除草剂焚烧和机械清理后的盐渍恢复

K. McDaniel, John P. Taylor
{"title":"除草剂焚烧和机械清理后的盐渍恢复","authors":"K. McDaniel, John P. Taylor","doi":"10.2458/AZU_JRM_V56I5_MCDANIEL","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mechanical clearing and herbicide-burn treatments were compared to evaluate saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis Lour.) control and recovery along the Rio Grande on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, N.M. The herbicide-burn treatment included an aerial application of imazapyr (+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid] + glyphosate [N-(phosphono-methyl)glycine] (0.6 + 0.6 kg ai ha-1 rate) followed 3 years later by a prescription broadcast fire that eliminated > 99% of the standing dead stems. Six years after initial herbicide application, saltcedar mortality was 93%. Mechanical saltcedar clearing entailed removing aerial (trunks and stems) growth by blading, stacking and burning debris, followed by removal of underground plant portions (root crowns) by plowing, raking, and burning stacked material. Saltcedar mortality 3 years after mechanical clearing averaged 70%, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Thus, root plowing, raking, and pile burning was repeated. Three years later, after the second mechanical clearing, saltcedar mortality was 97%. Costs for the herbicide-burn treatment averaged $283 ha-1, whereas mechanical control costs were $884 ha-1 for the first surface and root clearing and an additional $585 ha-1 for the second root clearing. Riparian managers should consider environmental conditions and restoration strategies prior to selecting a saltcedar control approach. Although control costs were significantly lower for the herbicide-burn treatment compared to mechanical clearing in this study, the choice of methods should always consider alternative control strategies for saltcedar. Frequently, combinations of methods result in more efficient, cost-effective results. DOI:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i5_mcdaniel","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":"53 1","pages":"439-445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Saltcedar recovery after herbicide-burn and mechanical clearing practices\",\"authors\":\"K. McDaniel, John P. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.2458/AZU_JRM_V56I5_MCDANIEL\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mechanical clearing and herbicide-burn treatments were compared to evaluate saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis Lour.) control and recovery along the Rio Grande on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, N.M. The herbicide-burn treatment included an aerial application of imazapyr (+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid] + glyphosate [N-(phosphono-methyl)glycine] (0.6 + 0.6 kg ai ha-1 rate) followed 3 years later by a prescription broadcast fire that eliminated > 99% of the standing dead stems. Six years after initial herbicide application, saltcedar mortality was 93%. Mechanical saltcedar clearing entailed removing aerial (trunks and stems) growth by blading, stacking and burning debris, followed by removal of underground plant portions (root crowns) by plowing, raking, and burning stacked material. Saltcedar mortality 3 years after mechanical clearing averaged 70%, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Thus, root plowing, raking, and pile burning was repeated. Three years later, after the second mechanical clearing, saltcedar mortality was 97%. Costs for the herbicide-burn treatment averaged $283 ha-1, whereas mechanical control costs were $884 ha-1 for the first surface and root clearing and an additional $585 ha-1 for the second root clearing. Riparian managers should consider environmental conditions and restoration strategies prior to selecting a saltcedar control approach. Although control costs were significantly lower for the herbicide-burn treatment compared to mechanical clearing in this study, the choice of methods should always consider alternative control strategies for saltcedar. Frequently, combinations of methods result in more efficient, cost-effective results. DOI:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i5_mcdaniel\",\"PeriodicalId\":16918,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Range Management\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"439-445\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Range Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2458/AZU_JRM_V56I5_MCDANIEL\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Range Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/AZU_JRM_V56I5_MCDANIEL","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

摘要

在索科罗的博斯克德尔阿帕奇国家野生动物保护区,比较了机械清除和除草剂焚烧处理对格兰德河沿岸柽柳(Tamarix chinensis Lour.)的控制和恢复情况。N.M.除草剂烧伤处理包括空中施用imazapyr(+)-2-[4,5-二氢-4-甲基-4-(1-甲基乙基)-5-氧- 1h -咪唑-2-基]-3-吡啶羧酸]+草甘膦[N-(膦-甲基)甘氨酸](0.6 + 0.6 kg / hm -1), 3年后进行处方广播火,消除了> 99%的枯死茎。初次施用除草剂6年后,盐雪松死亡率为93%。机械清除盐杉需要通过叶片、堆放和燃烧碎片来清除空中生长的(树干和茎),然后通过犁、耙和燃烧堆放的材料来清除地下植物部分(根冠)。机械清除后3年的盐渍化死亡率平均为70%,不能令人满意。这样,犁地、耙地、烧堆就重复进行了。三年后,在第二次机械清除后,盐杉树死亡率为97%。除草剂烧伤处理的平均费用为283公顷-1,而机械控制的第一次表面和根部清理费用为884公顷-1,第二次根部清理费用为585公顷-1。在选择盐渍化控制方法之前,河岸管理者应该考虑环境条件和恢复策略。尽管在本研究中,与机械清除相比,除草剂烧伤处理的控制成本明显较低,但在选择方法时应始终考虑其他控制盐碱的策略。通常,方法的组合会产生更有效、更具成本效益的结果。DOI: 10.2458 / azu_jrm_v56i5_mcdaniel
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Saltcedar recovery after herbicide-burn and mechanical clearing practices
Mechanical clearing and herbicide-burn treatments were compared to evaluate saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis Lour.) control and recovery along the Rio Grande on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, N.M. The herbicide-burn treatment included an aerial application of imazapyr (+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid] + glyphosate [N-(phosphono-methyl)glycine] (0.6 + 0.6 kg ai ha-1 rate) followed 3 years later by a prescription broadcast fire that eliminated > 99% of the standing dead stems. Six years after initial herbicide application, saltcedar mortality was 93%. Mechanical saltcedar clearing entailed removing aerial (trunks and stems) growth by blading, stacking and burning debris, followed by removal of underground plant portions (root crowns) by plowing, raking, and burning stacked material. Saltcedar mortality 3 years after mechanical clearing averaged 70%, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Thus, root plowing, raking, and pile burning was repeated. Three years later, after the second mechanical clearing, saltcedar mortality was 97%. Costs for the herbicide-burn treatment averaged $283 ha-1, whereas mechanical control costs were $884 ha-1 for the first surface and root clearing and an additional $585 ha-1 for the second root clearing. Riparian managers should consider environmental conditions and restoration strategies prior to selecting a saltcedar control approach. Although control costs were significantly lower for the herbicide-burn treatment compared to mechanical clearing in this study, the choice of methods should always consider alternative control strategies for saltcedar. Frequently, combinations of methods result in more efficient, cost-effective results. DOI:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i5_mcdaniel
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信