Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:37:57.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct and Indirect Effects of Atrazine, 2,4-D, and Dalapon Mixtures on Conifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. Newton  and
W. S. Overton
M. Newton
Affiliation:
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 97331
W. S. Overton
Affiliation:
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid), injurious to Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and grand fir (Abies grandis (Dougl.) Lindl.) when used alone for weed control, was used with safety and even with beneficial effects when combined with atrazine [2-chloro-4-(ethylamine)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine] and 2,4-D, [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid] at rates of up to 3.36 and 4.48 kg/ha, respectively. Harmful effects of dalapon were masked at rates up to three times those used for adequate control of grasses. This suggests a type of selectivity previously unreported. Interpretation of herbicide effects and interactions was made possible with an analytical model that separated effects of vegetation from those of herbicides on a causal basis. This technique included two-dimensional adjustment of the base of reference for a four-dimensional response-surface equation. This surface fit observed data as well as a single multiple-regression equation, which included all variables. This approach, however, estimated herbicide parameters with appropriate consideration of environmental data and permitted interpretation with respect to cause.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 1973 , pp. 269 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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. Bennett, J. M. 1959. Chemical control of conifers. Down Earth 15(3): 18–20.Google Scholar
2. Heidmann, L. J. 1967. Herbicides for preparing ponderosa pine planting sites in the southwest. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ERM-83, U.S. Dep. Agr., Forest Service. 4 pp.Google Scholar
3. Hovind, J. J. 1959. The role of herbicides in establishing coniferous plantations. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 16:42.Google Scholar
4. Newton, M. 1963. Some herbicide effects on potted Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine seedlings. J. Forest. 61:674–676.Google Scholar
5. Norris, L. A. 1967. The physiological and biochemical bases of selective herbicide action. Pages 55–56 in Newton, M., ed. Herbicides and vegetation management in forests, ranges, and noncrop lands. School of Forestry, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
6. Overton, W. S. and Florschutz, O. 1962. A note on the use of path analysis in analyzing and interpreting observational data, with reference to the analysis of goose kill around Lake Mattamuskett, North Carolina, 1960–1961. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 16:76–85.Google Scholar
7. Turner, M. E. and Stevens, C. D. 1959. The regression analysis of causal paths. Biometrics 15:236–258.Google Scholar