Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:27:51.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tebuthiuron Formulation and Placement Effects on Response of Woody Plants and Soil Residue

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
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} in various formulations and placements was applied to honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr. # PRCJG), huisache [Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. # ACAFA], live oak (Quercus virginiana Mill. # QUEVI), Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata J. C. Wendl. # ROSBC), and Texas whitebrush [Aloysia gratissima (Gillies & Hook.) Troncoso # ALYLY]. There was little difference in a species response to the various tebuthiuron formulations. Pellets (20%) at 2 g ai/tree base reduced the canopy 85% and killed 50% of the honey mesquite. At 1 g ai/plant, two briquettes at 0.5 g ai each or pellets (5.14 g, 20%) killed 37 and 80% of the huisache, respectively. Pellets were no more effective at 2 g than at 1 g ai on huisache. Basal treatments of 0.25, 0.5, 0.5, 1, and 2 g ai tebuthiuron/tree killed from 8 to 22, 48 to 62, 62 to 85, and 92% of the live oak, respectively. Pellets at 2 g ai placed at the base reduced the canopy 83% and killed 59% of the Macartney rose. On Texas whitebrush, 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 g ai tebuthiuron/tree killed from 68 to 85, 75 to 100, 90, and 100% of the plants, respectively. Tebuthiuron persisted mainly in the upper 30 cm of soil for at least 15 months.

Keywords

Herbicide pelletsherbicide sprayssoil residueAcacia farnesianaAloysia gratissimaProsopis glandulosaQuercus virginianaRosa bracteataACAFAALYLYPRCJGQUEVIROSBC
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 373 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Brusse, C. J. 1982. Dry materials metering system for aircraft. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 25:316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Burnett, E., Meyer, R. E., Richardson, C., and Loh, A. 1978. Persistence of tebuthiuron in surface runoff water, soil, and vegetation in the Texas Blacklands Prairie. J. Environ. Qual. 7:233–236.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Flynt, T. O., Meyer, R. E., Baur, J. R., and Riley, T. E. 1976. Subsurface herbicide applicator for brush control. J. Range Manage. 29:338–341.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1978. Control of huisache with soil applied herbicides. J. Range Manage. 31:179–182.Google Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Hein, Hugo Jr. 1982. Soil persistence of tebuthiuron in the claypan resource area of Texas. Weed Sci. 30:140–144.Google Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., Fred Bouse, L., and Carlton, J. B. 1985. Seasonal response of woody plants to tebuthiuron pellets. Weed Sci. 33:551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soil. Weed Sci. 25:184–187.Google Scholar
8. Flynt, T. O., Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., Riley, T. E., and Baur, J. R. 1976. Granular herbicide applicator for brush control. J. Range Manage. 29:435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Herbel, C. H., Morton, H. L., and Gibbens, R. P. 1985. Controlling shrubs in the arid Southwest with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 38:391–394.Google Scholar
10. Jacoby, P. W. and Meadors, C. M. 1982. Control of sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) with pelleted picloram and tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 30:594–597.Google Scholar
11. Meyer, R. E. 1982. Brush response to spacing and individual-plant herbicide treatments. Weed Sci. 30:378–384.Google Scholar
12. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1979. Control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) and Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata) with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and understory vegetation with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:51–58.Google Scholar
14. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of whitebrush (Aloysia lycioides) and associated species with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:204–212.Google Scholar
15. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., and Baur, J. R. 1978. Control of an oak complex with herbicide granules. Weed Sci. 26:444–453.Google Scholar
16. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., Bouse, L. F., and Carlton, J. B. 1983. Response of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and understory vegetation to herbicides. Weed Sci. 31:639–647.Google Scholar
17. Pettit, R. D. 1979. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron pellets on sand shinnery oak communities. J. Range Manage. 32:196–200.Google Scholar
18. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Brush Management. Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press. 360 pp.Google Scholar
19. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., and Bovey, R. W. 1981. Control of oaks (Quercus spp.) and associated woody species on rangeland with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:270–275.Google Scholar
21. Shroyer, J. P., Stritzke, J. F., and Croy, L. I. 1979. Carbohydrate levels and control of blackjack and winged elm treated with tebuthiuron and 2,4,5-T. J. Range Manage. 32:60–62.Google Scholar
22. Smith, H. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration. Part I. The Texas brush problem. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. 4-19114. 49 pp.Google Scholar
23. Stritzke, J. F. 1976. Selective removal of brush by grid placement of herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:255.Google Scholar