Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:20:01.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Rapid Screening Techniques for Woody Plant Herbicide Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mitchell P. Blair ,
Shepard M. Zedaker ,
John R. Seiler ,
Perry L. Hipkins  and
Patrick L. Burch
Mitchell P. Blair*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Shepard M. Zedaker
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061
John R. Seiler
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061
Perry L. Hipkins
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061
Patrick L. Burch
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Christiansburg, VA 24073
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Woody plant herbicide screening techniques were evaluated to expedite the screening process and decrease amounts of herbicide active ingredient required. Rapid greenhouse screening of woody plant seedlings was performed in less than 6 months, and rapid seed screening was performed in less than 20 days. A traditional field screen, requiring 10 months from application to final evaluation, was performed for comparison and regression modeling purposes. Imazapyr and triclopyr were used as test chemicals and linear regressions were generated to predict traditional field screen results from rapid screens. Significant regressions were produced that predicted field responses of loblolly pine, sweetgum, and yellow-poplar with the use of both herbicides and either rapid screening technique. This indicated that rapid screening techniques could determine herbicide efficacy and/or species spectrum in much less time with significantly less herbicide. Rapid greenhouse screens of triclopyr produced more statistically significant regressions than those using imazapyr. Rapid seed screens could estimate species spectrum within 5 days after treatment. These results indicate that rapid greenhouse screen and rapid seed screen techniques can provide woody plant herbicide developers initial efficacy and spectrum of control data in a cost- and-time effective manner.

Keywords

imazapyrtriclopyrgreen ash, Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshloblolly pine, Pinus taeda L.sweetgum, Liquidambar styraciflua L. #3 LIQSTyellow-poplar, Liriodendron tulipfera L. # LIRTURapid greenhouse screenrapid seed screenALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)DAT, days after treatmentWAT, weeks after treatmentYAT, year after treatment% C Ht, percent control of height% Nec, percent leaf necrosis% Mort, percent mortalityP, P value for test of significanceR2, coefficient of determinationCV, coefficient of variationµE/m2/s, microEinstein per square meter per second
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 971 - 979
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

Barnes, A. D., Zedaker, S. M., Feret, P. P., and Seiler, J. R. 1989. The effects of sulfometuron on the root growth of loblolly pine. New For. 3:289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, F. T. 1974. Liriodendron tulipfera L., tuliptree. in Woody Plant Seed Manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Seed Laboratory: Web page: http://www.nsl.fs.fed.us/wpsm. Accessed: November 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Bonner, F. T. and Russell, T. E. 1974. Liriodendron tulipfera L., yellow poplar. Pages 508–511. in C.S, technical coordinator. Schopmeyer ed. Seeds of woody plants of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 450. Washington, DC USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. 2001. Woody Plants and Woody Plant Management: Ecology, Safety, and Environmental Impact. New York Marcel Dekker. 91–112.Google Scholar
Bunn, B. H., Zedaker, S. M., Kreh, R. E., and Seiler, J. R. 1996. Evaluation of herbicide rapid screening at four developmental stages in woody plants. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:84–85.Google Scholar
Glover, G. R. 1991. Study objectives for evaluating forest herbicides. in Miller, J.H., Glover, G.R., eds. Standard Methods for Forest Herbicide Research. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 3–9.Google Scholar
Gnegy, J. D. 1991. Visual rating systems for target and crop species. in Miller, J.H., Glover, G.R., eds. Standard Methods for Forest Herbicide Research. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 40–43.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1990. Directed foliar sprays of forestry herbicides for loblolly pine release. South. J. Appl. For. 14:199–206.Google Scholar
Minogue, P. J., Zutter, B. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1985. Second year results of a pine release screening field trial with Arsenal and other promising herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:231.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., and Vining, G. G. 2001. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. New York Wiley. 58.Google Scholar
Quicke, H. E. and Lauer, D. K. 1993. Response of loblolly pine following fall and spring release treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:195.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Young, C. G. 1992. Seeds of Woody Plants in North America. Portland, OR Disocordies Press.Google Scholar
Zedaker, S. M. 1992. ChESS Users Manual version 2.0. Pages 60–66.Google Scholar
Zedaker, S. M. and Seiler, J. R. 1988. Rapid primary screening for forestry herbicides. in. Fifth Biennial Southern Silviculture Research Conference, USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station, GTR SO-74 349–352.Google Scholar