Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:03:11.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Runoff and Erosion Following Mechanical and Chemical Control of Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. Karl Wood ,
Eddie L. Garcia  and
John M. Tromble
M. Karl Wood
Affiliation:
Dep. Anim. Range Sci., New Mexico State Univ., P.O. Box 30003, Dep. 3-I, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Eddie L. Garcia
Affiliation:
Dep. Anim. Range Sci., New Mexico State Univ., P.O. Box 30003, Dep. 3-I, Las Cruces, NM 88003
John M. Tromble
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric./Agric. Res. Serv., Jornada Experimental Range, P.O. Box 30003, Dep. 3-I, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Runoff and sediment yield were monitored from 1983 through 1986 on a range site dominated by creosotebush. The site was rootplowed and seeded, treated with tebuthiuron at 36 kg ai ha-1, or left untreated. Runoff from rootplowed and herbicide-treated plots was no different from untreated plots for 1 yr, but sediment yield from treated plots was lower than that from the untreated plots. Rootplowing and seeding increased sediment yield in the second year (1984), whereas treating with herbicide decreased sediment yield. Runoff and sediment yield during 1985 and 1986 were greatest from the untreated areas and least from the rootplowed and herbicide-treated areas. Total cover was nearly the same for each treatment. The untreated plots had 13% shrub cover; the others had none. Between shrubs in untreated plots, bare ground occupied large interconnected areas that contributed to the higher runoff and erosion rates.

Keywords

Tebuthiuron, N-[5-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N-dimethylureacreosotebush, Larrea tridentata (Sesse & Moc. ex. DC.) Coville ♯ LARTRChihuahuan desertphytomassrainfallroot plowsediment yieldwater stage
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 48 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Baker, M. B. Jr. 1984. Changes in streamflow in an herbicide-treated pinyon-juniper watershed in Arizona. Water Resources Res. 20: 1639–1642.Google Scholar
2. Dendy, F. E., Allen, P. B., and Piest, R. F. 1979. Sedimentation in Brakensick, D. L., Osburn, H. B. and Rawls, W. J. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.Google Scholar
3. Dortignac, E. J. 1956. Watershed resources and problems of the upper Rio Grande Basin. U.S. For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. Range Exp. Stn. Google Scholar
4. Evans, R. A., and Love, R. M. 1957. The step point method of sampling–a practical tool in range research. J. Range Manage. 10: 208–212.Google Scholar
5. Gamougoun, N. D., Smith, R. P., Wood, M. K., and Pieper, R. D. 1984. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic responses to grazing management at Fort Stanton, New Mexico. J. Range Manage. 37:538–541.Google Scholar
6. Hennessy, J. T., Kies, B., Gibbens, R. P., and Tromble, J. M. 1986. Soil sorting by forty-five years of wind erosion on a southern New Mexico range. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:301–394.Google Scholar
7. Jacoby, P. W., Ueckert, D. N., and Hartman, F. S. 1982. Control of creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) with pelleted tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 30:307–310.Google Scholar
8. Jordan, G. L., and Maynard, M. L. 1970. The San Simon watershed: shrub control. Prog. Agric. in Arizona 22:(5):6–9.Google Scholar
9. Richardson, C. R., Burnett, E., and Bovey, R. W. 1979. Hydrologic effects of brush control on Texas rangelands. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 22:315–319.Google Scholar
10. Sanchez, C. E., and Wood, M. K. 1987. The relationship of soil surface roughness with hydrologic variables on natural and reclaimed rangeland in New Mexico. J. Hydrol. 94:345–354.Google Scholar
11. Simanton, J. R., Osborn, H. B., and Renard, K. G. 1977. Effects of brush to grass conversion on the hydrology and erosion of a semi-arid southwestern rangeland watershed. Proc. Am. Water Res. Assoc. and Hydrol. Sec., Arizona Acad. Sci., Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
12. Vallentine, J. F. 1989. Range Development and Improvements. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. p. 118–122.Google Scholar
13. Wischmeier, W. H. 1966. Relation of field-plot runoff to management and physical factors. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 30:272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Wood, M. K., and Blackburn, W. H. 1981. Grazing systems: Their influence on infiltration rates in the Rolling Plains of Texas. J. Range Manage. 34:331–335.Google Scholar
15. Wood, M. K., Donart, G. B., and Weltz, M. 1986. Comparative infiltration rates and sediment production on fertilized and grazed blue grama rangeland. J. Range Manage. 39:371–374.Google Scholar