Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T17:44:43.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of 2,4-D and Various Salts on Eurasian Watermilfoil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ronald A. Stanley
Ronald A. Stanley*
Affiliation:
Biol., Environmental Biol. Branch, Div. of Environmental Planning, TVA, Muscle Shoals, Al 35660
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The management of Eurasian watermilfoil, an inimical aquatic weed in the Tennessee Valley, involves the use of water level management and herbicidal treatment with 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid]. The possible use of other chemicals to make 2,4-D more effective was tested by measuring growth of Eurasian watermilfoil under laboratory conditions with combinations of sublethal levels of 2,4-D and partially inhibitory concentrations of AlCl3, NH4Cl, Na2AsO2, BaCl2, Na2B4O7, CuSO4, HgCl2, Pb(NO3)2, NaCl, and ZnSO4. At the levels tested, BaCl2, Pb(NO3)2, and ZnSO4 were only additive in effect with 2,4-D. Other compounds produced synergism at some concentrations and mutual antagonism at other levels. The greatest synergism was obtained by using HgCl2, AlCl3, and NaCl at 0.2 μM, 10.0 μM, and 200.00 mM respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , November 1974 , pp. 591 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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. Burkhalter, A. 1972; Guidelines for aquatic weed control. Fla. Dept. Nat. Resources, Tallahassee, Fla., pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
2. Colby, S.R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses to herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 15:20–22.Google Scholar
3. Devlin, R.M. 1973. Influence of phenoxy growth regulators on the uptake of. naptalam by Potamogeton pectinatus . Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 27:115–119.Google Scholar
4. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Water Quality Criteria. Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
5. Parker, C. 1966. Influence of water hardness on the phytotoxicity of paraquat. Nature 212:1465–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Smith, G.E. 1971. Resume of studies and control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) in the Tennessee Valley from 1960 through 1969. Hyacinth Contr. J. 9:23–25.Google Scholar
7. Stanley, R.A. 1974. Toxicity of heavy metals and other salts to Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. In press.Google Scholar
8. Sutton, D.L., Blackburn, R.D., and Barlowe, W. 1971. Response of aquatic plants to combinations of endothall and copper. Weed Sci. 19:643–646.Google Scholar
9. Sutton, D.L., Haller, W.T., Steward, K.K., and Blackburn, R.D. 1972. Effect of copper on uptake of diquat-14C by Hydrilla . Weed Sci. 20:581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Sutton, D.L., Weldon, L.W., and Blackburn, R.D. 1970. Effect of diquat on uptake of copper in aquatic plants. Weed Sci. 18:703–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1972. Environmental Statement – Control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) in TVA reserviors. Chattanooga, Tennessee. 22 pp. and 3 appendices.Google Scholar