Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T08:32:16.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological characteristics of a stem cut and blade delivery method of application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard L. Wahlers ,
James D. Burton ,
Eleanor P. Maness  and
Walter A. Skroch
Richard L. Wahlers
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide absorption and translocation patterns were determined following a wet blade method of application to dogfennel stems. Treatment consisted of severing stems with a pruning shear blade containing 5 μl of [14C]-triclopyr or [14C]-clopyralid solution. More than 73 or 82% of applied [14C]-triclopyr or [14C]-clopyralid was absorbed immediately, and uptake increased to more than 90%, 60 min after treatment. Both radiolabeled compounds appeared in the roots as soon as 12 h after treatment. By 48 h, 5 to 7% of the [14C] label was present in the roots, and 7 to 10% was exuded from the roots.

Keywords

clopyralidtriclopyrdogfennel[Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) Small]Autoradiographyblade deliverycut and applicationBurch Wet Blade®xylem cavitationEUPCA

Information

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 6 , December 1997 , pp. 746 - 749
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

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: 807–812.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1987. Influence of adjuvants and plant growth regulators on herbicide performance in honey mesquite. J. Plant Growth Regul. 5: 225–234.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1993. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 431–464.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. Am. Abstr. 36: 74.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Cal. Agric. Exp. St. Circ. 347. 32 p.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., and Shilling, D. G. 1992. Factors affecting germination of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and yankeeweed (Eupatorium compositifolium). Weed Sci. 40: 424–428.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: 483–487.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p.Google Scholar
Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. W. 1985. Plant Physiology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 540 p.Google Scholar
Turnbull, G. C. and Stephenson, G. R. 1985. Translocation of clopyralid and 2,4-D in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 33: 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlers, R. L., Burton, J. D., Maness, E. P., and Skroch, W. A. 1997. A stem cut and blade delivery method of herbicide application for weed control. Weed Sci. 45: 829–832.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1992. Absorption, translocation, and foliar activity of clopyralid and tribenuron in perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis). Weed Sci. 40: 528–533.Google Scholar