Brush Management

What is it?

Brush management is the selective or total removal of encroaching woody species. Technical guidence should be sought before determining brush management strategies to fully consider impacts to native species, exotic/invasive species, regional appropriateness, and management/removal strategies. Three species commonly managemened in Texas are ashe juniper (also called cedar), mesquite, and salt cedar. Brush management is employed to restore native grasslands and vegetation communities, improve wildlife habitat, restore rainwater infiltration and promote spring flow, and control exotic or invasive speices.

Conservation Benefits

  • Control of invasive species
  • Helps restore native species
  • Increases rain water infiltration
  • Increases vegetation species diversity
  • Improves wildlife habitat

What does it include?

Brush management strategies will depend on the species, region, and time of year. Treatment can include mechanical removal, chemical treatment, or fire management . Mechanical removal can will use either machines or human labor to remove all or part of the woody plant. Chemical treatments can be injected or sprayed onto the plant.

Brush Management Links

Brush Management Bibliography

  • Afinowicz et al. 2005. Modeling effects of brush management on the rangeland water budget: Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 181-193.
  • Ansley et al. 2001. Observation: long-term increases in mesquite canopy cover in a North Texas savanna. Journal of Range Management 54: 171-176.
  • Archer. 1989. Have southern Texas savannas been converted to woodlands in recent history? The American Naturalist 134: 545-561.
  • Bozzo et al. 1992. Vegetation responses to 2 brush management practices in South Texas. Journal of Range Management 45: 170-175.
  • Brown and Archer. 1999. Shrub invasion of grassland: recruitment is continuous and not regulated by herbaceous biomass or density. Ecology 80: 2385-2396.
  • Gruver and Guthery. 1986. Effects of brush control and game-bird management on nongame birds. Journal of Range Management 39: 251-253.
  • Jones et al. 2000. Herpetofaunal responses to brush management with herbicide and fire. Journal of Range Management 53: 154-158.
  • Knight et al. 1983. Infiltration rates and sediment production following herbicide/ fire brush treatments. Journal of Range Management 36: 1543-157.
  • Kreuter et al. 2001. Adoption of brush busters: results of Texas county extension survey. Journal of Range Management 54: 630- 639.
  • Krueter et al. 2005. The Use of Brush Management methods: a Texas landowner survey. Ranageland Ecology and Management 58: 284-291.
  • Krueter et al. 2004. Landowner willingness to participate in a Texas brush reduction program. Rangeland Ecology & Management 57: 230-237.
  • Leslie et al. 1996. Habitat use by white-tailed deer on cross timbers rangeland following brush management. Journal of Range Management 49: 401-406.
  • Lloyd-Reilley et al. 1984. Hydrologic impacts of brush management with tebuthiuron and prescribed burning on post oak savannah watershed, Texas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 11: 213-224.
  • Notle et al. 1994. Long-term effects of brush management on vegetation diversity in ephemeral drainages. Journal of Range Management 47: 457-459.
  • Rollins et al. 1988. Deer response to brush management in Central Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 277-284.
  • Scifres. 1980. Brush Management: principles and practices for Texas and the Southwest. 360 pp.
  • Wu et al. 2001. Vegetation and water yeild dynamics in an Edwards Plateau watershed. Journal of Range Management 54: 98-105.