Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T11:03:34.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Physiological Status and Growth of Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Greenleaf Manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) on Herbicide Selectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sandra M. Paley  and
Steven R. Radosevich
Sandra M. Paley
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Correlations between herbicide damage and several physiological factors were examined in the field for ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P&C Lawson) and greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula Greene). Pine injury caused by 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid], glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine], or triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid]} was compared to leader growth rate, needle growth rate, predawn xylem potential, daytime xylem potential, and photo synthetic rate occurring on the dates of herbicide application. Shrub injury for each of the three herbicides was compared to predawn xylem potential, daytime xylem potential, and photo synthetic rates. Both species exhibited less injury from herbicide applications made at the end of September than from any applications made from April through October. Comparison of factors highly correlated to herbicide damage indicates that highest herbicide selectivity occurs when pine has ceased growing, the xylem potential of the pine is relatively low (high water stress), and the xylem potential of the manzanita is relatively high.

Keywords

Pinus ponderosaArctostaphylos patulaplant water potentialgross photosynthesis
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 395 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of action of herbicides. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 525 pp.Google Scholar
2. Conard, S. C. and Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Photosynthesis, xylem pressure potential, and leaf conductance of three montane chaparral species in California. For. Sci. 27:627–639.Google Scholar
3. Dixon, W. J. and Brown, M. B. (eds). 1979. Biomedical computer programs. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley. 880 pp.Google Scholar
4. Gratkowski, H. J. 1977. Seasonal effects of phenoxy herbicides on ponderosa pine and associated brush species. For. Sci. 23:3–12.Google Scholar
5. Gratkowski, H., Hopkins, D., and Lauterback, P. 1973. The Pacific coast and northern Rocky Mountain range. J. For. 71(3): 138–143.Google Scholar
6. Helms, J. A. 1972. Environmental control of net photosynthesis in naturally growing Pinus ponderosa laws. Ecology 53:92–101.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, H. B., Rowlands, P. G., and Ting, I. P. 1979. Tritium and carbon 14 double isotope parameter for simultaneous measurements of transpiration and photosynthesis. Photosynthetica 13(4):409–418.Google Scholar
8. Lanini, W. T. and Radosevich, S. R. 1982. Herbicide effectiveness in response to season of application and shrub physiology. Weed Sci. 30:467–475.Google Scholar
9. Leonard, O. A. and Crafts, A. S. 1956. Uptake and distribution of radioactive 2,4-D by brush species. Hilgardia 25:366–415.Google Scholar
10. Lund-Hoie, K. 1975. N-phosphonoglycine(glyphosate), an alternative to commercial pre and postemergence herbicides for the control of unwanted plant species in forest plantations in Norway. Sci. Rep. Agric. Univ. Norw. 54:1–14.Google Scholar
11. Lund-Hoie, K. 1976. The correlation between tolerance of Norway spruce (Picea abies) to glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine) and the uptake, distribution, and metabolism of the herbicide in the spruce plant. Sci. Rep. Agric. Univ. Norw. 55:1–26.Google Scholar
12. Newton, M. 1963. Some herbicide effects on potted Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine seedlings. J. For. 61:674–676.Google Scholar
13. Newton, M. 1975. Constructive use of herbicides. J. For. 73:329–336.Google Scholar
14. Radosevich, S. R., Roncoroni, E. J., Conard, S. G., and McHenry, W. B. 1980. Seasonal tolerance of six coniferous species to eight foliage-active herbicides. For. Sci. 26:3–9.Google Scholar
15. Scholander, P. J., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D., and Hemingsen, E. A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346.Google Scholar
16. Shamish, R. M. 1954. Dormancy in woody plants. Ann. Rev. Physiol. 5:183–204.Google Scholar
17. Shimshi, D. 1969. A rapid field method for measuring photosynthesis with labelled carbon dioxide. J. Exp. Bot. 20:381–401.Google Scholar
18. Steele, R. G. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 633 pp.Google Scholar