Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:57:55.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Macartney Rose (Rosa bracteata) Response to Herbicide and Mowing Treatments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen F. Enloe ,
William N. Kline ,
Jatinder S. Aulakh ,
Rachel K. Bethke ,
Jonathan B. Gladney  and
Dwight K. Lauer
Stephen F. Enloe*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
William N. Kline
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, Ball Ground, GA 30107
Jatinder S. Aulakh
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Rachel K. Bethke
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Jonathan B. Gladney
Affiliation:
Silvics Analytic, Wingate, NC 28174
Dwight K. Lauer
Affiliation:
Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Greensboro, AL 36744
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sfe0001@auburn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Macartney rose is an aggressive thorny shrub that displaces forage species and hinders cattle grazing in rangelands and pastures of the southern United States. Historically, Macartney rose has proven to be extremely difficult to control even with high rates of soil residual herbicides such as picloram. Recent advances in herbicide chemistry warrant testing on this troublesome species. We compared mowing and late summer broadcast applications of thirteen herbicide treatments that included combinations of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, metsulfuron, picloram, triclopyr, and 2,4-D. Treatments were applied to the same rose clumps for 2 consecutive yr. An additional mowing was done to one half of the rose clumps in each treatment 6 mo after the second herbicide treatment. At 11 mo after initial treatment (MAIT), mowing and all herbicide treatments performed very poorly and provided 35% control or less. At 12 mo after retreatment (24 MAIT), picloram + 2,4-D and aminopyralid + metsulfuron, both followed by mowing, were the most effective treatments, providing 72 to 91% control. All other treatments provided less than 70% control. However, complete clump mortality was very low across all treatments, ranging from 3 to 32%. These results indicate that Macartney rose suppression is possible with certain new herbicides, but complete clump kill is still lacking.

Keywords

Aminopyralidfluroxypyrmetsulfuronpicloramtriclopyr2,4-DMacartney rose Rosa bracteata J. C. Wendl. ROSBCInvasive rosesmechanical controlpasture weed control
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 260 - 267
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

Bovey, R. W., Haas, R. H., and Meyer, R. E. 1972. Daily and seasonal response of huisache and Macartney rose to herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:577–580.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 1989. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) control with metsulfuron. Weed Technol. 3:381–384.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Sellers, B. A., MacDonald, G. E., and Kline, W. N. 2009. Influence of herbicide and application timing on blackberry control. Weed Technol. 23:531–534.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. A., Scifres, C. J., and Mutz, J. L. 1982. Integration of burning and picloram pellets for Macartney rose control. J. Range Manag. 35:427–430.Google Scholar
Haas, R. H., Lehman, S. K., and Morton, H. L. 1970. Influence of mowing and spraying dates on herbicidal control of Macartney rose. Weed Sci. 18:33–37.Google Scholar
Hume, H. H. 1943. The Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata). Amer. Rose Annu. 28:29–30.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., and Schabenberger, O. 2006. SAS for Mixed Models. Second Edition. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 814 p.Google Scholar
McCully, W. G. 1951. Recovery of viability of Macartney rose seeds fed to cattle. J. Range Manag. 25:386–389.Google Scholar
Mendenhall, W. 1968. Introduction to Linear Models and the Design and Analysis of Experiments. Belmont, CA Wadsworth. 465 p.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. 1982. Brush response to spacing and individual-plant herbicide treatments. Weed Sci. 30:378–384.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1973. Control of woody plants with herbicide mixtures. Weed Sci. 21:423–426.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Hexazinone and other herbicides on Texas woody plants. Weed Sci. 28:358–362.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1984. Response of Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata) and understory vegetation to herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:63–67.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1990. Influence of sulfonylurea and other herbicides on selected woody and herbaceous species. Weed Sci. 38:249–255.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., Riley, T. E., and Flynt, T. O. 1976. Seasonal response of Macartney rose and huisache to herbicides. J. Range Manag. 157–160.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. C. 2008. Soils of Alabama. Auburn, AL Alabama Cooperative Extension System ANR-340. 2 p.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Ritchie Bell, C., eds. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p.Google Scholar
Reed, T. M. and Fitzgerald, C. H. 1979. Chemical control of multiflora rose. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:220–224.Google Scholar
Scifres, C. J. 1975a. Fall application of herbicides improves Macartney rose infested coastal prairie rangelands. J. Range Manag. 28:483–486.Google Scholar
Scifres, C. J. 1975b. Systems for Improving Macartney Rose Infested Coastal Prairie Rangeland. College Station, TX Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Pub. 1225. 12 p.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L. and Holt, H. A. 1977. Preliminary multiflora rose control results. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:125–127.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. T. 1949. The Macartney rose. Texas J. Sci. 1(4):54–56.Google Scholar