Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:37:39.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Populations and Herbicide Residues in Apple Orchards after 5 Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. A. Skroch ,
T. J. Sheets  and
T. J. Monaco
W. A. Skroch
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27607
T. J. Sheets
Affiliation:
Pesticide Residue Res. Lab, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27607
T. J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27607
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed population shifts occurred when simazine [2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine], diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethyl-urea], terbacil (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil), and dichlobenil (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile) were applied annually for 5 years to an apple orchard. The number of brambles (Rubus sp.) and Virginia clematis (Clematis virginiana L.) plants increased with terbacil. usage. Bramble populations increased with the high rate of dichlobenil and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) increased at the low rate. The major vegetation on plots receiving amitrole (3-amino-s-triazole) was not altered from that of a mowed check. However, amitrole reduced growth of shallow planted trees. Postemergence applications of paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion) four times during each growing season resulted in more bare soil than was in the mowed checks at the end of the fifth growing season. Yields of apples were higher in the simazine, terbacil, and dichlobenil-treated plots than in the mowed checks. Simazine and terbacil residues did not accumulate in the upper 60 cm of soil during the study; a slight accumulation of dichlobenil appeared to occur in the surface 0 to 15-cm.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 53 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Chappell, W.E. 1964. Weed control in young apple and peach orchards. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 18:178–184.Google Scholar
2. Curtis, O.F. Jr. 1968. New herbicides and problem weeds. N.Y. State Hort. Soc. 113:259–263.Google Scholar
3. Gutenmann, W.H. and Lisk, D.J. 1968. Estimation of residues of uracil herbicides by gas chromatography after evaporative co-distillation. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 51:688–690.Google Scholar
4. Hewetson, F.N. 1969. Repeated annual applications of herbicides around bearing apple trees. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:67–69.Google Scholar
5. Hewetson, F.N. 1970. Herbicides for newly planted fruit trees. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 24:1–3.Google Scholar
6. Larsen, R.P. and Ries, S.K. 1960. Simazine for controlling weeds in fruit trees and grape planting. Weeds 8:671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Meulemans, K.J. and Upton, E.T. 1966. Determination of dichlobenil and its metabolite 2,6-dichlorobenzoic acid in agricultural crops, fish, soil, and water. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 49:976–981.Google Scholar
8. Oosting, H.J. 1958. The study of plant communities. W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. 440 pp.Google Scholar
9. Pease, H.L. 1968. Determination of terbacil residues using micro-coulometric gas chromatography. J. Agr. Food Chem. 16:54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Putman, A.R. 1969. The consequence of repeated herbicide application in new fruit plantings. Mich. State Hort. Soc. 99:64–65.Google Scholar
11. Putman, A.R. and Price, H.C. 1969. Tolerance of rootstocks and established Malus, Pyrus, and Prunus trees to terbacil. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 94:655–658.Google Scholar
12. Putman, A.R. and Ries, S.K. 1964. Herbicides for the control of perennial weeds in orchards. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 21:35.Google Scholar
13. Schubert, O.E. 1971. Herbicide programs for orchards. Pa. Fruit News L(4):61–66.Google Scholar
14. Schubert, O.E. 1972. Plant cover changes following herbicide applications in orchards. Weed Sci. 20:124–127.Google Scholar
15. Sikka, H.C. and Davis, D.E. 1966. Dissipation of atrazine from soil by corn, sorghum, and johnsongrass. Weeds 14:289–293.Google Scholar
16. Skroch, W.A. 1970. Effects of five herbicides on young apple and peach trees. HortScience 5(1):42–44.Google Scholar
17. Skroch, W.A., Sheets, T.J., and Smith, J.W. 1971. Herbicide effectiveness, soil residues, and phytotocicity to peach trees. Weed Sci. 19:257–260.Google Scholar