|
What do you think of the new site for MNWAG? Contact us and give us your thoughts. We are working on adding more content with this redesign and your input is appreciated. Thank you and enjoy the site. |
| Weed Management Plan |
|
|
| Thursday, 09 March 2006 | |||||||||||||
Page 8 of 11 Scientific name: Tamarix aphylla Common name: Saltcedar Updated 07/2002 A. PRIORITY #6 B. DESCRIPTION Most saltcedars, or tamarisks, are deciduous shrubs or small trees growing to 12-15 feet in height and forming dense thickets. It is an evergreen tree that can grow to 50 feet tall and tends to flower during the winter. Saltcedars are characterized by slender branches and gray-green foliage. The bark becomes brownish-purple, ridged and furrowed. Leaves are scale-like, about 1/16 inch long and overlap each other along the stem. They are often encrusted with salt secretions. From March to September, large numbers of pink to white flowers appear in dense masses on 2-inch long spikes at branch tips. Saltcedar establishes in disturbed and undisturbed streams, waterways, bottomlands, banks and drainage washes of natural or artificial waterbodies, moist rangelands and pastures, and other areas where seedlings can be exposed to extended periods of saturated soil for establishment. Saltcedar can grow on highly saline soils containing up to 15,000 ppm soluble salt and can tolerate alkali conditions. C. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION ON THE SITE SEE APPENDIX 2, MAP #7 D. DAMAGE & THREATS Saltcedars are fire-adapted species and have long tap roots that allow them to intercept deep water tables and interfere with natural aquatic systems. Saltcedar disrupts the structure and stability of native plant communities and degrades native wildlife habitat by outcompeting and replacing native plant species, monopolizing limited sources of moisture, and increasing the frequency, intensity and effect of fires and floods. Although it provides some shelter, the foliage and flowers of saltcedar provide little food value for native wildlife species that depend on nutrient-rich native plant resources. Saltcedar spreads vegetatively, by adventitious roots or submerged stems, and sexually. Each flower can produce thousands of tiny (1/25-inch diameter) seeds that are contained in a small capsule usually adorned with a tuft of hair that aids in wind dispersal. Seeds can also be dispersed by water. Seedlings require extended periods of soil saturation for establishment. E. GOALS The major goal the MNWAG wants to accomplish is to lessen the economic impact caused by common reed by increasing awareness of this potentially harmful invasive weed. Once encountered, we will eradicate small stands of reeds and reduce, then control, larger stands. F. OBJECTIVES (Measurable) (Establish measurable objectives for the planned control activities. Include: 1. the impact on numbers, density, cover, etc. that you want to achieve; 2. the size of the area in which you hope to achieve this; 3. the period in which you hope to achieve it. For example you may state your objectives in terms of reducing percent cover of the species by 50% over an area of 5 acres within 3 years. Another possible objective would be eliminating the species from the site within 2 years.) G. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Management of saltcedar requires a long-term commitment to maintain at low levels and prevent reinfestation. The most effective management probably involves a combination of these: (1) CHEMICAL – For extensive infestations of saltcedar, chemical control has been shown to be the most effective method. Cautious use of herbicides aids in restoration of saltcedar infested sites by allowing repopulation by native plant species. Systemic herbicides are recommended for saltcedar management and application methods include foliar sprays, cut stump treatments, basal bark treatments, and aerial sprays. Because tamarisk usually grows in or adjacent to streams, wetlands and other waterways, it is important to use products registered for aquatic application. (2)PRESCRIBED BURNING AND HERBICIDING – Fire has been used with some success, but because saltcedars are fire-adapted, they readily resprout after fire. (3) MECHANICAL – Mechanical techniques include hand-pulling, digging, root-cutting, use of weed eaters, axes, machetes, bulldozers, fire and flooding. Removal by hand is generally recommended for small infestations of saplings under 1-inch diameter. Root-cutting and bulldozing may be effective but are costly, labor intensive and may cause extensive damage to soils and lead to resprouting. as possible. Cut flower-heads should be removed to prevent scattering seeds on site. Repeated mowing may be needed for several years to obtain adequate control. On severely disturbed sites with heavy infestations, such as cropland or abandoned cropland, the site could be plowed and sowed to a cover crop (wheat, alfalfa, rye), if practical and desirable. The following May, the cover crop should be plowed under and desired native species should be seeded. (4) CULTURAL – Flooding can be used to control saltcedar if root crowns remain submerged for at least three months. (5) BIOLOGICAL – Fifteen insects are being investigated as potential biological control agents for saltcedar. Two of these, a mealybug (Trabutina mannipara) and a leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongata), have preliminary approval for release. Five others are being tested within the U.S. and an additional eight species are under study overseas. Concern is over the possibility that, due to the environmental damage caused by tamarisk, native plant species may not be able to replace it if the biological control agents succeed in eliminating it. H. ACTIONS PLANNED (Treatments and monitoring) (Briefly describe the locations to be treated, materials and methods to be used, and an approximate schedule for control and monitoring activities. If several methods are to be tested, outline the design of the planned experiment or demonstration.) I. HOW ACTIONS WILL BE EVALUATED (Criteria for success) SEE APPENDIX 4: Examples of data collection forms. J. RESOURCE NEEDS SEE APPENDIX 3: Weed Management Plan Tables K. RESULTS OF EVALUATION (This section is to be filled in later, preferably within 1 year, when monitoring data has been taken and evaluated, at least preliminarily. The evaluation should be used to determine whether any of the sections B-K above should be modified.) |
|||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Monday, 13 March 2006 ) | |||||||||||||
