Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:20:49.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Several Factors Affecting the Response of Pricklypear to 2,4,5-T

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. E. Meyer  and
H. L. Morton
R. E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, College Station, Texas
H. L. Morton
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, College Station, Texas
Get access

Abstract

A laboratory assay method was developed for studying pricklypear (Opuntia sp.) responses to herbicides. Herbicidal translocation from one pad to another and lateral translocation across a pad appeared to be very slight. Pads were killed when a butoxy ethanol ester, a propylene glycol butyl ether ester, or a 2-ethylhexyl ester formulation of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) was applied to only one side. Increasing temperatures from 21 to 43 C increased the rate of killing pads. Concentrations of 2,4,5-T at 8 lb aehg of solution usually killed the pad at temperatures above 21 C. Concentrations of 2,4,5-T at 4 lb aehg or less had little effect on the pads. Relative humidity level had little effect on 2,4,5-T activity, but the activity of a propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) was more effective at the 90 to 95% level than at levels ranging from 30 to 75%. Water, diesel oil, and three diesel oil:water mixtures had little effect on 2,4,5-T toxicity. More toxic effects were shown by 2,4,5-T than 2,4-D. The propylene glycol butyl ether ester, the butoxy ether ester, and the 2-ethylhexyl ester of 2,4,5-T were equally effective on pricklypear at the same concentrations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1967 , pp. 207 - 209
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. Behrens, R. and Morton, H. L. 1960. An environment system for plant studies with controlled temperature, humidity and light. Weeds 8:182–186.Google Scholar
2. Chow, P. N., Burnside, O. C., Lavy, T. L., and Knoche, H. W. 1966. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of silvex in pricklypear. Weeds 14:38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Darrow, R. A., Reyes, L., and Hall, R. A. 1953. Response of lindheimer pricklypear to 2,4,5-T and other herbicides. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 1561. 4 p.Google Scholar
4. Gentz, R. L. and Laning, E. R. Jr. 1963. Tordon for control of woody rangeland species in the western United States. Down to Earth 19(1):10–13.Google Scholar
5. Hoffman, G. O. and Darrow, R. A. 1965. Pricklypear … good or bad? Texas Agr. Ext. Serv. Bull. 806. 8 p.Google Scholar
6. Smith, N. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration…the problem. U.S.D.A.-S.C.S. Bul. 4-19114. Plate 6.Google Scholar
7. Thomas, G. W. and Darrow, R. A. 1956. Response of pricklypear to grazing and control measures. Texas Range Station, Barnhart. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rept. 1873. 7 p.Google Scholar
8. van Overbeek, J. and Blondeau, E. 1954. Mode of action of phytotoxic oils. Weeds 1:55–65.Google Scholar