Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:13:14.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Analysis of Red Maple and White Ash Seedlings Treated with Eight Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. W. Perry  and
R. P. Upchurch
P. W. Perry
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, N. C. State University Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Missouri
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, N. C. State University Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eight technically pure herbicides were evaluated for their relative phytotoxicity to hydroponically grown seedlings of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and white ash (Fraxinus americana L.). Six of the herbicides (acids) were prepared as the triethylamine salts to provide formulation uniformity. With four compounds, equi-mole dosages per plant produced different toxic responses depending upon whether the herbicide was applied to the shoot or root. The 2,4,5-trichlorinated phenoxyaliphatic acids 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), 2(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid (2,4,5-TP), and 4(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) butyric acid (2,4,5-TB) were consistently more toxic on a mole basis when applied to the roots of both species than when applied to the shoots. The opposite effect was observed with ammonium sulfamate (AMS) where shoot treatments were always more toxic. Shoot and root treatments were equally effective for the compounds 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), 2-methoxy-3,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (dicamba), 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram), and 3-amino-l,2,4-triazole (amitrole). Differential species susceptibilities to certain compounds were observed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 32 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 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. Audus, L. J. 1964. Herbicide behavior in the soil. II. Interactions with soil microorganisms, p. 163–205. In Audus, L. J. (ed.) The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Behrens, R. and Morton, H. L. 1960. Mesquite root inhibition tests to study inhibitory activity, absorption and translocation of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Weeds 8:427–435.Google Scholar
3. Crafts, A. S. 1945. Toxicity of certain herbicides in soils. Hilgardia 16:459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1964. The autoradiography of plant materials. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Man. 35. 143 p.Google Scholar
5. Fromm, F. 1943. Growth stimulation by ammonium sulfamate in low concentration. Science 98:391–392.Google Scholar
6. Kramer, P. J. 1937. The relation between rate of transpiration and rate of absorption of water in plants. Am. J. Botan. 24:10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Meyer, B. S., Anderson, D. B., and Böhning, H. R. 1960. Introduction to Plant Physiology. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. 541 p.Google Scholar
8. Nation, H. A. and Lichy, C. T. 1964. Tordon herbicide for brush control in the southern United States. Proc. SWC 17:287–294.Google Scholar
9. Pallas, J. E. Jr. 1963. Absorption and translocation of the triethylamine salt of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in four woody species. For. Sci. 9:485–491.Google Scholar
10. Rediske, J. H. and Staebler, G. R. 1962. Herbicidal selectivity of chlorophenoxybutyrics on Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 8:353–359.Google Scholar
11. Roe, E. I. and Buchman, R. G. 1963. Effect of herbicide, dosage, and volume on hazel brush at different foliar stages. For. Sci. 9:477–484.Google Scholar
12. United States Department of Agriculture. 1961. Chemical control of brush and trees. Farmers' Bull. No. 2158. 23p.Google Scholar