Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)

THE GOOD Windbreak Wildlife habitat Wildlife feed source Drought tolerant Nitrogen fixation

Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)

THE BAD Spread by suckers and

seeds Displaces native

vegetation Reduces bio-diversity Reduces land use and

values

Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)

THE UGLY!

Propagation

Sexual—spread by birds and other wildlife Asexual—Stressed or damaged trees readily

sucker

Key—Kill the crown before plant removal

A Noxious WeedIn some Utah CountiesCarbon Sevier

Duchesne Uintah

Grand Wayne

San Juan

Chemical Application Methods

Foliar Spray Basal Bark Spray Frill Cut Stump Cut

Foliar spraying—complete control is difficult Care must be taken to apply herbicide to

every branch Increased the risk of contaminating the

environment or damaging non-target plants. Dilution of the chemical is usually required.

Apply herbicide to the lower area of the main trunk(s) of the tree

Chemical is absorbed through the bark Reduced the risk of environmental

contamination Less effective on trees with corky bark Penetrating oil or diesel may help with

absorption to cambium

Cut notches through the bark and into the sap wood of the tree

Undiluted herbicide is poured or injected into each notch

Cuts are made with a downward motion so the notches will hold the herbicide

Do not girdle the tree with the chop marks. Environmentally friendly application method that

makes very efficient use of herbicide The main difficulty is getting through the thorny lower

branches of the tree to access the trunk Undiluted herbicide is applied in small amounts (2cc

or less per inch of trunk diameter)

Frill Cut

The tree is cut down and the stump is immediately (within ten minutes) sprayed or painted with herbicide

Cutting down the tree and applying the chemical immediately usually requires two or more people to accomplish

Anecdotal evidence indicates this may not be as effective as the frill cut method

Undiluted chemical is more effective with this application method

Used the Frill Cut method for accuracy of placement and ease of metering

Three chemicals Habitat (Arsenal)—28.7% 2-4,D—47.3% Roundup—41.0%

Three rates (cc/inch trunk diameter) 1.00 1.50 2.00

Control trees were cut and marked but nothing was applied to the cuts

The tress were treated October 12, 2005

and evaluated September 5, 2006

Results

Control trees showed no evidence of stress or damage

Results

Results

Results

Results

Chemical Effectiveness

  Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree #3 Average

Control 0 0 0 0.00

2-4,D--1.0 100 100 95 98.33

2-4,D--1.5 90 100 100 96.67

2-4,D--2.0 100 100 100 100.00

Roundup--1.0 100 100 80 93.33

Roundup--1.5 100 100 100 100.00

Roundup--2.0 100 100 100 100.00

Habitat--1.0 100 95 95 96.67

Habitat--1.5 100 100 95 98.33

Habitat--2.0 95 100 100 98.33

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Control 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 2

Treatment

Chemical Effectiveness Average

2,4-D Roundup Habitat

Results

The frill-cut method is effective and reduces environmental contamination

Lower application rates appear to be as effective as the higher rates

No significant difference in the effectiveness of the different chemicals used

The greatest cost, regardless of chemical and application method, is labor to remove the plants

Recommendations

Treat trees with the frill-cut method Take care to not girdle the tree with frill cuts Apply 1.0 cc of undiluted chemical into each

cut Use of a soil-active chemical could hinder re-

vegetation efforts

Time-of-year effectiveness Biocontrol--goats