Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T23:20:54.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Control and Herbage Production with Imazapic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Denise M. Markle  and
Rodney G. Lym
Denise M. Markle
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Rodney G. Lym*
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rod_lym@ndsu.nodak.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted in North Dakota to determine the effect of adjuvants applied with imazapic on the control of leafy spurge and production of various grass species and to determine the most effective fall-application timing of imazapic for optimum leafy spurge control with minimal effect on herbage. Imazapic applied with a methylated seed oil (MSO) adjuvant tended to provide greater leafy spurge control than when applied with other types of adjuvants. Imazapic applied alone or with adjuvants reduced production of some grass species in the greenhouse, but it did not decrease herbage production in the field. Imazapic at 140 g/ha applied with MSO or with 28% N plus MSO averaged 72% leafy spurge control 12 mo after treatment, compared to 33% control from imazapic alone and 40% control from picloram plus 2,4-D. Imazapic at 140 g/ha applied with MSO in mid-September provided greater leafy spurge control compared to August or October applications.

Keywords

Imazapicleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. #3 EPHESInvasive weed controlrangeland weedsDAT, days after treatmentMAFT, months after first treatmentMAT, months after treatmentMSO, methylated seed oil
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 474 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: North Dakota State University North Central Research and Extension Center, Minot, ND 58701

References

Literature Cited

Becker, R. L. and Miller, D. W. 1998. Warm season grass establishment systems. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51:127.Google Scholar
Ferrell, M. A. 1997. Imazameth Activity on Leafy Spurge. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 8.Google Scholar
Gylling, S. R. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Efficacy and economics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control in pasture. Weed Sci. 33: 381–385.Google Scholar
Keys, C. H. and Friesen, H. A. 1968. Persistence of picloram activity in soil. Weed Sci. 16: 341–343.Google Scholar
Leitch, J. A., Leistritz, F. L., and Bangsund, D. A. 1994. Economic Effect of Leafy Spurge in the Upper Great Plains: Methods, Models, and Results. North Dakota State Univ. Agric. Econ. Dept. Rep. 316. 8 p.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1992. Propagation of Euphorbia esula for leafy spurge biocontrol agents. Weed Sci. 40: 326–332.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1997. Imazameth for leafy spurge control. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 8.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control with herbicides in North Dakota: 20-yr summary. J. Range Manage. 38: 149–154.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1990. Cost-effective long-term leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 635–641.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control, forage production, and economic return with fall-applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 8: 824–829.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Moxness, K. D. 1989. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of picloram and 2,4-D in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 37: 498–502.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Beran, D. D., and Rivas-Pantoja, F. 1998. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) response to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 12: 602–609.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Rivas-Pantoja, F., and Beran, D. D. 1997. Response of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and associated vegetation to AC 263,222. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:31.Google Scholar
Scifres, C. J., Hahn, R. R., Diaz-Colon, J., and Merkle, M. G. 1971. Picloram persistence in semiarid rangeland soils and water. Weed Sci. 19: 381–384.Google Scholar
Sell, R. S., Bangsund, D. A., and Leistritz, F. L. 1999. Euphorbia esula: perceptions by ranchers and land managers. Weed Sci. 47: 740–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 44: 469–475.Google Scholar
Thompson, W., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1998. AC 263,222 absorption and fate in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 46: 510–513.Google Scholar