Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:11:30.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Broadcast vs. Wet-Blade Herbicide Applications for Southern Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

B.A. Sellers*
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center and Department of Agronomy, University of Florida–IFAS, Ona, FL 33865
J.J. Mullahey
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida–IFAS, Milton, FL 32583
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sellersb@ufl.edu

Abstract

Southern wax myrtle is a pernicious weed in south Florida pastures and this plant can eliminate all forage production under high densities. Previous work has shown that triclopyr at 1.12 kg/ha is the most effective herbicide on this species. The introduction of the Burch Wet Blade (BWB) mowing system provides an alternative application method to traditional broadcast herbicide applications. The objective of this experiment was to compare the efficacy of triclopyr and other herbicides using both broadcast and the BWB application systems. In general, broadcast applications of at least 1.1 kg/ha triclopyr provided better control than the same treatments applied with the BWB system in 1998. In 1999, control was lower overall compared to 1998, but the same trend was observed. Broadcast applications of triclopyr reduced wax myrtle densities better than when herbicides were applied with the BWB system in 1998. However, in 1999, dicamba + triclopyr, and at least 1.1 kg/ha triclopyr reduced wax myrtle densities compared to the mow-only treatment, regardless of application method. Although the BWB system provided an initial overall reduction in plant height, recovery of plants was sufficient and often outgrew those receiving broadcast applications of herbicides. Regardless of application method, retreatment of wax myrtle plants 1 yr after the initial application will likely be needed to obtain adequate control.

Type
Weed-Management — Techniques
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

Dortenzio, W. A. and Norris, R. F. 1980. The influence of soil moisture on the foliar activity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:534539.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E., Skroch, W. A., Burton, J. D., and Worsham, A. D. 2003. Herbicide efficacy using a wet-blade application system. Weed Technol. 17:320324.Google Scholar
Kalmbacher, R. S., Eger, J. E. Jr, and Rowland-Bamford, A. J. 1993. Response of southern wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) to herbicides in Florida. Weed Technol. 7:8491.Google Scholar
Kells, J. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotti, T. 1956. Eliminating understory hardwoods with summer prescribed fires in coastal plain loblolly pine stands. J. Forest. 54:191192.Google Scholar
Shiver, B. D., Knowe, S. A., Edwards, M. B., and Kline, W. N. 1991. Comparison of herbicide treatments for controlling common coastal plain flatwoods species. South. J. Appl. For. 15:187193.Google Scholar
Terry, S. W. and White, L. D. 1979. Southern wax myrtle response following winter prescribed burning in south Florida. J. Range Manag. 32:326327.Google Scholar