Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:35:40.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) Responses to Tebuthiuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Wayne T. Hamilton  and
Charles J. Scifres
Wayne T. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Charles J. Scifres
Affiliation:
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-thiadiozol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} pellets (20% ai) applied at 0.6, 1.1, or 2.2 kg ai/ha in the spring at two locations and in the fall at a third location on the South Texas Plains did not significantly decrease buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L. # PESCI) standing crop or foliar cover compared to untreated areas. Buffelgrass standing crop was reduced for 8 months after application of 3.3 and 4.4 kg ai/ha of tebuthiuron to a sandy clay loam in the spring, but the same rates did not reduce standing crop after application to clay loam in the fall. However, buffelgrass foliar cover was reduced following application of 3.3 kg ai/ha or more of the herbicide, regardless of soil. Tebuthiuron applied at 2.2, 3.3, or 4.4 kg ai/ha to sandy clay loam soils killed buffelgrass plants in spots, but production by larger surviving plants compensated for reduction in plant density where 2.2 or 3.3 kg ai/ha were applied.

Keywords

South Texasrange managementgrass productiongrass damageforage yieldPESCI
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , September 1983 , pp. 634 - 638
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Baur, J. R. 1978. Movement in soil of tebuthiuron from sprays and granules. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 3524. 14.Google Scholar
2. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184–188.Google Scholar
3. Day, P. R. 1956. Report of the Committee on Physical Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 21:662.Google Scholar
4. Duncan, K. W. and Scrifes, C. J. 1983. Influence of clay and organic matter contents of rangeland soils on tebuthiuron effectiveness. J. Range Management. (In press).Google Scholar
5. Garcia, J. D. and Gontarek, B. D. 1976. Residues of the herbicide EL-103 in west Texas rangeland 14 months after application. Noxious Brush and Weed Res. Highlights 6:10. Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
6. Gould, F. W. 1975. Texas plants, a checklist and ecological summary. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Pub. 585. 121.Google Scholar
7. Holt, E. C. and Bashaw, E. C. 1976. Developing improved grasses and legumes. Pages 7–9 in Holt, E. C. and Lewis, R. D., eds. Grasses and Legumes in Texas: Development, Production and Utilization. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Monogr. 6. 58.Google Scholar
8. Jacoby, P. W., Ueckert, D. N., and Hartman, F. S. 1982. Control of creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) with pelleted tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 30:307–310.Google Scholar
9. Masters, R. A. and Scifres, C. J. 1982. Forage quality response of selected grasses to tebuthiuron. Pages 130–135 in Brush Management and Range Improvement Research 1980-1981. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Consol. Prog. Rep. 3968-4014.Google Scholar
10. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. and Hamilton, W. T. 1982. Response of common goldenweed (Isocoma coronopifolia) and buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) to fire and soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:(In press).Google Scholar
11. Mortensen, J. L. 1965. Partial extraction of organic matter. p. 1401–1407 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis (Part II). Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
12. Pettit, R. D. 1977. Sand shinnery oak. Pages 8–12 in Research Highlights, 1977. Noxious Brush and Weed Control, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
13. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Brush Management. Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 360.Google Scholar
14. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:155–158.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J. and Mutz, J. L. 1978. Herbaceous vegetation changes following applications of tebuthiuron for brush control. J. Range Manage. 31:375–378.Google Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J. and Welch, T. G. 1982. Tebuthiuron for brush management: research synthesis. Pages 7–11 in Brush Management and Range Improvement Research 1980-1981. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Consol. Prog. Rep. 3968-4014.Google Scholar
17. Ueckert, D. N., Jacoby, P. W. Jr., and Hartman, F. S. 1982. Tarbush and forage response to selected herbicides in the western Edwards Plateau. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1393. 5.Google Scholar
18. Varner, L. W. and Blankenship, L. B. 1978. Seasonal changes in nutritive value of six south Texas grasses. Ann. Mtg. Soc. Range Manage. 31:56 (Abstr.).Google Scholar