Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:17:24.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Application Rate, Timing, and Formulation of Glyphosate and Triclopyr on Control of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy B. Harrington  and
James H. Miller
Timothy B. Harrington*
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Avenue Southwest, Olympia, WA 98512-9193
James H. Miller
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 520 Devall Drive, Auburn University, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tharrington@fs.fed.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinese privet is a nonnative shrub that has invaded mesic forests throughout the southeastern United States during the past century. Foliar sprays of glyphosate and triclopyr were tested in three factorial experiments that included wide ranges of application rate, timing, and formulation to refine methods for controlling Chinese privet. For spring (April) and fall (October and December) applications, percentage control of privet cover averaged 93 to 100% and 49 to 70% for glyphosate and triclopyr treatments, respectively, whereas for summer (June and August) applications, control averaged 67 to 69% and 14 to 26%, respectively (study 1). However, privet control was not influenced by variation in herbicide rates of 1.7, 3.4, 5.0, or 6.7 kg ae/ha compared with each of the five application timings. No differences were found in August comparisons of liquid vs. dry glyphosate products or water-soluble vs. oil-soluble triclopyr products for each of the four rates (study 2). In a comparison of low rates of glyphosate applied in August with or without trenching of plot perimeters to isolate privet clumps (study 3), control increased from 12 to 65% as rate increased from 0 to 0.8 kg ae/ha, suggesting that rate responses may occur at lower values than those tested in studies 1 and 2. Isolation of privet clumps by trenching did not have a statistically detectable effect on privet susceptibility to glyphosate. Low rates of glyphosate (1.7 kg ae/ha or possibly lower) will provide effective control of privet when applied in the spring or fall.

Keywords

GlyphosatetriclopyrChinese privet, Ligustrum sinense LourBottomland hardwoodscrown coverinvasive weedsresponse surface analysis

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 47 - 54
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bollig, J. J., Seiler, J. R., Zedaker, S. M., Thompson, J. W., and Lucero, D. 1995. Effect of plant moisture stress and application surface on uptake and translocation of triclopyr with organosilicone surfactant in red maple seedlings. Can. J. For. Res 25:425–429.Google Scholar
Borders, B. E. and Shiver, B. D. 1989. Herbicide field studies in forestry: statistical and other considerations. Can. J. For. Res 19:768–772.Google Scholar
Brown, C. E. and Pezeshki, S. R. 2000. A study on waterlogging as a potential tool to control Ligustrum sinense populations in western Tennessee. Wetlands 20:429–437.Google Scholar
Burrows, F. J. and Kohen, J. 1986. Inhibition of germination of privet. Plant Prot. Q 1:107–108.Google Scholar
D'Anieri, P., Zedaker, S. M., Seiler, J. R., and Kreh, R. E. 1990. Glyphosate translocation and efficacy relationships in red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine seedlings. For. Sci 36:438–447.Google Scholar
Dirr, M. A. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Stipes. p. 563.Google Scholar
Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2003. Top Ten Exotic Pest Plants in Georgia: Web page: www.gaeppc.org. Accessed: January 12, 2004.Google Scholar
Haragan, P. D. 1996. Privet (Ligustrum vulgare, L. sinense, L. japonicum). in Randall, J. M. and Marinelli, J., eds. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
Hess, F. D. 1987. Relationship of plant morphology to herbicide application and absorption. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gephardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 19–35.Google Scholar
James, T. K. and Mortimer, J. 1984. Control of privet. Proceedings of New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference 37:206–209.Google Scholar
Knowe, S. A., Cole, E. C., and Newton, M. 1995. Response surface analysis of control of red alder and vine maple with glyphosate-imazapyr and triclopyr-imazapyr. West. J. Appl. For 10:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowe, S. A., Shiver, B. D., and Borders, B. E. 1990. Evaluation of four estimators of herbicide treatment efficacy for woody competition control studies. For. Sci 36:201–211.Google Scholar
Lauridson, T. C., Wilson, R. G., and Haderlie, L. C. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Sci. 31:674–680.Google Scholar
Little, C. 1982. How to control privet. N. Z. J. Agric 145:15.Google Scholar
Matlack, G. R. 2002. Exotic plant species in Mississippi, USA: critical issues in management and research. Nat. Areas J 22:241–247.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1998. Primary screening of forestry herbicides for control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), and trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:161–162.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Pp. 20–21.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Forest Plants of the Southeast and Their Wildlife Uses. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. P. 360.Google Scholar
Moosavi-Nia, H. and Dore, J. 1979. Factors affecting glyphosate activity in Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. and Cyperus rotundus L. I. Effect of soil moisture. Weed Res 19:137–143.Google Scholar
Mowatt, J. 1981. Control of large-leaved privet (Ligustrum lucidum) and small-leaved privet (L. sinense) in urban bushland. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Weeds Conference 1:165–168.Google Scholar
Neal, J. C., Skroch, W. A., and Monaco, T. J. 1985. Effects of plant growth stage on glyphosate absorption and transport in Ligustrum (Ligustrum japonicum) and blue Pacific juniper (Juniperus conferta). Weed Sci. 34:115–121.Google Scholar
Newton, M. and Knight, F. B. 1981. Handbook of Weed and Insect Control Chemicals for Forest Resource Managers. Beaverton, OR: Timber. P. 67.Google Scholar
Petersen, R. G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 252–301.Google Scholar
Putnam, A. R. 1976. Fate of glyphosate in deciduous fruit trees. Weed Sci. 24:425–430.Google Scholar
Rudis, V. A. and Jacobs, D. M. 2002. Selected noxious non-native plants species invading forests of the eastern United States. in The 7th Annual Janet Meakin Poor Research Symposium: Invasive Plants—Global Issues, Local Challenges. Glencoe, IL: Chicago Botanic Garden. Pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999a. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 2875–2907, 3031–3043.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999b. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 624–633.Google Scholar
Seiler, J. R., Cazell, B. H., Schneider, W. G., Zedaker, S. M., and Kreh, R. E. 1993. Effect of plant moisture stress on absorption and translocation of triclopyr in oak seedlings. Can. J. For. Res 23:2213–2215.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, J. F. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Pp. 499–509.Google Scholar
Stromayer, K. A. K., Warren, R. J., and Harrington, T. B. 1998. Managing Chinese privet for white-tailed deer. South. J. Appl. For 22:227–230.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003a. PLANTS National Database: Web page: http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed: January 12, 2004.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003b. Plant distribution, Ligustrum sinense, Chinese Privet: Web page: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/wdligum.html. Accessed: January 12, 2004.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003c. Official Descriptions for Madison and Louisa Soil Series: Web page: http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/osd.html. Accessed: January 12, 2004.Google Scholar
Weller, S. C. and Skroch, W. A. 1983. Toxicity of glyphosate to peach trees as influenced by application timing. Hortic. Sci 18:940–941.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 149–152, 292–294.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Young, C. G. 1992. Seeds of Woody Plants in North America. Portland, OR: Dioscorides. Pp. 204–205.Google Scholar