Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:13:12.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Off-Target Effects Due to Basal Bark Treatment for Control of Invasive Fig Trees (Ficus carica)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Katherine A. Holmes  and
Alison M. Berry
Katherine A. Holmes*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Alison M. Berry
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Basal bark treatments involve the application of concentrated herbicide solution on each individual stem of targeted plants. When applied to stands of invasive plants with high stem densities, basal bark treatments may result in the use of large quantities of herbicide in a given area. The effect of basal bark treatments using a solution of 25% triclopyr herbicide and 75% methylated seed oil was tested on research plots located in six different groves of invasive fig, a densely stemmed, problematic invader of riparian forests in California. The experimental treatments resulted in application rates that were equivalent to 28 to 44 kg ae/ha, greatly in excess of the labeled maximum use rate of 9 kg ae/ha (8 lb/ac). At 175 d after application, soils near the fig trunks contained high levels of triclopyr residues (up to 6.6 ppmw), suggesting that the chemical made its way into soils during this period and was not completely degraded. Although the mortality of native plants transplanted into treated fig groves was low (up to 16%), it was significantly greater than the mortality experienced by native plants transplanted into untreated control sites (0%). Although effective in controlling invasive fig trees (> 99% mortality), the high herbicide application rates from basal bark treatment preclude the use of this treatment in large fig groves. These treatments may be appropriate, however, when fig groves are small or isolated enough to prevent overapplication on a per-area basis. In addition, neither limited basal bark applications of triclopyr (< 40% of stems treated) nor foliar spray treatments of 2% glyphosate were effective control measures. Further investigation is needed on ways to control large invasive fig groves.

Keywords

Glyphosatetriclopyrfig, Ficus carica L.Application ratescut stumpherbicide soil residuesnontargetrestoration
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 345 - 351
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous, , 2007. Garlon® 4 herbicide product label. Dow Publication No. 01-24-07. Indianapolis, IN Dow AgroSciences. 8 p.Google Scholar
Bentson, K. P. and Norris, L. A. 1991. Foliar penetration and dissipation of triclopyr butoxyethyl ester herbicide on leaves and glass slides in the light and dark. J. Agric. Food Chem 39:622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessna, A. J., Grover, R., and Waite, D. T. 2002. Environmental fate of triclopyr. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 174:19–48.Google Scholar
Cornish, P. S. and Burgin, S. 2005. Residual effects of glyphosate herbicide in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol 13 (4):695–702.Google Scholar
Devlin, R. M., Deubert, K. H., Karczmarczyk, S. J., and Zbiec, I. I. 1984. Vetch as an indicator of triclopyr residue in the soil. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 38:94–98.Google Scholar
Diaz-Diaz, R. and Loague, K. 2001. Assessing the potential for pesticide leaching for the pine forest areas of Tenerife. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 20 (9):1958–1967.Google Scholar
Holmes, K. A. 2008. Invasive Fig Trees (Ficus carica) in the Riparian Forests of California's Central Valley: Population Growth, Community Impacts, and Eradication Efforts. Ph.D Dissertation. Davis, CA University of California. 108 p.Google Scholar
Hoshovsky, M. C. and Randall, J. M. 2000. Management of invasive plant species. Pages 19–27. In Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1995. Persistence of triclopyr and 2,4-D in flooded and nonflooded soils. J. Environ. Qual 24:493–497.Google Scholar
Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. Pages 23–29. In Warner, R. E. and Hendrix, K. M. California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
McCall, P. J. and Gavit, P. D. 1986. Aqueous photolysis of triclopyr and its butoxyethyl ester and calculated environmental photodecomposition rates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5:879–885.Google Scholar
Newton, M., Roberts, F., Allen, A., Kelpsas, B., White, D., and Boyd, P. 1990. Deposition and dissipation of three herbicides in foliage, litter and soil of brushfields of southwest Oregon. J. Agric. Food Chem 38:574–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005. Preliminary Local Climatological Data, Merced, CA. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/mce/lcd/05decmce.htm. Accessed: July 2, 2009.Google Scholar
Norris, L. A., Montgomery, M. L., and Warren, L. E. 1987. Triclopyr persistence in western Oregon hill pastures. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 39:134–141.Google Scholar
[NRCS] National Resources Conservation Service 2007. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: June 12, 2007.Google Scholar
Petty, D. G., Getsinger, K. D., and Woodburn, K. B. 2003. A review of the aquatic environmental fate of triclopyr and its major metabolites. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 41:69–75.Google Scholar
Randall, J. M. 2000. Ficus carica . Pages 193–198. In Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Relyea, R. A. 2005. The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol. Appl 15 (4):1118–1124.Google Scholar
Shipman, R. D. and Prunty, T. J. 1988. Effects of herbicide residues on germination and early survival of red oak acorns. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 42:86–91.Google Scholar
Stephenson, G. R., Solomon, K. R., Bowhey, C. S., and Liber, C. 1990. Persistence, leachability and lateral movement of triclopyr (Garlon) in selected Canadian forestry soils. J. Agric. Food Chem 38:584–588.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. G., Staznik, B., Fontaine, D. D., Mackay, T., Oliver, G. R., and Troth, J. 1991. Fate of triclopyr ester (Release®) in a boreal forest stream. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 10:619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. G., Pitt, D. G., Buscarini, T., Stanznik, B., and Thomas, D. R. 1994. Initial deposits and persistence of forest herbicide residues in sugar maple (Acer saccharum) foliage. Can. J. For. Res 24:2251–2262.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. G., Pitt, D. G., Buscarini, T. M., Staznik, B., and Thomas, D. R. 2000. Comparative fate of glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides in the forest floor and mineral soil of an Acadian forest regeneration site. Can. J. For. Res 30:1808–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tu, M., Hurd, C., Robinson, R., and Randall, J. M. 2001. Triclopyr. 7k.1–7k.8. in Tu, M. M., Hurd, C., and Randall, J. M. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. Champaign, IL The Nature Conservancy. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, version: April 2001. Accessed: June 6, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 1996. Triclopyr: Herbicide Information Profile. Corvallis, OR U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 14 p.Google Scholar
[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency 1996. Method 8151A: Chlorinated Herbicides by GC Using Methylation or Pentaflourobenzylation Derivatization. http://www.epa.gov/SW-846/pdfs/8151a.pdf. Accessed: January 3, 2008.Google Scholar
Wilcock, J. D., Costley, K. J., Cowles, R. J., Wilson, B., and Southgate, P. 1991. Stream run-off losses and soil and grass residues of triclopyr applied to hillside gorse. N. Z. J. Agric. Res 34:351–357.Google Scholar
Vaghti, M. G. and Greco, S. E. 2007. Riparian Vegetation of the Great Valley. Pages 425–455. In Barbour, M. G., Keeler-Wolf, T., and Schoenherr, A. A. Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rd ed. Sacramento, CA California Native Plant Society.Google Scholar