Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T16:34:17.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Crop Responses to Hexazinone, Imazapyr, Tebuthiuron, and Triclopyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Benjamin Coffman
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705
J. Ray Frank
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, Frederick, MD 21702
William E. Potts
Affiliation:
UMD/USDA, Beltsville MD 20705

Abstract

Field investigations were conducted for 2 yr to characterize the responses of wheat, kidney bean, field corn, squash, okra, potato, and banana to soil-applied hexazinone, imazapyr, tebuthiuron, and triclopyr at rates used for control of woody perennial plants. Test species were planted at seven selected intervals through the first and second years after herbicide applications to assess residual herbicide activity. Tebuthiuron treatments of 2.2 kg ai ha−1 were not tolerated by any bioassay species planted 436 d after application (DAA). Only potato was tolerant of residual hexazinone 436 DAA. All species except banana generally tolerated residual imazapyr and triclopyr by the second growing season. Indigenous plants repopulated all herbicide-treated areas, except those treated with tebuthiuron, by the third growing season. Plots treated with tebuthiuron were 90% free of indigenous plants 40 mo after herbicide application.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. 1978. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron on establishment of ryegrass winter pasture. J. Range Manage. 31:450455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Burnett, E., Meyer, R. E., Richardson, C., and Loh, A. 1978. Persistence of tebuthiuron in surface runoff water, soil, and vegetation in the Texas Blackland Prairie. J. Environ. Qual. 7:233236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Hein, H. Jr. 1982. Soil persistence of tebuthiuron in the claypan resource area of Texas. Weed Sci. 30: 140144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bush, P. B., Neary, D. G., and Taylor, J. W. 1988. Effect of triclopyr amine and ester formulations on groundwater and surface water quality in the coastal plain. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:226232.Google Scholar
5. Carroll, R. J. and Ruppert, D. 1988. Transformation and Weighing in Regression. Chapman and Hall, New York. p. 951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Deubert, K. H. and Corte-Real, I. 1986. Soil residues of picloram and triclopyr after selective foliar application on utility rights-of-way. J. Arboric. 12:269272.Google Scholar
8. Duncan, K. W. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Influence of clay and organic matter of rangeland soils on tebuthiuron effectiveness. J. Range Manage. 36:295297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Emmerich, W. E., Helmer, J. D., Renard, K. G., and Lane, L. J. 1984. Fate and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 13:382386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hamilton, W. T. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) response to tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 31:634638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lee, C. H., Oloffs, P. C., and Szeto, S. Y. 1986. Persistence, degradation, and movement of triclopyr and its ethylene glycol butyl ether ester in a forest soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 34:10751079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Meyer, R. C. and Bovey, R. W. 1988. Tebuthiuron formulation and placement effects on response of woody plants and soil residue. Weed Sci. 36:373378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Morton, H. L., Johnsen, T. N. Jr., and Simanton, J. R. 1989. Movement of tebuthiuron applied to wet and dry rangeland soils. Weed Sci. 37: 117122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Rhodes, R. C. 1980. Soil studies with 14C (carbon-isotope)-labeled hexazinone. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:311315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Ed., Vol. 2. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
16. Silvoy, J. J., Boswell, F. C., Shuman, L. M., and Smith, A. E. 1986. Tebuthiuron persistence in the Piedmont region of Georgia. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:289296.Google Scholar
17. Steinert, W. G. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Uptake and phytotoxicity of tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 25:390395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Summit, G. D., Dupont, R. R., Parker, R.D.R., and Deer, H. M. 1989. Modeling and measurement of tebuthiuron mobility in intermountain soils. p. 491500. in Weigmann, D. L., ed. Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments: Proc. Natl. Res. Conf., May 11–12, 1989. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg.Google Scholar
19. Torstensson, L. and Stark, J. 1982. Persistence of triclopyr in forest soils. p. 393399 in Weeds and Weed Control: 23rd Swed. Weed Conf., Swed. Univ. Agric. Sci., Uppsala.Google Scholar
20. Van Cantfort, A. M., Hegman, A. R., Dobson, J. B., Colbert, D. R., and Mallipudi, M. 1986. Imazapyr: environmental factors influencing behavior. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 40:242.Google Scholar
21. Weber, J. B. 1980. Adsorption of buthidazole, VEL 3510, tebuthiuron, and fluridone by organic matter, montmorillonite clay, exchange resins, and a sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 28:478483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Handbook, 6th Ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
23. Wehtje, G., Dickens, R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35:858864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar