Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:10:36.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Woody Species to 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and Picloram as a Function of Treatment Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. D. Coble ,
R. P. Upchurch  and
J. A. Keaton
H. D. Coble
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Agronomy Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural Division, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
J. A. Keaton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Elanco Products Company, Raleigh. North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Naturally-established individual specimens of 12 woody plant species occurring in North Carolina were treated with foliar, dormant stem, and basal applications of the propylene glycol butyl ether ester formulation of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), the propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and the potassium salt of 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram). The triethanolamine salt of 2,4,5-T also was applied as a foliar treatment. Three rates of each herbicide were used. Responses measured were percent control of original shoots, percent regrowth, shoot height, and number of live stems per plant. No differences were observed between the amine and ester formulations of 2,4,5-T applied as foliar sprays except on rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum L.) where the ester produced 86% control compared to 28% for the amine salt. Foliar sprays of picloram were effective in controlling all species except white ash (Fraxinus americana L.), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana L.), and rhododendron. Control of these species averaged only 45% compared to 96% on all other species studied. No species was effectively controlled by dormant stem or basal applications of picloram. All species considered, the propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 2,4,5-T applied as a dormant stem or basal application provided the most consistent results, giving 89% and 91% control, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 40 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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. Bramble, W. C., Worley, D. P. and Chisman, H. H. 1952. Control of scrub oak and associated woody species with foliage and basal sprays. Proc. NEWCC 6:303–319.Google Scholar
2. Burns, Paul Y. and Box, B. H. 1961. Current status of herbicides in southern forestry. Proc. SWC 14:251.Google Scholar
3. Chappell, W. E. and Sayre, R. E. 1958. Progress report on dormant applications of brush killers on power line rights-of-way. Proc. NEWCC 12:220–224.Google Scholar
4. Chappell, W. E. and Sterrett, J. P. 1961. The effectiveness of several herbicidal mixtures on brush control when applied as a dormant spray. Proc. SWC 14:256–260.Google Scholar
5. Coulter, L. L. 1954. Some aspects of right-of-way brush control with 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. Weeds 3:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Farrar, Robert M. 1961. Aerial application of four silvicides in south Alabama. Proc. SWC 14:198–201.Google Scholar
7. Gertsch, M. E. 1953. The influence of various carriers upon the inhibitory effectiveness of 2,4-D sprays. Weeds 2:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Keaton, J. A. and Upchurch, R. P. 1964. The influence of 2,4,5-T on Quercus laevis . Proc. SWC 17:284 (Abstr.) Google Scholar
9. Nation, H. A. and Lichy, C. T. 1964. Tordon herbicide for brush control in the southern United States. Proc. SWC 17:287–294.Google Scholar
10. Nichols, J. M. 1957. Control of woody vegetation. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 638. 26p.Google Scholar
11. Peevy, F. A. 1961. Killing woody plants with herbicides. Proc. SWC 14:208–217.Google Scholar
12. Pridham, A. M. S. 1951. Progress report on control of woody weeds in winter. Proc. NEWCC 5:243–246.Google Scholar
13. Schwartzbeck, R. A. and Wiltse, M. G. 1964. A new herbicide, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid, for brush control in the northeastern United States. Proc. NEWCC 18:414–421.Google Scholar
14. Southwick, L. 1948. Controlling woody plant growth by chemical means. Proc. NEWCC 2:182–187.Google Scholar
15. Sterrett, J. P. 1965. Brush control with oil soluble amines and wettable powder acid formulations of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Proc. SWC 18:395–405.Google Scholar
16. Sterrett, J. P. and Chappell, W. E. 1961. Comparison of techniques and specific herbicides for control of black locust, sassafras and sumac. Proc. NEWCC 15:418–423.Google Scholar
17. Upchurch, R. P. and Keaton, J. A. 1961. Woody plant control research—Techniques and results. Proc. SWC 14:272 (Abstr.) Google Scholar