Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:54:20.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MH as a Roadside Grass Retardant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. E. Foote  and
B. F. Himmelman
L. E. Foote
Affiliation:
Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, St. Paul
B. F. Himmelman
Affiliation:
Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, St. Paul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

MH (1,2-dihydro-3,6-pyridazinedione) was applied at 4 to 6 lb/A, in spring and fall, with and without (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D), on roadsides normally mowed from 2 to 12 times a year. MH at 6 lb/A applied in spring generally reduced grass height. Lower rates and fall applications were generally ineffective. Depending on area, rural or urban, and retardant effectiveness, between zero and five mowings per year were saved. When the MH was effective and the turf was not strong and vigorous, annual weeds such as crabgrass (Digitaria spp. Heist.), foxtail (Setaria spp. Beauv.), and ragweed (Ambrosia spp. L.) often increased and gave the roadside an undesirable appearance. When MH was used without 2,4-D, the roadside generally had a poorer appearance than when not treated. When MH was applied with 2,4-D and no application ‘'skips” or annual weed infestation occurred, the roadside sometimes had a satisfactory appearance. The time when MH can be effectively applied is short (about 2 weeks). Rains, winds, and springtime roadway work make proper timing of applications difficult under Minnesota conditions. Applications of 2,4-D alone or with MH were effective in reducing roadside weeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 86 - 90
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

1. Beasley, J. L. 1961. Massachusetts progress report on research with maleic hydrazide. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 15:452–456.Google Scholar
2. Evans, R. A. and Love, R. M. 1957. The step-point method of sampling–a practical tool in range research. J. Range Manage. 10:208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Foote, L. E. and Himmelman, B. F. 1967. Vegetation control along fence lines with maleic hydrazide. Weeds 15:38–41.Google Scholar
4. Grimm, D. G. 1961. Methods of applying maleic hydrazide. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 15:457–463.Google Scholar
5. Naylor, A. W. and Davis, E. A. 1950. Maleic hydrazide as a plant growth inhibitor. Bot. Gaz. 112:112–126.Google Scholar
6. Wakefield, R. C. and Clapham, A. J. 1968. Management of turfgrass treated with maleic hydrazide. Highway Research Record No. 246. Roadside Development. Highway Research Board Pub. 1193. pp. 36–43.Google Scholar
7. Willis, A. J. and Yemm, E. W. 1966. Spraying of roadside verges: long-term effects of 2,4-D and maleic hydrazide. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 8:505–510.Google Scholar
8. Yemm, E. W. and Willis, A. J. 1962. The effects of maleic hydrazide and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on roadside vegetation. Weed Res. 2:24–40.Google Scholar