Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:28:48.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal Susceptibility of Guava to Selected Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Fred H. Tschirley ,
Rene T. Hernandez  and
Clyde C. Dowler
Fred H. Tschirley
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Experiment Station, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
Rene T. Hernandez
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Experiment Station, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
Clyde C. Dowler
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Experiment Station, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
Get access

Abstract

Treatments made at 2-week intervals on guava (Psidium guajava L.) with a 1:1 ratio of butoxyethanol esters of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid:2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D:2,4,5-T) have shown it to be more susceptible when treatments are made during the wet season than during the dry season. Greater susceptibility is related to a plant condition characterized by many new leaves but little or no terminal twig elongation. A similar pattern of defoliation response is caused by 2-methoxy-3,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (dicamba) and 2,3,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram) as by 2,4-D:2,4,5-T, but the period of maximum susceptibility based on defoliation percentages 1 year after treatment occurred later in the season.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1967 , pp. 217 - 219
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. Aponte, C. E. 1963. El cultivo de guayaba en Puerto Rico. Caribbean Agr. 1:199–215.Google Scholar
2. Fisher, C. E., Meadors, C. H., Behrens, R., Robinson, E. D., Marion, P. T., and Morton, H. L. 1959. Control of mesquite on grazing lands. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 935. 24 p.Google Scholar
3. Hyder, D. N., Sneva, F. A., and Freed, V. H. 1962. Susceptibility of big sagebrush and green rabbitbrush to 2,4-D as related to certain environmental, phenological, and physiological conditions. Weeds 10:288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Reynolds, H. G. and Tschirley, F. H. 1963. Mesquite control in southwestern rangelands. U.S. Dep. Agr. Leaflet No. 421 (Rev.). 8 p.Google Scholar
5. Roberts, R. C. 1942. Soil survey of Puerto Rico. U.S. Dep. of Agr., Bur. of Plant Industry. Series 1936, No. 8.Google Scholar
6. Soto, Teodoro. 1960. El cultivo de la guayaba en Puerto Rico. Rev. de Agr. de Puerto Rico 47:120–125.Google Scholar
7. Tschirley, F. H. 1962. Controlling mesquite with 2,4,5-T. Univ. of Arizona Coop. Ext. Serv. Folder No. 98. 5 p.Google Scholar
8. Valentine, K. A. and Norris, J. J. 1960. Mesquite control with 2,4,5-T by ground application. New Mexico Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 451. 24 p.Google Scholar
9. Velez, Ismael and van Overbeek, Johannes. 1950. Plantas indeseables en los cultivos tropicales. Editorial Univ., Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 497 p., illus. Google Scholar