Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T13:11:23.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A stem cut and blade delivery method of herbicide application for weed control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard L. Wahlers
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
James D. Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Eleanor P. Maness
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Walter A. Skroch
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609

Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to investigate the responses of container-grown dogfennel, multiflora rose, and purple loosestrife to clopyralid or triclopyr applied to plants from a pruning shear blade. Clopyralid or triclopyr was diluted with water to various concentrations and placed on one side of a pruning shear blade in final volumes of either 1 or 5 μl. The shears were then used to sever and treat stems. Results indicated that 20% triclopyr concentrations in 5-μl total volume (360 μg active) gave ≥ 96% reductions of foliar regrowth in dogfennel, multiflora rose, and purple loosestrife 70, 42, and 56 days after treatment (DAT), respectively. The same delivery rate for clopyralid gave 96% dogfennel control 70 DAT. Subsequent visual ratings with multiflora rose (105 DAT) and purple loosestrife (260 DAT) confirmed that early reductions in biomass were good indicators of long-term control.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Bonanno, A. R. 1989. Greenbriar (Smilax sp.) control in blueberries. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42: 169.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1993. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 431464.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E., Skroch, W. A., and Burton, J. D. 1996. Weed management in rough turf using the Burch Wet BladeTM application system. Weed Sci. Soc. America Abstr. 36: 74.Google Scholar
Kalmowitz, K. E., Skroch, W. A., and Bonanno, A. R. 1989. Effects of five herbicides and clip-cut method on perennial weed control. Proc. Southern Nursery Assoc. Res. Conf. 34: 228231.Google Scholar
Kay, S. H. and Monks, D. W. 1996. North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 395 p.Google Scholar
Kossuth, S. V., Young, J., Voeller, J., and Holt, H. A. 1978. Four season herbicide injection of hardwoods. Weed Res. 18: 161167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1994. Chemical and mechanical control of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Weed Technol. 8: 483487.Google Scholar
Malefyt, J. J. and Macks, D. D. 1985. Rights-of-way clearing with basal and cut surface treatments. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 220.Google Scholar
Mann, R. K., Witt, W. W., and Rieck, C. E. 1986. Fosamine absorption and translocation in multiflora rose. Weed Sci. 34: 830833.Google Scholar
McLemore, B. F. and Yeiser, J. L. 1987. Use of a hatchet and squirt bottle for killing unwanted hardwoods. Arkansas Farm Res. 36: 10.Google Scholar
Melichar, M. W., Geyer, W. A., and Ritty, P. M. 1986. Hardwood tree control with herbicide applications. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 40: 210.Google Scholar
Rendall, J. 1990. Enhancing states lake wetland programs. Pages 101104 in State Programs and Policies to Control Purple Loosestrife. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Troth, J. L., Lowery, R. F., and Fallis, F. G. 1986. Herbicides as cut-stump treatments during precommercial thinning. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 297304.Google Scholar