Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-03T22:58:09.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of Nontarget Neighbors and Spray Volume on Retention and Efficacy of Triclopyr in Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Elizabeth J. Stamm Katovich
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Roger L. Becker
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Brad D. Kinkaid
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the influence of plant density and spray volume on the retention, spray deposition, efficacy, and translocation of the amine salt of triclopyr in purple loosestrife. More spray solution was retained on leaves at 935 Lha−1 than at 94 Lha−1 at populations of 0, 4, or 8 nontarget neighbors. Spray coverage decreased with decreasing height within the plant canopy when spray cards were placed in the top, middle, and soil surface adjacent to the central target plant. Within a population, spray card coverage generally increased as spray volume increased. Regrowth from the crown was affected by spray volume, and uniform spray coverage of the plant was required for adequate control of vegetative regrowth and was achieved with spray volumes of 374 and 935 L ha−1 spray volume. Regrowth of purple loosestrife was greater at 94 Lha−1 at all three plant populations indicating that less herbicide penetrated the canopy to reach the basal portion of the plant. A laboratory experiment was conducted to investigate the translocation of radiolabelled triclopyr to roots and crowns of purple loosestrife. Only 0.3 to 1.4% of absorbed 14C-labelled material was translocated to roots and crowns. Low spray volumes and dense stands of purple loosestrife would likely result in poor control because inadequate amounts of triclopyr reach the basal portion of the plant and translocate to vegetative propagules.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Becker, R. L., Warnes, D. D., and Ralston, D. F. 1989. Purple loosestrife control in 1989 with 1988 applications of triclopyr. White Bear Lake and Morris, MN. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Report. 46: 103.Google Scholar
2. Becker, R. L., Warnes, D. D., Kinkaid, B. D., and Miller, D. W. 1990. Purple loosestrife control with 1989 applications of triclopyr and imazethapyr and commercial standards, Morris, MN 1990. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Report. 47: 7576.Google Scholar
3. Becker, R. L., Welling, C. H., Katovich, E. J., Darmo, E., and Strefeler, M. S. 1991. Herbicidal control and biology of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in Minnesota. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 72.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1979. Distribution of triclopyr and picloram in huisache (Acacia farnesiana). Weed Sci. 27: 527531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W. and Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1980. Effectiveness of distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 28: 666670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1983. Absorption and translocation of triclopyr in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 31: 807812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Bovey, R. W., Franz, E., and Whisenant, S. G. 1994. Influence of organosilicone surfactants and spray nozzle types on the fate and efficacy of clopyralid on honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Weed Sci. 42: 658664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Boydston, R. A. and Al-Khatib, K. 1993. Efficacy, site of uptake and retention of bromoxynil in common lambsquarters with conventional and sprinkler application. Weed Sci. 41: 166171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gorrell, R. M., Bingham, S. W., and Foy, C. L. 1988. Translocation and fate of dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr in horsenettle. Solaman carolinense. Weed Sci. 36: 447452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. O'Sullivan, P. A. and Kossatz, V. C. 1984. Absorption and translocation of 14C-3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Weed Res. 24: 1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Radosevich, S. R. and Bayer, D. E. 1979. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on triclopyr, picloram and 2,4,5-T translocation. Weed Sci. 27: 2227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Shamsi, S.R.A. and Whitehead, F. H. 1974. Comparative ecophysiology of Epilobium hirsutum L. and Lythrum salicaria. II. Growth and development in relation to light. J. of Ecol. 62: 631645.Google Scholar
13. Skinner, L. C. 1988. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) control studies in Hennepin Parks, MN. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 69.Google Scholar
14. Stafford, M. P. 1990. Effect of spray volume and droplet size on the control of purple loosestrife with aerial applications of triclopyr. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 98.Google Scholar
15. Thompson, D. Q., Stuckey, R. L., and Thompson, E. B. 1987. Spread, impact and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Research 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 55 p.Google Scholar
16. Tworkoski, T. J., Young, R. S., and Sterrett, J. P. 1988. Control of Virginia creeper (Parthenacissus quinquefolia): effects of carrier volume on toxicity and distribution of triclopyr. Weed Technol. 2: 3335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Welling, C. H. and Becker, R. L. 1990. Seed bank dynamics of Lythrum salicaria L.: implications for control of this species in North America. Aquatic Bot. 38: 303309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Welling, C. H. and Becker, R. L. 1993. Reduction of purple loosestrife establishment in Minnesota wetlands. Wild. Soc. Bull. 21: 5664.Google Scholar