Cedar Hill Nature Preserve
Cedar Hill Nature Preserve
  • Home
  • The Preserve
  • The Walk
  • FAQ
  • More
    • Home
    • The Preserve
    • The Walk
    • FAQ
  • Sign In
  • Create Account

  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Signed in as:

  • filler@godaddy.com


  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Sign out

Signed in as:

filler@godaddy.com

  • Home
  • The Preserve
  • The Walk
  • FAQ

Account

  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Sign out

  • Sign In
  • Bookings
  • My Account

Yaupon Management for Habitat Improvement in the Post Oak Savannah

What and Why

A substantial and increasing amount of rural land in the Post Oak Savannah region in Texas is (or is becoming) dense oak forest with an even denser woody understory of predominantly yaupon. The picture on the right shows what it looks like at the ground level in these forests. The ground is covered with leaf litter and quite open for the bottom few feet. This provides almost no food value for wildlife. It is so open at ground level, it is not even good cover for animals as their predators can see right through it. The ground looks like this because almost no sunlight is making it to the ground. The lack of ground-level solar energy means that even most insects (and the small animals that prey on them) struggle to survive.  A recent study has shown that "thicketization" of oak forest even reduces groundwater recharge to almost nothing.


One might argue that this is the natural state of land when human management (interference) is removed, but this is not the case. In earlier times, when bison roamed the area, there were periods of intense grazing and frequent wildfires. Wildfires and bison would reduce the oak forests and suppress the woody growth dramatically while favoring a diverse mix of tall grasses (mostly little bluestem) and forbs. 


Modern people have greatly altered the land, reducing its habitat value for all kinds of wildlife, mostly for good agricultural reasons. However, an emerging trend is to let an increasing amount of land fall out of agricultural use. Unfortunately, as discussed above, just “letting the land go” does not return it to high-quality habitat. We cannot return to the wildfires and roaming herds of bison of past years, but we can do much to improve the habitat quality of our post oak savannah forests by using proper active management. 


The goals of good management should be to: greatly reduce the woody understory, moderately reduce the forest density, and encourage diverse mix of native grasses and forbs to grow in open areas and under the trees. The following discusses how to do this in the Post Oak Savannah region of Texas, but much of what is described can be applied to other forest areas with a dense woody  understory. 


A 4-Stage Multiyear Process

Habitat restoration is a lengthy and fairly difficult process. It consists of 4 stages requiring at least two years and lifetime maintenance.

However, the results can make it all worthwhile!

The four-stage process is discussed below in the context of an ongoing project at the Nature Preserve to restore 170 acres. The project is being conducted in partnership with Texas Parks and Wildlife with the intent of expanding quality habitat for the endangered Houston Toad. However, the habitat improvement is ideal for all native flora and fauna.

Stage 1 – Mulching

This stage consists of using special forestry mulching equipment to mulch the woody understory. This is the most expensive stage and costs (in 2022) about $1,200 per acre actually mulched. We mulched about 75% of the project area, leaving strips and clusters that hopefully will be reduced over the years by prescribed fire. In a project with TPWD funding, mulching can only be conducted between July 1st and December 31st to avoid any possible overlap with the Houston Toad breeding season. 

The goal of the mulching is to clear the woody understory just to the level that a UTV can drive over it.  

The mulching work at the Nature Preserve was done by Shuffield Land Clearing, Cameron, Tx, (254)-482-0697.  They did a great job and have established an excellent reputation on numerous projects for local landowners and government agencies.

Mulching machines are costly in both money and time out for repairs.

Stage 2 – Seeding

This is the only optional stage. It is to improve the seed bank in the newly mulched areas to speed recovery of native grasses and forbs. Seeding must be broadcast, due to the rough nature of the land after mulching, using special equipment that can broadcast native grass seeds. It should be done in the winter following the mulching.

We seeded at about ¼ the recommended rate for a cost of about $57 (for labor and seeds) per acre of newly mulched area. Tim Siegmund, Private Lands Program Leader, TPWD-WL Division, 903-426-1834, is a good source for seed mix specifications.

The seeding resulted in a great number of 12-foot-wide swathes of native grass throughout the landscape which will provide a great seed base for the restored area as well as fine-fuel base for future prescribed burns. However, other reseeding efforts may not be this effective as weather after the seeding plays a very critical role in the seeding results. 

Inspection of the area shows that almost all of the most desired grasses resulted from the seeding. Examination of other area where we have mulched without seeding bears this out.  So, for the Nature Preserve, it seems that seeding is a very important step. 

Tim Siegmund, Private Lands Program Leader, TPWD-WL Division, 903-426-1834, is a good source for seed mix specifications. Our seeding was done by Chancey Lewis of Native Texas Wildlife, Cameron, TX, (512) 393-9958. This is a difficult job due the rough and varied landscape. Chancey is very professional and has the right equipment for broadcasting native grass seeds. 

Chancey Lewis broadcasts native seed throughout the mulched area.

Stage 3 – Spraying

  

Yaupon will re-sprout denser than before if it is just mulched. Re-sprouts must be properly treated with a Triclopyr (Remedy) herbicide mix. This should be done in May through September after the year in which the mulching was done. For smaller projects an individual plant treatment (IPT) process is practical and preferred. For larger projects a broadcast treatment is more practical.  However, the determination of an herbicide mix and application schedule (1 or 2 applications) is an ongoing process. The mix discussed below was used in our project, but it only top-killed much of the yaupon. This still knocked down almost all the yaupon, allowing substantial growth of native grasses and forbs and setting the stage for a future successful prescribed burn.  

IPT

Mix: 10% Triclopyr, 90% diesel and blue dye as needed 

Application: about 2.6 oz of mix per plant applied to stems at the rate of 100 plants per labor hour. A diesel compatible sprayer must be used. 

Cost: at 300 stems per acre this will take about 6 gallons of mix per acre. At this rate the mix will cost >$65 per acre. You may have much more than 300 stems per acre.

Broadcast

Mix: 2.8% Triclopyr, 2.8% Methylated Seed Oil (as a surfactant), 94.4% water, blue dye as needed. Note: This formula gave us a very good top-kill of yaupon  but we estimate that it completely killed about 30%-50% of the yaupon. This formula  caused minimal suppression of forbs and grasses.  There is some thought that a lower percentage of MSO (say only 1%) might be more effective at giving a complete kill. More research is needed in this area.

Application: Broadcast 20 gallons per acre using appropriate broadcast spray equipment. It may be necessary to do a follow-up spraying that targets missed areas as the open, rough terrine of most natural areas makes it very difficult to follow a perfect spay route.

Cost: The chemicals will cost > $48 per acre. (Using a lower percentage of MSO will reduce this somewhat.) Due to the difficulty of our terrain,  chemicals ran about $67 per acre as we applied nearly 28 gallons of mix per acre. Labor is difficult to estimate, but our project achieved about 2.25 acres per labor hour at $125 per hour for labor and equipment. 

Chancey Lewis also did our spraying using the equipment shown. Again, Chancey proved to be very professional and competent carrying out this very difficult task.

IPT vs Broadcast

IPT, as described above, is almost 100% effective, but everything that is sprayed dies, except rough barked trees. IPT is even effective on large yaupon if sprayed on the trunks. The chemical and labor cost is much higher. IPT is preferred for follow-up and spot treatment. It may be very difficult to contract for a large (> 25 acres) project. 

Broadcast is cheaper per acre, but the process misses a significant number of plants due to shading by other plants and errors in the spray route. A second spot treatment will probably be necessary. Broadcast will kill most other woody brush but may not kill grass and some forbs. Broadcast is only effective on smaller, bushy yaupon - it is not effective applied on the trunks of larger yaupon. 

Chancey's broadcast sprayer.

Stage 4 – Prescribed Burns

On large projects the mulching/spraying process will not be 100% effective. On any project the woody understory will come back over time if not managed. Once an area is opened up enough to get good grass growth, prescribed burning is by far the most cost-effective management tool to improve or maintain restored areas. The first burn should be done in the 2nd winter after the spraying is done. It may take 3 or more annual burns to really get an area in great shape, and then burns can be done every 3-4 years. 

Prescribed burns require careful preparation, planning and execution. Weather conditions must be in a narrow range on a burn day. There is also liability exposure. 

Professional burn teams can be contracted with, or in some areas there are burn associations that can be leveraged. TPWD will provide some training and maybe some assistance. 

We have not conducted a burn of the mulched area as yet, but plan to burn in winter of 2025. Projected costs are $50 per acre for the 170-acre project area. Contracting with a burn team for a much smaller area will probably cost much more per acre. 

  

The only alternative to prescribed burning is shredding on a one-to-two-year cycle. This will control the woody regrowth pretty well, but it will not lead to as much habitat diversity. 

A prescribed burn led by TPWD in 2020.

Maintenance

Once the woody understory is well surpassed and native grasses and forbs are well established it is believed the periodic prescribed burns (every 3-4 years) will maintain diversity and quality of the habitat. On smaller areas periodic shredding will work but habitat diversity may be reduced. 

A prescribed burn led by TPWD in 2020.

Copyright © 2025 Cedar Hill Nature Preserve - All Rights Reserved.

Powered by

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept