Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:12:01.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roller Application of Picloram for Leafy Spurge Control in Pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Calvin G. Messersmith  and
Rodney G. Lym
Calvin G. Messersmith
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Rodney G. Lym
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Roller-applied picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) at a concentration of 30 to 60 g ae/L gave similar control to leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L. ♯ EPHES) as spray-applied picloram at 1.1 to 2.2 kg ae/ha. Leafy spurge control was most effective when the roller applicator was adjusted to treat a maximum amount of stem tissue with a 60 g/L picloram solution. Control was not improved by including a petroleum oil or surfactant additive. Fall applications of roller-applied picloram tended to provide better control than spring applications. When used on dense leafy spurge stands, the roller applicator applied only 40% as much picloram as spray treatments of 2.2 kg/ha. However, picloram residues in soil following roller application were similar to those from picloram at 0.3 to 1.1 kg/ha applied as a spray.

Keywords

Euphorbia esularangeland weed controlpasture weed controlEPHES
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 258 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Carlson, D. R. 1977. Use of the recirculating sprayer for selective control of common milkweed. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:110–112.Google Scholar
2. Field, D. D. 1977. Gravity-fed recirculating sprayers. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:146–148.Google Scholar
3. Heady, H. F. 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
4. Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1981. Leafy spurge control using the controlled droplet applicator with picloram plus additives. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 38:48–49.Google Scholar
5. McWhorter, C. G. 1970. A recirculating sprayer system for postemergence weed control in row crops. Weed Sci. 18:285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Messersmith, C. G. and Lym, R. G. 1981. Long term management of leafy spurge in pasture and rangeland-year one. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 38:38–40.Google Scholar
7. National Research Council. 1968. Principles of Plant and Animal Pest Control. II. Weed Control. National Academy of Science. Publ. 1597.Google Scholar
8. Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Herbicide bioassay. Pages 79–87 in Truelove, B., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd ed., South Weed Sci. Soc., Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
9. Schepers, J. S. and Burnside, O. C. 1979. Electronic moisture sensor for maintaining herbicide solution on a roller applicator. Weed Sci. 27:559–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Vallentine, J. F. 1971. Range Development and Improvements. Brigham Young Univ. Press, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
11. Wyse, D. L. and Habstritt, C. 1977. A roller herbicide applicator. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:144–145.Google Scholar