Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:17:32.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) with Pelleted Tebuthiuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kirk C. McDaniel  and
John F. Balliette
Kirk C. McDaniel
Affiliation:
Dep. Animal and Range Sci., New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM 88003
John F. Balliette
Affiliation:
Dep. Animal and Range Sci., New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ground applications of pelleted tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} at 0.6 kg ai/ha (20% formulation) reduced big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. # ARTTR) density by an average of 84 and 92% after 28 months, whereas 1.1 kg/ha killed 94 and 97% of the plants when applied in January or May, respectively. Total standing crop of grasses was unaffected 4 months after tebuthiuron applications. Significant increases in grass production occurred during the second and third growing seasons following tebuthiuron treatment. Desirable forage grasses such as galleta [Hilaria jamesii (Torr.) Benth.], blue grama [Bouteloua gracilis (Wild. ex H.B.K.) Lag. ex Griffiths], and crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.] generally increased in tebuthiuron-treated plots, whereas sand dropseed [Sporobolus cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray # SPECR] and ring muhly [Mulenbergia torreyii (Kunth.) Hitchc. & Chase] production remained unchanged in comparison with untreated areas.

Keywords

Rangelandforage responseARTTR
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 276 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1977. Major land resource areas of New Mexico. New Mexico Interagency Range Rep. No. 11. Soil Cons. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. 22 pp.Google Scholar
2. Beetle, A. A. 1960. A study of sagebrush: The section Tridentatae of Artemisia . Univ. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 368. 83 pp.Google Scholar
3. Beetle, A. A. and Young, A. 1965. A third subspecies in the Artemisia tridentata complex. Rhodora 67:405–406.Google Scholar
4. Berry, C. R. 1979. Impact of sagebrush management on riparian and stream habitat. Proc. Sagebrush Ecosystem Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. Pages 192–209.Google Scholar
5. Britton, C. M. and Sneva, F. A. 1984. Big sagebrush control with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 36:707–708.Google Scholar
6. Caldwell, M. M. 1979. Physiology of sagebrush. Proc. Sagebrush Ecosystem Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. Pages 74–85.Google Scholar
7. Cornelius, D. R. and Graham, G. A. 1951. Selective herbicides for improving California forest and ranges. J. Range Manage. 4:95–100.Google Scholar
8. DePuit, E. J. and Caldwell, M. M. 1975. Gas exchange of three cool semi-desert species in relation to temperature and water stress. J. Ecol. 68:835–858.Google Scholar
9. Elwell, H. M. and Cox, M. B. 1950. New methods of brush control for more grass. J. Range Manage. 3:46–51.Google Scholar
10. Evans, R. A., Young, J. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1979. Use of herbicides as a management tool. Proc. Sagebrush Ecosystem Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. Pages 110–116.Google Scholar
11. Garrison, G. L. and McDaniel, K. C. 1982. New Mexico brush inventory. Spec. Rep. No. 1. New Mexico Dep. Agric., Las Cruces, NM. 28 pp.Google Scholar
12. Hull, A. C. Jr. and Vaughn, W. T., 1951. Controlling big sagebrush with 2,4-D and other chemicals. J. Range Manage. 4:158–164.Google Scholar
13. Hyder, D. N. 1953. Controlling big sagebrush with growth regulators. J. Range Manage. 6:109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Jacoby, F. W., Ueckert, D. N., and Hartmann, F. S. 1982. Control of creosotebush with pelleted tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 30:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. McDaniel, K. C. 1984. Snakeweed control with herbicides. New Mexico Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 706. 34 pp.Google Scholar
16. Pettit, R. D. 1979. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron pellets on sand shinnery oak communities. J. Range Manage. 32:196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. C., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 37:155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Scifres, C. J., Scifres, J. R., and Kothmann, M. M. 1983. Differential grazing use of herbicide-treated areas by cattle. J. Range Manage. 36:59–65.Google Scholar
19. Sosebee, R. D. 1979. Broom snakeweed control with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:179–181.Google Scholar
20. Sturges, D. L. 1979. Hydrologic relations of sagebrush lands. Proc. Sagebrush Ecosystem Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. Pages 86–100.Google Scholar
21. West, N. E. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of sagebrushdominated lands in the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Proc. Sagebrush Ecosystem Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan, UT. Pages 33–41.Google Scholar
22. Whitson, T. D. and Alley, H. P. 1984. Tebuthiuron effects on Artemisia spp. and associated grasses. Weed Sci. 32:180–184.Google Scholar
23. Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Tueller, P. T. 1976. Great Basin plant communities – pristine and grazed. Pages 186–215 in Elston, R., ed. Holocene Environmental Change in the Great Basin. Nevada Archeological Survey Res. Paper 8. Univ. Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar