Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:18:13.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of Herbicides on Rangelands with a Carpeted Roller: Shrub Density Influences Volume, Dosage, and Rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Herman S. Mayeux Jr.
Herman S. Mayeux Jr.*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Grassland Soil and Water Res. Lab., Temple, TX 76503-6112
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide solutions of known concentration were applied to honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr. # PROJG) with a tractor-mounted carpeted roller. The volume of solution applied was measured, and average height and density of the honey mesquite stands were also determined. The volume of solution applied ranged from about 3 to 20 L/ha and was positively correlated with stand density (r2 = 0.71). Height of the stand had no influence on volume of solution applied. Amounts of herbicide applied at concentrations of 30, 60, and 120 g/L averaged about 0.2, 0.6, and 1.25 kg ae/ha, respectively. Calculated amounts of active ingredient of herbicide applied to individual plants (dosage) ranged from 0.3 to more than 3 g/shrub and decreased curvilinearly with increasing stand density, suggesting that the carpeted roller is most efficient in treating sparse stands.

Keywords

Prosopis glandulosaPRCJG
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 444 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., Flynt, T. O., and Riley, T. E. 1972. Efficiency of a tractor-mounted field sprayer. Weed Sci. 20:317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Cottam, G. and Curtis, J. T. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451–460.Google Scholar
3. Cramer, G. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1981. Control of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Weed Sci. 29:636–640.Google Scholar
4. Helwig, J. T. and Council, K. A. 1979. SAS User's Guide. SAS Inst., Box 8000, Cary, NC 27511. 495 pp.Google Scholar
5. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1987. Application of herbicides on rangelands with a carpeted roller: Timing of treatment in dense stands of honey mesquite. J. Range Manage. (In press).Google Scholar
6. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. and Crane, R. A. 1984. Application of herbicides on rangelands with a carpeted roller: Control of goldenweeds (Isocoma spp.) and false broomweed (Ericameria austrotexana). Weed Sci. 32:845–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. and Crane, R. A. 1985. Application of herbicides on rangelands with a carpeted roller: Evaluation of four herbicides for control of honey mesquite. J. Range Manage. 38:238–241.Google Scholar
8. Messersmith, C. G. and Lym, R. G. 1985. Roller application of picloram for leafy spurge control in pastures: Weed Sci. 33:258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Pruitt, W. O. and Angus, D. E. 1960. Large weighing lysimeters for measuring evapotranspiration. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26:13–18.Google Scholar
10. Schepers, J. S. and Burnside, O. C. 1979. Electronic moisture sensor for maintaining herbicide solution on a roller applicator. Weed Sci. 27:559–561.Google Scholar
11. Scifres, C. J., Bovey, R. W., Fisher, C. E., and Baur, J. R. 1973. Chemical control of mesquite. Pages 24–32 in Mesquite: Growth and Development, Management, Economics, Control, Uses. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Mono. 1. College Station.Google Scholar