Guide B-817

Revised by Casey Spackman, Douglas Cram, and Marcy Ward

College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University

Authors:  Respectively, Assistant Professor and Extension Range Specialist, Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources (EASNR); Extension Forest & Fire Specialist, EASNR; and Extension Livestock Specialist, EASNR. All from College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES), New Mexico State University.  (Print friendly PDF)

Woody encroachment is an ecological threat to grasslands at the local and global scale. ^1,2 Juniper, a group of native woody species across New Mexico occupying over 23 million acres, naturally exists in balance within certain ecosystems. However, it can become problematic when conditions favor expansion outside historical boundaries or increased densities within traditionally occupied habitats. ³ At this point, effective management demands a proactive rather than reactive approach––implementing control measures before encroachment and degradation become evident. Historically, juniper control efforts focused on dense stand removal, with the idea that fewer trees would result in more grass for livestock production. However, this strategy proved to be counterproductive, as resprouting, reinvasion, and dominance typically reoccurred within just a few years, ^4,5 creating a cyclical and cost-prohibitive management strategy. A more effective approach is to manage for treeless grasslands – hereafter referred to as ‘intact’ grasslands––while targeting new seedlings or encroaching saplings before dominance can occur.

Ecology and Encroachment

Five native species exist within the state: one-seed juniper ( Juniperus monosperma), Utah juniper ( J. osteosperma), Rocky Mountain juniper ( J. scopulorum), alligator juniper ( J. deppeana), and redberry juniper ( J. pinchotii). These species can grow in pure stands or in association with piñon pine ( Pinus edulis, P. monophylla, and P. cembroides), and other pine ( Pinus spp.) and spruce species ( Picea spp.), as well as Douglas fir ( Psuedotsua menziesii) and white fir ( Abies concolor). Junipers, defined collectively, are abundant at mid-elevations (3,000 to 7,000 feet) and sparser at higher elevations (7,000 to 11,500 feet). They occur on a wide range of topographic sites, such as mesas, plateaus, canyons, and rocky outcrops, where annual precipitation ranges between 10 and 20 inches. ⁶ Preferred soil types are characterized as shallow, well-drained, and low-fertility, often susceptible to erosion due to high proportions of bare soil. ⁷ In the absence of recurring fire, juniper expands into deeper and more fertile soils. ⁸ Some species are dependent upon seeds for establishment (e.g., one-seed, Rocky Mountain, and Utah juniper), while others (e.g., alligator and redberry juniper) can sprout from buds of the parent tree after disturbance. ^9-11

Juniper encroachment is a cyclic and rapid process across the western U.S., ^1,12-14 primarily from seed dispersal into intact grasslands. Depending on species-specific factors, juniper can begin to produce viable seeds as early as six years of age or five feet in height. ^15,16  Most juniper seeds accumulate beneath the parent tree canopy, but rodents and birds can disperse those seeds much farther. A Western juniper (J. occidentalis) study found that small animals can disperse seeds over 500 feet from their source. ¹⁷ If seed dispersal is left unchecked, seedlings will mature to produce more seeds and exacerbate the expansion process. This is known as spatial expansion and can be framed into five ecological stages (Table 1). ¹⁸ Understanding these ecological stages is crucial for implementing effective juniper treatments, as each stage requires different management approaches and techniques.

Individual Plant Treatments

The goal of juniper control is twofold: defend the core and then grow the core. ¹⁸ This proactive management approach prioritizes treating individual plants early to prevent the establishment of seed-producing populations and maintain intact grasslands (i.e., the core). While certain situations necessitate the removal of mature trees, the principles for individual plant treatment still apply as a critical follow-up measure. Several methods exist for controlling juvenile junipers, each with specific considerations regarding cost, effectiveness, species ecology, and practical application. These treatment strategies can be implemented individually or combined within an integrated pest management framework. ¹⁹

Grazing

Grazing represents one of the most sustainable biological control options for managing juvenile juniper trees and can be particularly effective in early stages of encroachment. Woody plants commonly contain a rich profile of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs) that are secreted as a defense mechanism against defoliation from insects and other herbivores. ^20,21 Hydrolysable phenolics, ²² condensed tannins, ²³ and a variety of mono- and sesquiterpenes ^24,25 are PSMs that junipers produce in high quantities, which may reduce the effectiveness of using grazing animals as a biological control strategy. ^23,24,26 Despite juniper having a reasonable nutritional value, these compounds can reduce forage intake, alter dietary preference, decrease nutrient absorption, disrupt gut microflora, and cause toxicosis. ^23,27,28 However, some livestock species, breeds, and individual animals can tolerate juniper PSMs better than others. 3 ^0–33

Goats have been shown to be a practical and effective juniper control agent with greater preference and intake than sheep and cattle. ³¹ Additionally, Spanish goat breeds were found to eat more juniper than Angoras, but even within breeds, there was considerable variation amongst individual animal intakes. ^{24,26,29,32,34} The consistent explanation is that goats have enhanced liver detoxification pathways and specialized rumen micro-environments to tolerate PSMs and reduce negative post-ingestive feedback, ^35,36 although other factors may contribute to reduced intakes.

A typical goat will consume up to 20% of its diet from juniper, some having intakes up to 50%. ³⁷ Factors such as low body condition scores tend to facilitate greater intake due to compensatory mechanisms or the need to catch up with animal nutritional demands. ³⁸  Furthermore, younger goats tend to have greater intakes, likely due to greater nutritional requirements and a lack of foraging experience, ³⁹ although early experience with juniper PSMs had no significant impact on intake. ²⁶ Despite this, goats raised with mothers consuming juniper may display greater intakes after weaning due to maternal conditioning. ^40,41 Adequate nutrition from supplementation or alternative forages can help detoxify chemically defended plants, limiting negative post-ingestive feedback. Protein supplements were found to increase juniper intake with goats, likely due to increased degradation rates of PSM. ^23,33 Finally, different juniper species have varying concentrations of PSM, and those concentrations fluctuate depending on the season. ^23-25,42 Understanding these factors affecting juniper consumption is essential for developing effective grazing management strategies for juniper control.

Several key considerations will help when implementing this strategy:

• Genetic selection: Selecting the proper breed and individual goats that consume high volumes of juniper may increase treatment efficacy. Spanish goats are the most effective breed for consuming juniper. Selecting individual animals for high intakes can be done through regular observation of intake patterns and feces analysis, retaining those that consistently demonstrate high juniper consumption for breeding. Furthermore, early experience can increase juniper consumption, and kids should be conditioned by their mother while grazing juniper.
• Proper stocking rate: Matching appropriate animal numbers with goat intake and juniper densities for sufficient defoliation is critical. Understocking may not provide sufficient browsing pressure on juniper seedlings. A targeted grazing approach, where goats are concentrated for shorter periods, can be an effective strategy over continuous low-density grazing.
• Supplementation: Goats require additional forages in their diets to meet their nutritional demands and increase detoxification of PSMs. Overstocking can lead to excessive pressure on desirable vegetation, making treatment negligible.
• Timed grazing: Consider goat treatments that coincide with the season of the lowest PSM levels of the targeted species.
• Unintentional impacts: Goats are non-selective browsers; thus, desirable trees may be damaged if left unprotected.

Fire

Prescribed fire is an effective management tool to control and reduce woody plant encroachment, especially in rangelands. ^4,18,43 Broadcast fire and targeted burning are two methods to apply prescribed fire. Determining which treatment will be the most effective will depend on individual circumstances and specific objectives.

Ideally, broadcast fire (applying surface fire across a designated management area) is used as a recurring maintenance treatment. This approach targets short-statured woody regeneration/encroachment–typically seedlings and saplings less than 18 inches in height. Broadcast burning is particularly effective when implemented before juniper stands become dense and mature. Frequent fire is especially relevant when the target species re-sprouts. Management objectives and historical fire regimes should provide guidance on treatment frequency. A common timeline calls for fire every 3 to 5 years after initial tree stand removal, with additional fire treatments occurring every 8 to 10 years. ⁴⁴ Broadcast fire used in this manner is straightforward to implement, cost-effective, and best able to achieve desired woody encroachment outcomes. Conversely, using fire to control dense stands of mature, closed-canopy juniper is difficult and typically unrealistic. ⁴⁴

Fire can also effectively be used to target individual juniper trees, though this approach requires a stepwise planning process. To burn individual trees while maintaining control, managers must first account for and mitigate potential fire spread.

• Creating control and black lines (fuel breaks) around the burn unit to contain potential fire spread. For example, conducting a broadcast burn first to eliminate fuels and contain a targeted fire.
• Burning when conditions naturally limit fire spread, such as with snow on the ground or following suitable precipitation events, like pile burning techniques.

After addressing fire containment, managers can then individually apply fire to target juniper trees. Short-statured trees (i.e., less than 18 inches) are easily treated using a propane or drip torch, the former being the most effective. For moderate height trees (i.e., 1-6 feet), the same approach can be used with varying success depending on multiple variables, including fuel amount and moisture, wind conditions, and ambient temperature.

Targeted control of individual and isolated mature juniper trees greater than 6 feet in height with fire presents challenges. Success typically requires favorable conditions such as low live-fuel moisture conditions, prior leaf damage (from fire, insect, or disease effects), or the “cut and stuff” method. ⁴⁵ The latter technique involves placing ladder fuels under the canopy of mature trees to facilitate increased fire intensity. However, when larger trees burn completely, increased flame lengths and embers should be expected, increasing the potential for spot fires. This risk can be mitigated by selecting trees at least 500 feet inside established fire lines. As with all prescribed burning, selecting appropriate fire weather conditions to mitigate abnormal fire behavior while also meeting burn objectives is essential. For detailed guidance on conducting prescribed fires on rangelands, see Weir (2009) – “Conducting Prescribed Fires: a comprehensive manual”. ⁴⁶

Mechanical

Machinery or equipment used to kill or remove juniper is considered a mechanical treatment. These methods are often the most reliable for complete removal of individual plants but vary in their cost-effectiveness, labor requirements, and environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate mechanical methods depends primarily on tree size, density, site accessibility, available equipment, and management objectives.

Grubbing, cutting, and sawing are the most effective options for treating small individual junipers. ⁴⁷ Hand grubbing removes the entire plant, including the root system, making it highly effective for seedlings and saplings. This method is labor-intensive but can reduce soil disturbance with minimal equipment investment. Cutting or sawing with hand tools or power equipment is efficient for slightly larger trees. Non-sprouting juniper varieties can be controlled by cutting at or near ground level. However, sprouting junipers possess a specialized ‘bud zone’ that, if unremoved, results in vigorous resprouting. ^9-11 As this tree matures, the bud becomes increasingly buried by soil. For effective management, cuts must occur below the bud, requiring partial excavation of the root crown when mature. ⁴⁸ Larger mechanical implements for cutting down junipers are hydraulic shears or grubbing shovels mounted on the front of a small tractor. There are several different brands and sizes, with larger models able to cut or uproot 20-inch diameter trees. ⁴⁹

Chaining, dozing, and plowing are mechanical strategies reserved for mature, dense tree stands (large-scale treatments) and are beyond the scope of this paper. Where such treatments are implemented, follow-up monitoring and application of individual juniper treatments are recommended. For further detail on large-scale juniper control strategies, see Scifres (1980), “Brush management: principles and practices for Texas and the Southwest”. ⁴⁷

Chemical

Chemical herbicides provide effective options for controlling individual juniper plants, particularly when mechanical, biological, or fire treatments are impractical. These treatments can be applied in two primary ways: directly to the soil or as foliar sprays. Each approach has specific application requirements, effectiveness levels, and considerations.

Soil-applied treatments

Soil-applied herbicides work through root absorption and are effective on junipers of various sizes. Precipitation is required to move these herbicides into the soil profile for root uptake. Results may not be realized for 2 to 3 years from the application date. For instance, grasses and weeds may be killed where herbicide is applied, and it may take that amount of time for recovery. Different species vary in their susceptibility to chemical treatment. One-seed and Rocky Mountain juniper are the most resistant species to kill, while Utah juniper is the least, followed by alligator juniper as intermediate. Three primary herbicides are summarized in Table 2 for juniper control. ⁵⁰

Foliar sprays

Foliar sprays of individual junipers are effective on trees less than 3 feet tall. These treatments should be applied in late spring through summer while the trees are actively growing. For effective control, thoroughly wet the entire plant to the point of runoff. It is best to have a sprayer with an adjustable nozzle capable of delivering a coarse spray with large droplets. Various application equipment can be used depending on the scale of treatment:

• Pump-up garden or backpack sprayers work best for treating individual trees or difficult-to-access areas.
• All-terrain- or utility-task-vehicle (ATV/UTV) mounted sprayers work for treating a moderate amount of acreage or as the distance between trees increases.
• Truck or tractor-mounted sprayers can cover larger areas compared to ATV/UTV sprayers but are limited when the terrain becomes rough or steep.
• Sprayers can be affixed to an aircraft and applied across large acreage. Common aircraft include helicopters and fixed wings, but these require an airport or landing strip within proximity to the application site. An emerging technology that overcomes this issue is the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), including heavy-lift agricultural drones for spraying, but it has an extensive list of rules and licensing requirements.

Foliar sprays can also be mixed to increase application efficacy. For instance, seventy-five to one hundred percent root kill of small junipers may be achieved with a mixture of a 1% concentration of picloram and 0.25% surfactant in water. A commercial dye may be added (concentration dependent upon label) to mark plants and ensure adequate foliage cover is obtained. Avoid spraying mixtures when foliage is wet or upwind of desirable trees, shrubs, or crops. Most importantly, always follow the label directions.

Conclusions

Recognizing the ecological stages of juniper encroachment is essential to developing and implementing effective juniper control strategies. Individual plant treatments represent a proactive, cost-effective approach that breaks the cycle of treating mature stands after encroachment has already occurred – a historically ineffective strategy. By focusing on defending and growing the grassland core, these methods mitigate encroachment before land degradation becomes evident. The discussed treatment or combination of treatments provides land managers with critical tools that can be adapted to site-specific conditions, densities, and available resources. Optimal results are obtained when seedlings and juveniles are the focus, being less than 6 years of age or 5 feet in height. This prevents tree maturation, seed production, and expansion into treeless grasslands. Any treatment strategy should be followed up with frequent monitoring to ensure complete control, particularly on sites containing resprouting juniper species. Overall, these proactive approaches to juniper management represent a sustainable path forward for preserving the productivity and biodiversity of rangeland ecosystems throughout New Mexico.

References

1. Archer, S.R., Andersen, E.M., Predick, K.I., Schwinning, S., Steidl, R.J., & Woods, S.R. (2017) Woody Plant Encroachment: Causes and Consequences. In D.D. Briske (Eds.), Rangeland Systems: Process, Management and Challenges (pp. 25–84). Springer Nature.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2_2
2. Stevens, N., Lehmann, C.E.R., Murphy, B.P., & Durigan, G. (2017). Savanna woody encroachment is widespread across three continents. Glob Chang Biol, 23, 235–244.
3. Romme, W. H., Allen, C.D., Bailey, J.D., Baker, W.L., Bestelmeyer, B.T., Brown, P.M., Eisenhart, K.S., Floyd, M.L., Huffman, D.W., Jacobs, B.F., Miller, R.F., Muldavin, E.H., Swetnam, T.W., Tausch, R.J., Weisberg, P.J. (2009). Historical and Modern Disturbance Regimes, Stand Structures, and Landscape Dynamics in Piñon–Juniper Vegetation of the Western United States. Rangeland Ecology & Managagment, 62, 203–222.
4. Fogarty, D.T., Beadle, M., Allen, C.R., Bielski, C., & Twidwell, D. (2025). Woody plant reinvasion shortens the lifespan of grassland restoration treatments. J Environ Manage, 374, 124020.
5. Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F. & Svejcar, T. Long-Term Successional Trends Following Western Juniper Cutting. Rangeland Ecology & Managagment, 58, 533–541 (2005).
6. Dick-Peddie, W. (1993). New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and Future. University of New Mexico Press.
7. Evans, R.A. (1988). Management of Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
8. Fogarty, D.T., Peterson, R.B., & Twidwell, D. (2022). Spatial patterns of woody plant encroachment in a temperate grassland. Landscape Ecology, 37, 2835–284.
9. Johnson, D.E., Mukhtar, H.A.M., Mapston, R., & Humphrey R.R. (1962). The mortality of oak-juniper woodland species following a wild fire. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives, 15, 201-205.
10. Warren, Y., & Britton, C. (2002). Rooting Ability of Redberry Juniper Sprouts. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 15, 23-26.
11. Tunnell, S. J., & Mitchell, R. (2001). Redberry Juniper Response to Picloram and Top Removal in the Texas Rolling Plains. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 14, 112-116.
12. Miller, R.F., & Rose, J.A. (1999). Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives, 52, 550–559.
13. Engle, D.M., Coppedge, B.R., & Fuhlendorf, S.D. (2008). From the Dust Bowl to the Green Glacier: Human Activity and Environmental Change in Great Plains Grasslands. In O.W. Van Auken (Eds), Western North American Juniperus Communities: A Dynamic Vegetation Type (pp. 253–271). Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34003-6_14 
14. Sankey, T.T., & Germino, M. J. (2008). Assessment of Juniper Encroachment With The Use of Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Data. Rangeland Ecology & Managagment, 61, 412–418.
15. Owensby, C.E., Blan, K.R., Eaton, B.J., & Russ, O.G. (1973). Evaluation of eastern redcedar infestations in the northern Kansas Flint Hills. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives, 26, 256–260.
16. McPherson, G.R., & Wright, H.A. (1987). Factors affecting reproductive maturity of redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii). Forest Ecology Management, 21, 191–196.
17. Dimitri, L.A., & Longland, W.S. (2017). Distribution of Western Juniper Seeds Across an Ecotone and Implications for Dispersal. Western North American Naturalist, 77(22), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.077.0209 77
18. Twidwell, D., Fogarty, D.T., & Weir, J.R. (2021). Reducing Woody Encroachment in Grasslands: A Guide for Understanding Risk and Vulnerability [EC-3076]. University of Nebraska Extension.
19. Fogarty, D., Matzke, C., Treadwell, M.L., Baldwin, C., Goodman, L., Hovick, T., Overlin, A., Scasta, J.D., Thompson, A., & Twidwell, D. (2023). Integrated Pest Management for Woody Encroachment [GPGEP-UNL-03]. Great Plains Grassland Extension Partnership. University of Nebraska.
20. Freeland, W.J., & Janzen, D.H. (1974). Strategies in Herbivory by Mammals: The Role of Plant Secondary Compounds. The American Naturalist, 108(961), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1086/282907
21. Bryant, J.P., Reichardt, P.B., & Clausen, T.P. (1992). Chemically mediated interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals. Journal of Range Management, 45(1), 18-24.
22. Nunez-Hernandez, G., Holechek, J.L., Wallace, J.D., Galyean, M.L., Tembo, A., Valdez, R., & Cardenas, M. (1989). Influence of native shrubs on nutritional status of goats: nitrogen retention. Journal of Range Management, 42 (3), 228-232.
23. Utsumi, S.A., Cibilis, A.F., Estell, R.E., Soto-Navarro, S.A., & Van Leeuwen, R. (2009). Seasonal changes in one seed juniper intake by sheep and goats in relation to dietary protein and plant secondary metabolites. Small Ruminant Research, 81(2-3), 152-162.
24. Riddle, R.R., Taylor, C.A., Kothmann, M.M., & Huston, J.E. (1996). Volatile oil contents of ashe and redberry juniper and its relationship to preference by Angora and Spanish goats. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives, 49, 35–41.
25. Adams, R., Zanoni, T., Von Rudgloff, E., & Hogge, L. (1981). The south-western USA and northern Mexico one-seeded junipers: their volatile oils and evolution. Biochemistry System Ecology, 9, 93–96.
26. Pritz, R.K., Launchbaugh, K.L., & Taylor, C.A. (1997). Effects of breed and dietary experience on juniper consumption by goats. Journal of Range Management, 50, 600–606.
27. Estell, R.E. (2010). Coping with shrub secondary metabolites by ruminants. Small Ruminant Research, 94, 1–9.
28. Stewart, W. C., Whitney, T.R., Scholljegerdes, E.J., Naumann, H.D., Cherry, N.M., Muir, J.P., Lambert, B.D., Walker, J.W., Adams, R.P., Welch, K.D., Gardner, D.R., & Estell, R.E. (2015). Effects of Juniperus species and stage of maturity on nutritional, in vitro digestibility, and plant secondary compound characteristics. Journal of Animal Science, 93(8), 4034–4047. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9274
29. Riddle, R.R., Taylor, C.A., Huston, J.E., & Kothmann, M.M. (1999). Intake of ashe juniper and live oak by angora goats. Journal of Range Management, 52, 161–165.
30. Stewart, W.C. (2015). Utilization of ground juniper in small ruminant livestock diets. New Mexico State University.
31. Launchbaugh, K L., Taylor, C.A., Straka, E., & Pritz, R.K. (1997). Juniper as forage: An unlikely candidate. Texas Agr. Exp. Station Tech Rep, 97(1).
32. Taylor, C.A., Huston, J.E., Garza, N.E., Brooks, T.D., & Moen, R.A. (1994). Use of juniper as a supplemental feed limiter [Bulletin PR-5222]. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. College Station, TX.
33. Campbell, E.S., Taylor, C.A., Walker, J.W., Lupton, C.J., Waldron, D.F., & Landau, S.Y. (2007). Effects of Supplementation on Juniper Intake by Goats. Rangeland Ecology & Managagment, 60, 588–595.
34. Bisson, M.G., Scott, C.B., & Taylor, J. (2001). Activated charcoal and experience affect intake of juniper by goats. Journal of Range Management, 54, 274–278.
35. Dunson, W., Scott, C., Campbell, E., Tauylor, C.A., Carr, M., & Callaway, T. (2007). Rumen function and the ability of goats to consume redberry juniper ( Juniperus pinchottii). In K.E. Panter, T.L Wierenga, and J.A. Pfister (Eds), Poisonous plants: global research and solutions (pp. 377–385). doi:10.1079/9781845932732.0377.
36. Seidel, D.S, Walker, J.W., Musser, J.M., Lourenco, H.M, Welch, C.B., Whitney, T.R., & Callaway, T.R. (2022). Impact of concentrations of camphor on the in vitro mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation from goats selected for consumption of low and high levels of Juniperus spp.-2. Translation Animal Science, 6(3). doi: 10.1093/tas/txac098
37. Treadwell, M., Redden, R., & Tolleson, D. (2021). Managing Juniper (Cedar) with Goats [Extension Publication ERM-053]. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.
38. Frost, R.A., Launchbaugh, K.L., & Taylor, C.A. (2008). Age and Body Condition of Goats Influence Consumption of Juniper and Monoterpene-Treated Feed. Rangeland Ecology & Managagment, 61, 48–54.
39. Provenza, F.D., & Malechek, J.C. (1986). A comparison of food selection and foraging behavior in juvenile and adult goats. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 16, 49–61.
40. Distel, R.A., & Provenza, F.D. (1991). Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats. J ournal of Chemical Ecology, 17 , 431–450.
41. Arviv, A., Muklada, H., Kigel, J., Voet, H., Glasser, T., Dvash, L., Ungar, E.D., & Landau, S.Y. (2016). Targeted grazing of milk thistle ( Silybum marianum) and Syrian thistle ( Notobasis syriaca) by goats: Preference following preconditioning, generational transfer, and toxicity. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 179, 53–59.
42. Estell, R.E., Utsumi, S.A., Cibils, A.F., & Anderson, D.M. (2014). Is differential use of Juniperus monosperma by small ruminants driven by terpenoid concentration? Journal of Chemical Ecology, 40, 285–293.
43. Knapick, K., Treadwell, M., Knight, R., Kreuter, U., & Lopez, R. (2020). PRESCRIBED FIRE: A Tool for Landowners Large and Small [Extension Publication ERM-049]. Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service.
44. Rasmussen, A.G. (1986). Long-term effects of prescribed fire on Ashe juniper communities. Texas Tech University. Lubbock, TX.
45. Crockford, J.F., Weir, J.R., Research, C.E.B., Russell, M.L., & Twidwell, D.L. (2017). Cut and Stuff Practices for Enhanced Cedar Control with Prescribed Fire [Extension Publication NREM-2902-2]. Oklahoma State University Extension.
46. Weir, J.R. (2009). Conducting Prescribed Fires: A Comprehensive Manual. Texas A&M University Press.
47. Scifres, C.J. (1980). Brush Management : Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M University Press.
48. Ueckert, D.N., & Whisenant, S.G. (1982). Individual Plant Treatments for Controlling Redberry Juniper Seedlings. Journal of Range Management, 35, 419–23.
49. Pyssen, A. (2004). Management of Juniper on Rangeland in Bosque County. Rangelands, 26, 35–38.
50. Young, K., & Spackman, C. (2021). Chemical Weed and Brush Control for New Mexico Rangelands [Extension Guide C-597]. New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service.

Casey Spackman is an Assistant Professor and Extension Range Management Specialist at New Mexico State University. He earned his Ph.D. at Utah State University. His Extension efforts aim to assist producers, land managers, and agency personnel in monitoring and developing management objectives that maintain or improve natural resource health and sustainability.

To find more resources for your business, home, or family, visit the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences on the World Wide Web at pubs.nmsu.edu

Contents of publications may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. For permission to use publications for other purposes, contact  pubs@nmsu.edu or the Department of Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources at  https://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/animal/ or (575) 646-3326.

New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer and educator. NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

Revised November 2025