Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T06:02:04.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Environment and Stage of Growth on Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) Response to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Meyer  and
Rodney W. Bovey
Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843. Headquartered at Grassland, Soil and Water Laboratory, Temple, TX
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843. Headquartered at Grassland, Soil and Water Laboratory, Temple, TX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr. # PRCJG) was treated with four herbicides at 1.1 kg ae/ha at 14 dates from April 30 through September 23 over a 2-yr period. Overall, clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid) was the most effective herbicide, killing 80% or more of the honey mesquite at most dates. Picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid), triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid}, and 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] were less effective than clopyralid. Honey mesquite control was correlated with Julian day of year sprayed, 15 plant, 11 environmental, and 8 herbicide concentration variables. Most effective control was negatively correlated with Julian day of year sprayed and new xylem ring thickness. Control was positively correlated with total daily apparent photosynthesis, upward methylene blue dye movement in the xylem, and herbicide concentration in the xylem 3 days after spraying. The only environmental variable of 11 measured that was significantly correlated with honey mesquite control was soil water and that was only with picloram. The concentration of herbicide in the stem was highest for clopyralid, followed by picloram, and then by 2,4,5-T and triclopyr, which were about equal. Variables most useful in regression equations for predicting control with herbicides were total daily apparent photosynthesis and rate of upward movement of methylene blue dye. Variables most incorporated into regression equations relating honey mesquite control with herbicide content were herbicide concentrations in the xylem 3 or 30 days after treatment.

Keywords

Brush controlherbicide contentclopyralidpicloram2,4,5-TtriclopyrPRCJG
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 287 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Bovey, R. W. and Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1981. Effectiveness and distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 28:666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1981. The response of honey mesquite to herbicides. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1363. 12 pp.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1986. Concentration of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and clopyralid in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) stems. Weed Sci. 34:211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dahl, B. E., Wadley, R. B., George, M. R., and Talbot, J. L. 1971. Influence of site on mesquite mortality from 2,4,5-T. J. Range Manage. 24:210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Davis, F. S., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1968. The role of light, concentration, and species in foliar uptake of herbicides in woody plants. For. Sci. 14:164–196.Google Scholar
6. Davis, F. S., Meyer, R. E., Baur, J. R., and Bovey, R. W. 1972. Herbicide concentrations in honey mesquite phloem. Weed Sci. 20:264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Fisher, C. E., Meadors, C. H., Behrens, R., Robison, E. D., Marion, P. T., and Morton, H. L. 1959. Control of mesquite on grazing lands. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 935. 24 pp.Google Scholar
8. Flynt, T. O., Riley, T. E., Bovey, R. W., and Meyer, R. E. 1971. Auger soil sampler for herbicide residues. Weed Sci. 19:583–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hanson, J. D. 1982. Effect of light, temperature, and water stress on net photosynthesis in two populations of honey mesquite. J. Range Manage. 35:455–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hanson, J. D. and Dye, A. J. 1980. Diurnal and seasonal pattern of photosynthesis of honey mesquite. Photosynthetica 14:1–7.Google Scholar
11. Jacoby, P. W. and Meadors, C. H. 1983. Triclopyr for control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 31:681–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jacoby, P. W., Meadors, C. H., and Foster, M. A. 1981. Control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) with 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Weed Sci. 29:376–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Meyer, R. E. 1977. Seasonal response of honey mesquite to herbicides. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1174. 14 pp.Google Scholar
14. Meyer, R. E., Haas, R. H., and Wendt, C. W. 1973. Interaction of environmental variables on growth and development of honey mesquite. Bot. Gaz. 134:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Meyer, R. E., Hanson, J. D., and Dye, A. J. 1983. Correlation of honey mesquite response to herbicides with three plant variables and soil water. J. Range Manage. 36:613–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., McKelvy, W. T., and Riley, T. E. 1972. Influence of plant growth stage and environmental factors on the response of honey mesquite to herbicides. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1127. 19 pp.Google Scholar
17. Mitchell, B.J.F. and Stephenson, G. R. 1973. The selective action of picloram in red maple and white ash. Weed Res. 13:169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Sass, J. E. 1958. Pages 5–71 in Botanical Microtechnique. 3rd ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Pages 196–284 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
20. Waring, R. H. and Cleary, B. D. 1967. Plant moisture stress: evaluation by pressure bomb. Science 155:1248–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Winer, B. J. 1971. Pages 185–210 in Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar