Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:25:05.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility of Big Sagebrush and Green Rabbitbrush to 2,4-D as Related to Certain Environmental, Phenological, and Physiological Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. N. Hyder ,
Forrest A. Sneva  and
Virgil H. Freed
D. N. Hyder
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Burns, Oregon presently Fort Collins, Colorado
Forrest A. Sneva
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Virgil H. Freed
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Get access

Abstract

Mixed stands of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt.) were sprayed with butyl ester of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 lb/A on six phenological dates in 1956, 1957, and 1958 at the Squaw Butte Experiment Station, Burns, Oregon. Data on soil moisture; soil temperature; growth development of herbaceous species; twig elongation of big sagebrush and green rabbitbrush; dry-matter, crude-protein, and total-carbohydrate contents of green rabbitbrush herbage; and crude-protein and total-carbohydrate contents of big sagebrush and green rabbitbrush roots were obtained at weekly to biweekly intervals in all 3 years to evaluate the ecological and physiological conditions that might indicate seasonal patterns of susceptibility to 2,4-D. Big sagebrush, a non-deciduous, non-sprouting plant, was easily killed with 2,4-D at 2 lb/A when soil temperatures and moisture contents were satisfactory for vigorous growth. The development of abundant leaf area on green rabbitbrush, a deciduous, sprouting plant, was important for spray interception and a photosynthetic rate sufficient to promote carbohydrate accumulation. Green rabbitbrush was controlled about 80% with a single application of 2,4-D butyl ester at 3 lb/A after the new twigs were 3 inches long and while soil moisture contents were sufficient for active growth. Differences in susceptibility between the two species are compared with morphological, phenological, and physiological differences, and seasonal patterns of susceptibility are further compared with environmental conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1962 , pp. 288 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © 1962 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. Alley, Harold P. 1956. Chemical control of big sagebrush and its effect upon production and utilization of native grass species. Weeds 4:164–173.Google Scholar
2. Bohmont, D. W. 1954. Chemical control of big sagebrush. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeographed Circ. 39.Google Scholar
3. Bohmont, D. W. 1954. Chemical sagebrush control—good and bad. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 54.Google Scholar
4. Browne, C. A. and Zerban, F. W. 1941. Methods of sugar analysis. 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
5. Cook, , Wayne, C. and Stoddart, L. A. 1960. Physiological responses of big sagebrush to different types of herbage removal. J. Range Mgmt. 13:14–16.Google Scholar
6. Cornelius, Donald R. and Graham, Charles A. 1951. Selective herbicides for improving California forest ranges. J. Range Mgmt. 4:95–100.Google Scholar
7. Cornelius, Donald R. and Graham, Charles A. 1958. Sagebrush control with 2,4-D. J. Range Mgmt. 11:122–125.Google Scholar
8. Hull, A. C. Jr. and Vaughn, W. T. 1951. Controlling big sagebrush with 2,4-D and other chemicals. J. Range Mgmt. 4:158–164.Google Scholar
9. Hull, A. C. Jr., Kissinger, N. A. Jr., and Vaughn, W. T. 1952. Chemical control of big sagebrush in Wyoming. J. Range Mgmt. 5:398–402.Google Scholar
10. Hyder, D. N. 1953. Controlling big sagebrush with growth regulators. J. Range Mgmt. 6:109–116 Google Scholar
11. Hyder, D. N. 1954. Spray to control big sagebrush. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 538.Google Scholar
12. Hyder, D. N. and Sneva, Forrest A. 1955. Effect of form and rate of active ingredient, spraying season, solution volume, and type of solvent on mortality of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 35.Google Scholar
13. Hyder, D. N. and Sneva, Forrest A. 1962. Selective control of big sagebrush associated with bitterbrush. J. Range Mgmt. 15:211–215.Google Scholar
14. Hyder, D. N., Furtick, W. R., and Sneva, F. A. 1958. Differences among butyl, ethyl, and isopropyl ester formulations of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and MCPA in the control of big sagebrush. Weeds 6:194–197.Google Scholar
15. Hyder, D. N., Sneva, F. A., Chilcote, D. O., and Furtick, W. R. 1958. Chemical control of rabbitbrush with emphasis upon simultaneous control of big sagebrush. Weeds 6:289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Robertson, J. H. and Cords, H. P. 1956. Survival of big sagebrush of different ages after treatment with selective herbicides. Weeds 4:376–385.Google Scholar
17. Robertson, J. H. and Cords, H. P. 1957. Survival of rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus spp., following chemical, burning, and mechanical treatments. J. Range Mgmt. 10:83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Weldon, L. W., Bohmont, D. W., and Alley, H. P. 1958. Reestablishment of sagebrush following chemical control. Weeds 6:298–303.Google Scholar