No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Conditions Influencing Turbinella Oak (Quercus turbinella) Mortality from Picloram or Picloram and 2,4-D
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2017
Abstract
Turbinella oak was sprayed with picloram-containing herbicides on 90 dates throughout 81 months. A mixture of triisopropanolamine salts of picloram and 2,4-D was compared to the potassium salt of picloram on 44 dates, and to a mixture of isooctyl ester of picloram and propylene glycol butyl ether esters of 2,4-D on 42 dates. Low rates of herbicide treatments were used to increase the sensitivity to environmental factors and plant growth stages. Turbinella oak mortality was greater with the mixture of picloram and 2,4-D amines than with picloram alone or the mixture of picloram and 2,4-D esters. The mixture of picloram and 2,4-D esters did not kill any plants. The combination of available soil moisture at the 60-cm depth, no senescent or falling leaves, and full-sized leaves was the best indicator of when to apply picloram or the mixture of picloram and 2,4-D amines. No turbinella oak were killed when soil at the 60-cm depth was dry or leaves were falling at the time of treatment.
Keywords
- Type
- Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1988 by the Weed Science Society of America
References
Literature Cited
1.
Bovey, R. W., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G.
1970. Comparison of salt and ester formulations of picloram. Weed Sci.
18:447–451.Google Scholar
2.
Bovey, R. W., Wiese, A. F., Evans, R. A., Morton, H. L., and Alley, H. P.
1984. Control of weeds and woody plants on rangelands. Ext. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. AD-BU-2344. 16 pp.Google Scholar
3.
Brown, T. C., O'Connell, P. F., and Hibbert, A. R.
1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part II: An economic analysis. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-127. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 28 pp.Google Scholar
4.
Canny, J. J.
1984. Translocation of nutrients and hormones. Pages 277–296
in
Wilkins, M. B., ed. Advanced Plant Physiology. Pitman Publishing, Ltd., London. 514 pp.Google Scholar
5.
Davis, E. A.
1964. Picloram: a promising brush control chemical. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Note RM-35. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 2 pp.Google Scholar
6.
Davis, E. A.
1970. Propagation of shrub live oak from cuttings. Bot. Gaz.
131:53–61.Google Scholar
7.
Davis, E. A. and Pase, C. P.
1969. Selective control of brush on chaparral watersheds with soil-applied fenuron and picloram. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Note RM-140. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 4 pp.Google Scholar
8.
Davis, J. R. and Dieterich, J. H.
1976. Predicting rate of fire spread (ROS) in Arizona oak chaparral: Field workbook. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-24. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 8 pp.Google Scholar
9.
Freed, V. H. and Morris, R. O. (eds.). 1969. Environmental and other factors in the response of plants to herbicides. Tech. Bull. 100. Agric. Exp. Stn., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
10.
Hibbert, A. R., Davis, E. A., and Scholl, D. G.
1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: Water yield response and effects on other resources. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Paper RM-126. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.Google Scholar
11.
King, S. P. and Radosevich, S. R.
1985. Herbicide tolerance in relation to growth and stress in conifers. Weed Sci.
33:472–478.Google Scholar
12.
Lindenmuth, A. W. Jr., and Davis, J. R.
1970. Foliar moisture content of chaparral in Arizona: Accounting for its variation and relating it to prescribed fires. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-158. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 8 pp.Google Scholar
13.
Lowe, C. H. and Brown, D. E.
1973. The natural vegetation of Arizona. ARIS Coop Publ. No. 2. Sims Printing Co., Phoenix, AZ. 53 pp.Google Scholar
14.
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W.
1986. Influence of environment and stage of growth on honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) response to herbicides. Weed Sci.
34:287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
Meyer, R. E., Hanson, J. D., and Dye, A. J.
1983. Correlation of honey mesquite response to herbicides with three plant variables and soil water. J. Range Mange.
36:613–615.Google Scholar
16.
Pase, C. P.
1972. Liter production by oak-mountain mahogany chaparral in central Arizona. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Note RM-214. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 7 pp.Google Scholar
17.
Pond, F. W. and Schmutz, E. M.
1984. The Arizona chaparral: Its growth and nutritive value. Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 90 pp.Google Scholar
18.
Radosevich, S. R. and Bayer, D. E.
1979. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on triclopyr, picloram, and 2,4,5-T translocation. Weed Sci.
27:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Romberger, J. A.
1963. Meristems, growth, and development in woody plants. Tech. Bull. No. 1293. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC. 214 pp.Google Scholar
20.
Saunier, R. E. and Wagle, R. F.
1967. Factors affecting the distribution of shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella Green). Ecology
48:35–41.Google Scholar
21.
Scifres, C. J.
1980. Brush Management: Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press. College Station, TX. 360 pp.Google Scholar
22.
Wagle, R. F. and Baker, L. O.
1969. Plant variation and herbicides. Pages 86–106
in
Freed, V. H. and Morris, R. O., eds. Environmental and other factors in the response of plants to herbicides. Tech. Bull. 100. Agric. Exp. Stn., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
23.
Woods, F. W.
1955. Control of woody weeds: Some physiological aspects. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Occasional Paper 143. South. For. Exp. Stn.
50 pp.Google Scholar