Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:02:17.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Daily and Seasonal Response of Huisache and Macartney Rose to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. W. Bovey ,
R. H. Haas  and
R. E. Meyer
R. W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas 77843
R. H. Haas
Affiliation:
Dep. of Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas 77843
R. E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Triethylamine salts of 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram) plus (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T) (1:1) sprays were more effective for the control of huisache (Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.) than for the control of Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata Wendl.) at 13 dates of application in 1969 and 1970. Both species were more controlled effectively with the application rate of 1.12 than 0.56 kg/ha. Most effective control of huisache was obtained June 18, 1970, although other summer treatments in 1970 were effective. The herbicide was, on the average, more effective on huisache and Macartney rose when applied in the evening than morning or midday. Macartney rose was most effectively controlled by treatments applied in September and October of both years. Poorest control of the two species occurred when internal water stress was highest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , November 1972 , pp. 577 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Badiel, A. A., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P. W. 1966. Aspects of movement of 2,4,5-T in blackjack oak. Weeds 14:302–305.Google Scholar
2. Davis, F. S., Merkle, M. G., and Bovey, R. W. 1968. Effect of moisture stress on the absorption and transport of herbicides in woody plants. Bot. Gaz. 129:183–189.Google Scholar
3. Flynt, T. O., Bovey, R. W., Baur, J. R., and Meyer, R. E. 1970. Tractor-mounted sprayers for applying herbicides to brush. Weed Sci. 18:497–499.Google Scholar
4. Haas, R. H. and Dodd, J. D. 1970. Seasonal water stress pattern in honey mesquite. Brush Research in Texas 1970. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Progr. Rep. 2815: 79 p.Google Scholar
5. Putnam, A. R. and Ries, S. K. 1968. Factors influencing the phytotoxicity and movement of paraquat in quackgrass. Weed Sci. 16:80–83.Google Scholar
6. Schmutz, E. M. 1970. Absorption, translocation and toxicity of 2,4,5-T in creosotebush. Weed Sci. 19:510–516.Google Scholar
7. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D., and Hemmingsen, E. A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:337–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Schuster, J. L. 1970. Plains pricklypear control by night applications of phenoxy herbicides. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 23:245–249.Google Scholar
9. Tschirley, F. H. 1968. Response of tropical and subtropical woody plants to chemical treatments. U. S. Dep. Agr. and Dep. Defense CR-13-69. 197 p.Google Scholar
10. Waring, R. H. and Cleary, B. D. 1967. Plant moisture stress: Evaluation by pressure bomb. Science 155:1252–1254.Google Scholar
11. Wills, G. D. and Basler, E. 1971. Environmental effects on absorption and translocation of 2,4,5-T in winged elm. Weed Sci. 19:431–434.Google Scholar