Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:05:14.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leaf Removal Interval Effect After Sprays to Woody Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. E. Meyer ,
R. W. Bovey ,
T. E. Riley  and
W. T. McKelvy
R. E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of. Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Tex. A&M Univ., College Station, Tex. 77843
R. W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of. Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Tex. A&M Univ., College Station, Tex. 77843
T. E. Riley
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of. Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Tex. A&M Univ., College Station, Tex. 77843
W. T. McKelvy
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of. Agr., Dep. of Range Sci., Tex. A&M Univ., College Station, Tex. 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse grown honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) D.C. var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell), huisache (Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.), and whitebrush (Aloysia lycioides Cham.) and field grown honey mesquite, huisache, whitebrush, live oak (Quercus virginiana Mill.), Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina Torr.), and winged elm (Ulmus alata Michx.) were defoliated at several intervals following spray treatments with 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram), 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), or [(4-chioro-o-tolyl)oxy]acetic acid (MCPA). The time required by leaves to be retained on the plant after spraying to give maximum canopy reduction or death of plants varied among species. In most species, however, herbicide absorption and transport were complete within a 4-day period or less as compared to undefoliated treated plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , September 1972 , pp. 498 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., Baker, R. D., and Riley, Imogene. 1971. Absorption and penetration of picloram and 2,4,5-T into detached live oaks leaves. Weed Sci. 19:138–141.Google Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Baur, J. R., and Morton, H. L. 1970. Control of huisache and associated woody species in South Texas. J. Range Manage. 23:47–50.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Davis, F. S., and Merkle, M. G. 1967. Distribution of picloram in huisache after foliar and soil applications. Weeds 15:245–249.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., and Baur, J. R. 1969. Control of live oak by herbicides applied at various rates and dates. Weed Sci. 17:373–376.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, C. E., Meadors, C. H., Behrens, R., Robison, E. D., Marion, P. T., and Morton, H. L. 1959. Control of mesquite on grazing lands. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 935: 24 p.Google Scholar
6. Meyer, R. E., Riley, T. E., Morton, H. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. Control of whitebrush and associated species with herbicides in Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc. Publ. 930: 18 p.Google Scholar
7. Morton, H. L. 1966. Influence of temperature and humidity on foliar absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4, 5-T by mesquite seedlings. Weeds 14:136–141.Google Scholar