenance
control obtained within 2 or 3 years after aerial
treatment with 2,4,5-T. Chain the area when the
soil is moist for maximum uprooting of mesquite.
Mesquite should have from 2 to 4 seasons of growth
following chaining before the next scheduled aerial
treatment with herbicides. An app·ropriate foIlow-
up treatment usually is needed following chaining
to control seedlings. and s,prouts, from trees not up-
rooted with the chaining operation.
Treatment combinations may be necessary to
cope with mesquite seedlings and sprouts. A syste-
matic program to prevent reinvasion of mesquite
on an area is dictated by the intensity of the prob-
lem and the type grazing management system
involved.
Subdominant species not controlled effectively
with the initial application must be treated follow-
ing mesquite control. Maintenance treatments for
this program may include:
Individual plant removal by hand or tree grub-
bing. Most ·cactus plants need to be piled or
burned to prevent re-establishment.
Individual plant trea·tment by hand applica-
tion of 2,4,5-T or other effective herbicides. Basal
and foliage spray treatments· with ground equip-
ment control many species not susceptible to low
volume broadcast spray treatment. Cactus species
are controlled satisfactorily and economically with
herbicides. Control Texas persimmon, granjeno
and lotebush by individual plant treatment, using
herbicides rather than mechanical u,prooting, since
these plants are prolific root sprouters.
Aerial spray treatment for secondary species
not controlled by initial application. Where satis-
factory control recommendations are available, the
most economic treatment may be with low-volume
broadcast sprays. An example is treatment of
whitebrush with MCPA following initial treatment
of mesquite with 2,4,5-T. Method of application
is determined by the density of the subdominant
species. Plan maintenance control on subdomi-
nant species before applying initial treatment is
applied. Lotebush, sand sagebrush, shinnery oak,
blackbrush, huisache, granjeno, Texas persimmon
and cactus are examples of potential problems of
subdominant species invasion following mesquite
control.
Annual and perennial weed invasion often fol-
lows brush control by mechanical methods which
cause soil disturbance. Likewise, this problem
m~y occur follo,ving chemical control before a vig-
orous stand of perennial grass occupies the area
released from brush. Effective weed control meth-
ods follow:
Chemical control of weeds by aerial or ground
application using 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T. There are
additional brush control benefits from herbicide
use to control or delay the development of sprouts
and seedlings of brush species.
Ground broadcast power sprayers are an effective
method to control brush sprouts) seedlings and
weeds.
Judicious use of livestock and timely deferment
may prevent build-up of herbaceous weed plants.
Management of controlled areas. Benefits from
mesquite control may be wasted if better grasses
present on the treated area are not improved. The
_ presence of a vigorous stand of desirable vegeta-
tion is effective in retarding the development of
seedlings and sprouts following control. To
achieve desirable results from mesquite control,
the following practices are effective in the manage-
ment and grazing use of the treated area:
Defer the treated area following mesquite con-
trol to encourage the establishment and growth
of better grass plants.
Avoid over-utilization of the treated area for
one or more growing seasons or until desirable grass
stands are re-established. Evaluate the degree of
grazing use on the basis of a key grass on the key
site within a grazing unit.
Use other management practices which im-
prove the distribution of livestock on the treated
area.
Avoid moving cattle from areas of heavy mes-
quite seed crops onto treated areas.
Avoid allowing mesquite to mature seed on the
<..ontrolled area.
Develop and carry out a systematic, deferred-
rotation grazing program in combination with
brush control maintenance methods.
RANGE IMPROVEMENT AND ECONOMIC
RETURNS FROM MESQUITE CONTROL
Returns from control are much more than just
increased grass production. Added benefits are:
• Working ease, caring and seeing for live-
stock, using less labor and decreasing ranch cost.
• Increased offspring numbers.
• Increased offspring weights.
• Less parasite damages.
• Livestock more tame or docile.
• Increased food for deer and increased food
and cover for quail.
• Fewer breeding males required.
• Aesthetic value of seeing livestock on open
native pastures.
Examples of specific results from mesquite con-
trol obtained from result demonstrations are:
Forage production increased by five times over
the uncontrolled area.
Calf weights increased by 40 pounds per ani-
mal. Stocking rate of mother cows increased by
30 percent. Better forage grasses increased. Labor
saved in working livestock.
Cleared pastures returned 81 cents per acre per
year more than brush-infested pastures at Spur.
Range improvement speeded up four times with
brush and weed control, combined with deferred
grazing, as compared to deferred grazing alone.
Sprayed pasture produced 65.8 pounds of wean-
ing calf per acre, while the uncontrolled pasture
produced 49.8 pounds per acre.
Pricklypear control following mechanical con-
trol of mesquite in the South Texas Plains' in-
creased grazing land use from 2Y2 animal units
per 100 acres to six animal units per 100 acres.
Running mesquite control increased stocking
rates by 25 percent and increased wildlife habitat
and income from hunting leases.
Mesquite control is profitable when carried out
as a planned program based on increased forage
and livestock production.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Appreciation is expressed to R. H. Haas and
H. M. Bell, members of the 1966 Conservation
Workshop Committee, Maintenance Control of
Brush for their assistance with this information
taken from the assembled report concerning main-
t.enance control methods and problems.
Appreciation is extended to county agents who
carried out long-term result demonstrations using
the author's suggestions for effectiveness and eco-
nomics of mesquite control.
Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Texas A&M University and the United States
Department of Agriculture cooperating. Distributed in futherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8, 1914, as
amended, and June 30, 1914.
10M-1l-68


English

Maintenance Control For Mesquite.

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/1969.1/164769/4/766/Leaf0766.pdf

Maintenance Control For Mesquite.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&M University