Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:19:18.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-Term Effects on Vegetation of Herbicide Treatments in Chaparral

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jodie S. Holt ,
Steven R. Radosevich  and
Walter L. Graves
Jodie S. Holt
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Sci., Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Walter L. Graves
Affiliation:
Coop. Ext., 5555 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were established in 1974 and 1975 at various locations in San Diego County, CA, to evaluate several herbicides for the control of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum H.&A.) and redshank chamise (Adenostoma sparsifolium Torr.). Herbicide effects on vegetation were reevaluated in 1982. Plots originally treated with 2.2 or 4.5 kg ae/ha of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] had virtually no chamise regrowth 8 yr after treatment. The herbicides 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid], combinations of 2,4-D with 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] or dichlorprop [2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) propionic acid], fosamine [ethyl hydrogen (aminocarbonyl)phosphonate], triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid}, tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea}, and picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) had no long-term effects on chamise. Soil collected in 1982 from glyphosate-treated plots contained similar numbers of chamise seeds but fewer seeds of other species compared to untreated plots. Canopy cover of redshank chamise was similar in treated and untreated plots after 8 yr. These results document the effectiveness of glyphosate in killing the underground root-crown of chamise, which prevented sprouting, but not redshank chamise.

Keywords

Adenostoma fasciculatumAdenostoma sparsifoliumQuercus dumosaglyphosate
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 353 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Graves, W. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1980. Control of chamise and redshank regrowth with soil active granular herbicides following brush clearing. Res. Prog. Rpt. West Soc. Weed Sci. Pages 79–80.Google Scholar
2. Hanes, T. L. 1965. Ecological studies on two closely related chaparral shrubs in southern California. Ecol. Monogr. 35:213–235.Google Scholar
3. Keeley, S. C. and Keeley, J. E. 1982. The role of allelopathy, heat, and charred wood in the germination of chaparral herbs. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA. Pages 128–134.Google Scholar
4. Leonard, O. A. 1956. Studies of factors affecting the control of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) with herbicides. Weeds 4:241–254.Google Scholar
5. Leonard, O. A. and Harvey, W. A. 1965. Chemical control of woody plants. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 812. 26 pp.Google Scholar
6. McPherson, J. K. and Mulller, C. H. 1969. Allelopathic effects of Adenostoma fasciculatum, “chamise,” in the California chapararal. Ecol. Monogr. 39:177–198.Google Scholar
7. Muller, C. H., Hanawalt, R. B., and McPherson, J. K. 1968. Allelopathic control of herb growth in the fire cycle of California chaparral. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 95:225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Murphy, A. H. and Leonard, O. A. 1974. Chaparral shrub control as influenced by grazing, herbicides, and fire. Calif. Agric. 28: 10–13.Google Scholar
9. Murphy, A. H. and Torrell, D. T. 1972. Brushland range improvement … economic values. Calif. Agric. 26:3–6.Google Scholar
10. Radosevich, S. R., Graves, W. L., and Agamalian, H. A. 1977. Response of two Adenostoma species to several herbicides. Weed Sci. 25:188–192.Google Scholar
11. Sampson, A. W. 1944. Plant succession on burned chaparral lands in northern California. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 685. 137 pp.Google Scholar
12. Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23:224–228.Google Scholar
13. Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Adsorption, mobility, and microbial degradation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23:229–234.Google Scholar
14. Sweeney, J. R. 1956. Responses of vegetation to fire. A study of the herbaceous vegetation following chaparral fires. Univ. Calif. Publ. in Bot. 28:143–250.Google Scholar
15. Went, F. W., Juhren, G., and Juhren, M. C. 1952. Fire and biotic factors affecting germination. Ecology 33:351–364.Google Scholar
16. Williams, M. C. and Cronin, E. H. 1981. Ten-year control of western false hellebore (Veratrum californicum). Weed Sci. 29: 22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wright, E. 1931. The effect of high temperatures on seed germination. J. For. 29:679–687.Google Scholar