Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:39:18.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Control of Three Chihuahuan Desert Shrubs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ervin M. Schmutz
Ervin M. Schmutz*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson
Get access

Abstract

Foliar and soil herbicidal treatments were made on creosotebush (Larrea tridentata (DC.) Cov.), tarbush Flourensia cernua DC.), and whitethorn (Acacia constricta Benth.) near Tombstone, Arizona, from 1957 to 1964. All herbicides were most effective when applied approximately 30 days after initiation of the summer rainy season. The herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) were about equal in effectiveness, but the relative susceptibility of the individual shrubs to the herbicides varied with treatment conditions. The acetic form of 2,4,5-T generally was more effective than the propionic; propylene glycol butyl ether, iso-octyl, and tetrahydrofurfuryl esters more effective than pentyl. Foliar applications of 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram) were most effective on whitethorn, intermediate on creosotebush, and least effective on tarbush. The most effective soil herbicidal treatments were 3-phenyl-1,1-dimethylurea (fenuron) and 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (monuron). In general, effective control of dominant Chihuahuan Desert shrubs required 2 to 4 lb/A of 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T, 14 to 1 lb/A of picloram, or 2 lb/A of fenuron or monuron.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 62 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 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. Benson, L. and Darrow, R. A. 1954. The Trees and Shrubs of the Southwestern Deserts. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson and Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 437 pp.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1965. Herbicide longevity in Nebraska soils. Weeds 13:277–278.Google Scholar
3. Crafts, A. S. 1960. Evidence for hydrolysis of esters of 2,4-D during absorption by plants. Weeds 8:19–25.Google Scholar
4. Crafts, A. S. 1961. The Chemistry and Mode of Action of Herbicides. Interscience Publ., New York. 269 pp.Google Scholar
5. Donaldson, T. W. and Foy, C. L. 1965. The phytotoxicity and persistence in soils of benzoic acid herbicides, Weeds 13:195–202.Google Scholar
6. Fang, S. C., Freed, V. H., Johnson, R. H., and Coffee, D. R. 1955. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of radioactive 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (CMU) by bean plants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 3:400–402.Google Scholar
7. Gantz, R. L. and Laning, E. R. Jr. 1963. Tordon for the control of woody rangeland species in the western United States. Down to Earth 19(3):10–13.Google Scholar
8. Gardner, J. L. 1951. Vegetation of the creosotebush area of the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. Ecol. Monogr. 21:379–403.Google Scholar
9. Green, C. 1959. A statistical method of determining annual rainfall by elevation. Univ. Arizona Inst. Atmos. Phys. Tech. Mem. 59–8. 4 pp.Google Scholar
10. Hill, G. D., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. 1955. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. J. 47:93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Humphrey, R. R. 1958. The desert grassland, a history of vegetational change and an analysis of causes. Bot. Rev. 24:193–252.Google Scholar
12. Jaeger, E. C. 1957. The North American Deserts. Standford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. 308 pp.Google Scholar
13. King, L. J. and Kramer, J. A. Jr. 1951. Studies on the herbicidal properties and volatility of some polyethylene and polypropylene glycol esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 16:267–278.Google Scholar
14. Lambert, S. M., Porter, P. E., and Schieferstein, R. H. 1965. Movement and sorption of chemicals applied to the soil. Weeds 13:185–190.Google Scholar
15. Schmutz, E. M., Tschirley, F. H., and Turner, R. M. 1957. Chemical control of three desert shrubs. Prog. Agr. in Arizona 9(1):14.Google Scholar
16. Sheets, T. J. 1958. The comparative toxicities of four phenylurea herbicides in several soil types. Weeds 6:413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Sheets, T. J. and Crafts, A. S. 1957. The phytotoxicity of four phenylurea herbicides in soil. Weeds 5:93–101.Google Scholar
18. U. S. Weather Bureau. 1957–59. Climatological data. Arizona. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (Monthly issues).Google Scholar
19. Wagle, R. F. and Schmutz, E. M. 1963. The effect of fenuron on four southwestern shrubs. Weeds 11:149–157.Google Scholar
20. Wilcox, D. G., Little, D. E., and Schmutz, E. M. 1965. Whitethorn control. Prog. Agr. in Arizona 17(3): 18–20.Google Scholar
21. Yang, T. W. 1961. The recent expansion of creosotebush (Larrea divaricata) in the North American desert. W. Res. Acad. Natur. Hist. Museum Spec. Publ. No. 1. 11 pp.Google Scholar