Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T10:57:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Four Foliage-Applied Herbicides on Field Horsetail (Equisetum arvense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. Coupland  and
D. V. Peabody
D. Coupland
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Organ., Begbroke Hill, UK 0X5 1PF
D. V. Peabody
Affiliation:
Washington State Univ., Northwestern Washington Res. and Ext. Unit, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Amitrole (3-amino-s-triazole), asulam (methyl sulfanilylcarbamate), glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine], and fosamine [ethyl hydrogen (aminocarbonyl)phosphonate] were effective in reducing the amount of shoot regrowth from field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.) 3 months after treatment. The order of effectiveness was amitrole > glyphosate > asulam > fosamine. The advantage of adding surfactant to the spray formulation or applying herbicides to wet foliage was rate dependent for all herbicides except fosamine. Spray retention was increased by application to wet foliage and by the inclusion of surfactant in the formulation. Spray retention increased as spray volume and plant size increased and as plant growth became prostrate. A scanning electron microscope study of the shoot surfaces showed an abundance of silica-containing structures and the presence of epicuticular wax. Certain surfaces of the scale leaves did not have these characteristics, indicating that redistribution of spray to these areas may result in greater penetration with subsequent increases in herbicide performance.

Keywords

Amitroleasulamfosamineglyphosateretention
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 113 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the 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. Babiker, A. G. T. and Duncan, J. J. 1974. Penetration of bracken fronds by asulam as influenced by the addition of surfactant to the spray solution and by pH. Weed Res. 14:375–377.Google Scholar
2. Baker, E. A. and Holloway, P. J. 1971. Scanning electron microscopy of waxes on plant surfaces. Micron. 2:364–380.Google Scholar
3. Blair, A. M. 1975. The addition of ammonium salts or a phosphate ester to herbicides to control Agropyron repens (L.). Beauv. Weed Res. 15:101–105.Google Scholar
4. Brunskill, R. T. 1956. Physical factors affecting the retention of spray droplets on leaf surfaces. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 2:593–603.Google Scholar
5. Caseley, J. C. and Coupland, D. 1980. Effect of simulated rain on retention, distribution, uptake, movement and activity of difenzoquat applied to wild oats. Ann. Appl. Biol. In press.Google Scholar
6. Caseley, J. C., Coupland, D., and Simmons, R. C. 1975. The effect of precipitation on the control of Agropyron repens with glyphosate. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symp. Status and control of grass weeds in Europe. pp. 124–130.Google Scholar
7. Cook, G. T., Babiker, A. G. T., and Duncan, H. J. 1977. Penetration of bean leaves by aminotriazole as influenced by adjuvants and humidity. Pestic. Sci. 8:137–146.Google Scholar
8. Coupland, D. and Caseley, J. C. 1975. Reduction of silica and increase in tillering induced in Agropyron repens by glyphosate. J. Exp. Bot. 26:138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Coupland, D., Taylor, W. A., and Casely, J. C. 1978. The effect of site of application on the performance of glyphosate on Agropyron repens and barban, benzoylprop-ethyl and difenzoquat on Avena fatua . Weed Res. 18:123–128.Google Scholar
10. Davison, J. G. 1972. The response of 21 perennial weed species to glyphosate. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 11:11–16.Google Scholar
11. Hughes, E. C. and Harvath, K. 1978. Weed control herbicide trials on horsetail in Mission, B.C. Rep. of Expert Comm. on Weeds. West. Can. 2:262–263.Google Scholar
12. Laurin, R. 1961. New herbicides for forage and pasture crops. Proc. West. Can. Weed Control Conf. 11:25–28.Google Scholar
13. Merritt, C. R. and Taylor, W. A. 1978. Effects of volume rate and drop size on the retention of an aqueous solution by Avena fatua L. Monograph 22, Br. Crop Prot. Counc., Symposium on Controlled Drop Application, pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
14. Page, C. N. 1972. An assessment of interspecific relationships in Equisetum subgenus Equisetum . New Phytol. 71:355–369.Google Scholar
15. Suwannamek, U. and Parker, C. 1975. Control of Cyperus rotundus with glyphosate: the influence of ammonium sulphate and other additives. Weed Res. 15:13–19.Google Scholar
16. Troup, R. M. 1977. Control of horsetail with fosamine ammonium. Rep. of Expert Comm. on Weeds. East. Can. p. 314.Google Scholar
17. Wagner, V. and Bandeen, J. D. 1978. Horsetail control in corn. Rep. of Expert Comm. on Weeds. East. Can. p. 314.Google Scholar
18. Wagner, V. and Bandeen, J. D. 1978. Regrowth study of horsetail. Rep. of Expert Comm. on Weeds. East. Can. pp. 315–316.Google Scholar
19. Williams, E. D. 1975. Perennial weeds. Annu. Rep. Bot. Dep. Rothamsted Exp. Stn. Harpenden, Herts. England. pp. 47–49.Google Scholar
20. Wyrill, J. B. and Burnside, O. C. 1977. Glyphosate toxicity to common milkweed and hemp dogbane as influenced by surfactants. Weed Sci. 25:275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar