Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:37:31.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) and Understory Vegetation with Soil-Applied Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. E. Meyer  and
R. W. Bovey
R. E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
R. W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soil-active herbicides were investigated for control of live oak (Quercus virginiana Mill.) on the Texas Coastal Prairie and Claypan areas with and without mechanical treatment. Roller chopping before, during, or after herbicide application had very little influence on mortality of live oak compared to the herbicide applied alone. Roller chopping did allow increased grazing of livestock for at least 3 yr after knockdown of the brush. Tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} was generally the most effective herbicide for live oak control; bromacil (5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil), karbutilate [tert-butylcarbamic acid ester with 3(m-hydroxyphenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea], and picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) were somewhat less effective, especailly at 2.2 kg/ha. Limited data suggested that hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] also was highly effective for control of live oak. Primary invaders on either mechanically or chemically treated areas were American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana L.), southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis Michx.), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum L.), yankeeweed (Eupatorium compositifolium Walt.), brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum Michx.), and carpetgrass (Axonopus affinis Chase). A herbicide was generally equally effective for live oak control whether applied broadcast or in rows as granules, or applied as sprays to the soil surface or subsurface.

Keywords

Bromacildiuronkarbutilatehexazinonepicloramprometontebuthiuron
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 51 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by the 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. Bovey, R. W., Flynt, T. O., Meyer, R. E., Baur, J. R., and Riley, T. E. 1976. Subsurface herbicide applicator for brush control. J. Range Manage. 29:338–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1978. Control of huisache with soil applied herbicides. J. Range Manage. 31:179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., and Baur, J. R. 1969. Control of live oak by herbicides applied at various rates and dates. Weed Sci. 17: 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., Baur, J. R., Diaz-Colon, J. D., Dowler, C. C., and Lehman, S. K. 1969. Granular herbicides for woody plant control. Weed Sci. 17:538–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., Meyer, R. E., Flynt, T. O., and Riley, T. E. 1972. Control of yaupon and associated species. Weed Sci. 20:246–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Flynt, T. O., Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., Riley, T. E., and Baur, J. R. 1976. Granular herbicide applicator for brush control. J. Range Manage. 29:435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hoffman, G. O. 1970. Brush control with granular herbicides. Texas Agric. Ext. Leaflet 898. 1 p.Google Scholar
8. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1979. Control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) and Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata) with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., and Baur, J. R. 1978. Control of an oak complex with herbicide granules. Weed Sci. 26:444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Meyer, R. E. and Riley, T. E. 1969. Influence of picloram granules and sprays on whitebrush. Weed Sci. 17:293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Peevy, F. A. 1973. Bromacil and picloram under southern upland hardwoods. Weed Sci. 21:54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1978. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Meadors, C. H. 1978. Response of range vegetation to grid placement and aerial application of karbutilate. Weed Sci. 26:139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Smith, H. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland Restoration. Part 1. The Texas Brush Problem. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. 4–18114. 16 pp.Google Scholar
15. Stritzke, J. F. 1976. Selective removal of brush by grid placement of herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:255 (Abstr.) Google Scholar
16. Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1976. Control of pinyon saplings with picloram or karbutilate. J. Range Manage. 29:144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar