Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:30:56.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Dicamba on Development of Range Grass Seedlings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. C. Halifax  and
C. J. Scifres
J. C. Halifax
Affiliation:
Dep. of Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station
C. J. Scifres
Affiliation:
Dep. of Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seedlings of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L. ‘Blackwell’), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula [Michx.] Torr. ‘Premier’), and native vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum H. B. K.) tolerated 0.28 kg/ha of 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid (dicamba) applied preemergence. After emergence, sideoats grama tolerated 0.56 kg/ha dicamba. Preemergence or postemergence applications of 1.12 and 2.24 kg/ha severely retarded shoot production of all three species. Soil residues in the surface 2.5 cm reduced root production of grass seedlings, whereas placement of dicamba 7.6 or 15.2 cm deep was not detrimental. All grass species germinated and grew for 21 days in soil containing up to 63 ppb of dicamba without reduction in shoot production. Overall order of susceptibility to dicamba was ranked as vine mesquite > switchgrass > sideoats grama.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , September 1972 , pp. 414 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Arnold, W. R. and Santelmann, P. W. 1966. The response of native grasses and forbs to picloram. Weeds 14:74–76.Google Scholar
2. Chang, F. Y. and Born, W. H. Vanden 1971. Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci. 19:113–117.Google Scholar
3. Lee, W. D. 1965. Herbicides in seedbed preparations for the establishment of grass seed fields. Weeds 13:293–297.Google Scholar
4. McCarty, M. K. and Scifres, C. J. 1968. Western whorled milkweed and its control. Weed Sci. 16:4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. McCarty, M. K. and Scifres, C. J. 1968. Herbicidal control of western ironweed. Weed Sci. 16:77–79.Google Scholar
6. McCarty, M. K. and Scifres, C. J. 1968. Smooth bromegrass response to herbicides as affected by time of application in relation to nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 16:443–446.Google Scholar
7. Morton, H. L., Robison, E. D., and Meyer, R. E. 1967. Persistence of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and dicamba in range forage grasses. Weeds 15:268–271.Google Scholar
8. Peters, E. J. and Stritzke, J. F. 1970. Control of persimmon with various herbicides and methods of application. Weed Sci. 18:572–575.Google Scholar
9. Scifres, C. J., Hahn, R. R., and Brock, J. H. 1971. Phenology and control of common broomweed on Texas rangelands. J. Range Manage. 21:370–373.Google Scholar
10. Scifres, C. J. and Halifax, J. C. 1971. Root production of seedling grasses in soil containing picloram. J. Range Manage. 21 (In press).Google Scholar
11. Scifres, C. J. and Hoffman, G. O. 1971. Comparative susceptibility of honey mesquite to dicamba and 2,4,5-T. J. Range Manage. 21 (In press).Google Scholar
12. Born, W. H. Vanden 1965. The effect of dicamba and picloram on quackgrass, bromegrass and Kentucky bluegrass. Weeds 13:309–312.Google Scholar