Laserfiche WebLink
<br />maintenance pfOblem of contwlling the regwwth of <br />vegetation in the cleared floodway and along the <br />main conveyance channel. The answer to the re- <br />gwwth pwblem was to develop a program of control <br />of regwwth fwm those phreatophytes previously <br />cleared and new reseeding gfOwth which could be <br />normally expected. This program was set up around <br />the use of chemicals I using both airplane and ground <br />application methods. <br />Aedal spraying of floodways and other salt cedar <br />control areas was accomplished by contract with <br />Western Flying Service of Clovis, New Mexico. <br />Specifications called for the use of formulas con- <br />taining 2,4-D amine, and low volatile esters of <br />2,4-0 and 2,4,S-T, diesel oil, emulsifier and water. <br />Not less than 5 gallons of specified mixtures were <br />applied to each acre. Treatments were given July <br />1953, September 1953 and July 1954, allowing a <br />minimum of 42 days regrowth between applications. <br />Spmying operations pwvided for applications of <br />chemicals to four units of matured phreatophyte <br />growth located in certain bosque areas between <br />Bemardo and Nogal Canyon and appwximately 5,000 <br />acres of cleared floadway in the San Marcial area. <br />During the three periods for spray applications a <br />total of appwximately 25,000 acres were treated <br />under the Bureau contract for aerial spraying. <br />During this same period, July 1953, the Bureau of <br />Reclamation cooperated with the State of New Mexico <br />in establishing a program of phreatophyte control <br />in other areas along the Rio Grande. Similar spec~ <br />ifications were prepared and the same contractor <br />handled the aerial spraying work under the State <br />conhact. A total of 4,500 acres were treated three <br />times. <br />To check on the effectiveness of spraydistdbution <br />over the treated areas and to analyze the results of <br />the work, three steps were taken. First, in order to <br />determine scope of coverage, each area was inspect~ <br />ed within 30 days after applications were made. The <br />vegetation which had received adequate amounts of <br />chemical was identified by the appearance of ep- <br />inasty, generally occurring at the tips of the gmwth. <br />The second step consisted of collection of root <br />samples from the various areas for laboratory tests <br />for carbohydrate food reserve analysis. Samples; of <br />course, were taken from both treated and untreated <br />areas for comparison. The last and possibly most <br />conclusive check was a field inspection of spray <br />areas to determine the degree of top kill and basal <br />regrowth generally occurring within 60 days of treat- <br />ment. <br />We are fortunate in having weed control special~ <br />ists from the Agricultural Research Service, U. S. <br />Dept. of Agriculture, in addition to those from the <br />Bureau, Regional and Washington Offices, to help <br />us evaluate the results of the weed control program <br />thus far., The results from all airplane-sprayed <br />tracts of matured phreatophytes were found to be <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />, <br />, <br />i~ <br /> <br />quite similar. Two or more repeated spray treat- <br />ments gave a high percentage top kill and genemlly <br />not much more than 50% plant kill and as Soon as <br />treatment was discontinued the phreatophyte gmwth <br />recovered to original density within 1 or 2 years <br />particularly in those areas where river over~flow <br />provided an annual irrigation. <br /> <br />It now appears that best results of aefial treatment <br />of matured phreatophytes cannot be accomplished <br />without removal of the dead canopy, which will fa- <br />cilitate the applications of chemicals to basal re. <br />growth. Our experience thus far indicates little was <br />gained by the use of 2,4-D and mixtures of esters of <br />D and T on the treatment of mature salt cedar. It <br />would appear, however, that the iso-octyl esters <br />(brushkiller) gave us a better top kill on willows. <br />A treatment of 725 acres of mixed phreatophyte <br />growth sprayed under the State Engineer's contract, <br />using 5 gallons to the acre containing 2 pounds of <br />amine, 1 gallon of nontoxic oil, as a substitute for <br />diesel oil, and the balance of water give the best over~ <br />all kill accomplished so far. In this area the bac- <br />chafis had expefienced a 100% kill and willow and <br />cottonwood 80% and the salt cedar about 80% top kill <br />and 50% plant kill on matured plants. <br /> <br />Contwl of phreatophyte regmwth and seedlings <br />within the mechanically cleared floodway areas was <br />more effective than in the mature phreatophyte areas. <br />Plant kill has been considered very good, ranging <br />from poor in some few areas to excellent in other <br />areas. The pom kills appeared to be correlated with <br />heavy rain showers, which occurred immediately <br />following spray operations. ,We have also observed <br />that better plant kill is accomplished after regrowth <br />has obtained a height of about 18 inches. <br />We are in process of modifying the program of <br />phreatophyte contwl to include a plan pfOviding for <br />alternate mechanical clearing, using heavy gang disk <br />plows and ground application of chemicals, principally <br />2,4-D amine. This change of procedure is being <br />done in hopes of gaining time on ultimate complete <br />control of floadway regrowth with its reduction of <br />water use. Application of the chemicals will be <br />accomplished by the use of a heavy duty large vol~ <br />ume gwund spray dg pulled by a tfactOf. It is plan- <br />ned also to initiate a re..seeding program through <br />which we may be able to establish various types <br />of grasses throughout the control areas. Control <br />in the mature salt cedar areas would be accomplished <br />by somewhat similar methods. <br />In addition to the use of presently available herbi- <br />cidal hormones for phreatophyte control, we are also <br />working in cooperation with various chemical com~ <br />panies on experimental control of salt cedar in test <br />plots with the use of new Urea Herbicides. <br />From the amount of salt cedar, etc., that exists on <br />the Rio Grande and its tributaries, we can expect <br />the pfOblem of phreatophyte contwl to be with us Cm <br />a long time to come. Of course, we are always hope- <br /> <br />.~. <br /> <br />':.~. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />'-~" <br /> <br />,~~$j <br /> <br />;~: <br />'.~~j <br /> <br />~j <br />;tJ. <br /> <br />,-.-,'. <br />~~~:~ <br />,'-) <br /> <br />~. 1 <br />Lj <br /> <br />.,. <br />;~.J <br />,...:.: <br /> <br />:-.;;~ <br />i..?~~ <br />;~f: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />;"; ,'. '::'.~ {' 0 <br />.~ ,...~....VN <br />