Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:04:23.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological Response of Two Mesquite Varieties to 2,4,5-T and Picloram

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Herbert M. Hull  and
Howard L. Morton
Herbert M. Hull
Affiliation:
Plant Physiol., Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Tucson, Arizona 85719
Howard L. Morton
Affiliation:
Plant Physiol., Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Tucson, Arizona 85719
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Honey mesquite [Prosopis julifiora var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell] and velvet mesquite [P. julifiora var. velutina (Woot.) Sarg.] seedlings were treated on individual leaves with 20 or 40 μg of (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T), 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram), or a 1:1 mixture thereof. Formulation of herbicides in a DMSO-complex carrier (dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene glycol, phytobland oil, water: 50:25:15:10, v/v) enhanced activity considerably over that obtained with an aqueous carrier, the degree of enhancement being greater with 2,4,5-T than with picloram. Lack of major varietal differences in morphological or anatomical response suggests that observed varietal differences in sensitivity of field mesquite to aerial sprays are not a function of the variety itself, but are related to climatic or edaphic differences among sites which the varieties occupy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 1971 , pp. 712 - 716
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. Beal, J. M. 1945. Histological reactions of bean plants to certain of the substituted phenoxy compounds. Bot. Gaz. 107:200–217.Google Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Baur, J. R., and Morton, H. L. 1970. Control of huisache and associated woody species in south Texas. J. Range Mgt. 23:47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dowler, C. C., Tschirley, F. H., Bovey, R. W., and Morton, H. L. 1970. Effect of aerially-applied herbicides on Texas and Puerto Rico forests. Weed Sci. 18:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fisher, C. E., Meadors, C. H., Behrens, R., Robinson, E. D., Marion, P. T., and Morton, H. L. 1959. Control of mesquite on grazing lands. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 935. 24 p.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, D. A., Bayer, D. E., and Weier, T. E. 1968. Morphological and anatomical effects of picloram on Phaseolus vulgaris. Bot. Gaz. 129:67–70.Google Scholar
6. Hull, H. M. 1965. Dimethyl sulfoxide as a herbicide carrier under different conditions of light intensity. Proc. West. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:12.Google Scholar
7. Meyer, R. E. 1970. Picloram and 2,4,5-T influence on honey mesquite morphology. Weed Sci. 18:525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Mussell, H. W., Morré, D. J., and Green, R. J. Jr. 1967. Acceleration of bean leaf abscission by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid applied in dimethylsulfoxide. Can. J. Plant Sci. 47:635–639.Google Scholar
9. Reynolds, H. G. and Tschirley, F. H. 1963. Mesquite control on southwestern rangeland. U.S. Dep. Agr. Lflt. No. 421. 8 p.Google Scholar
10. Shellhorn, S. J. and Hull, H. M. 1961. A six-dye staining schedule for sections of mesquite and other desert plants. Stain Technol. 36:69–71.Google Scholar
11. Shellhorn, S. J. and Hull, H. M. 1971. A carrier for some water-soluble herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Tueller, P. T. and Evans, R. A. 1969. Control of green rabbitbrush and big sagebrush with 2,4-D and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:233–235.Google Scholar