Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:05:03.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and Understory Vegetation to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Meyer  and
Rodney W. Bovey
Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Headquartered at Grassland, Soil and Water Res. Lab., Temple, TX 76501
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yaupon (Ilex vomitoria Ait. ♯ ILEVO) in the Post Oak Savannah of Texas was treated with liquid and dry formulations of herbicides. Sprays of Bay Met 1486 {N-[5-(ethylsulfonyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N, N′-dimethylurea} and picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid), sprays and pellets of tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea}, and boluses of hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1N,3H)-dione] at 4.5 kg ae or ai/ha were the most effective treatments, reducing the canopy 87 to 99% and killing 68 to 93% of the yaupon after 2 yr. The percentage of dead yaupon after 1 yr was similar to that found 2 or 3 yr after treatment. Most herbicides, except clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid), reduced the yaupon canopy sufficiently to allow an increase in understory grass and broadleaf vegetation, particularly 1 yr after treatment.

Keywords

Bay Met 1486buthidazoleclopyralidhexazinonepicloramtebuthiuron2,4,5-Ttriclopyrbrush controlILEVO
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 415 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the 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. Bovey, R. W., Davis, F. S., and Morton, H. L. 1968. Herbicide combinations for woody plant control. Weed Sci. 16:332–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Morton, H. L. 1971. Herbage production following brush control with herbicides in Texas. J. Range Manage. 25:136–142.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., Baur, J. R., Diaz-Colon, J. D., Dowler, C. C., and Lehman, S. K. 1969. Granular herbicides for woody plant control. Weed Sci. 17:538–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., Meyer, R. E., Flynt, T. O., and Riley, T. E. 1972. Control of yaupon and associated species. Weed Sci. 20:246–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Duncan, K. W. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Yaupon and associated vegetation response to seasonal tebuthiuron applications. J. Range Manage. 36:568–571.Google Scholar
6. Goddard, R. E. 1954. Use of hand-applied chemical sprays alone and in conjunction with prescribed fire in the control of yaupon and other associated hardwood species in southeast Texas. Tex. For. Serv. Res. Note No. 9.Google Scholar
7. Lehman, S. K. and Davis, F. S. 1966. Chemical control of yaupon (Ilex vomitoria Ait.). Proc. South. Weed Conf. 19:287–294.Google Scholar
8. Meyer, R. E. 1982. Brush response to spacing and individual-plant herbicide treatments. Weed Sci. 30:378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and understory vegetation with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:51–58.Google Scholar
10. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Hexazinone and other herbicides on Texas woody plants. Weed Sci. 28:358–362.Google Scholar
11. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., and Baur, J. R. 1978. Control of an oak (Quercus) complex with herbicide granules. Weed Sci. 26:444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Pettit, R. D. 1979. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron pellets on sand shinnery oak communities. J. Range Manage. 32:196–200.Google Scholar
13. Scifres, C. J. 1979. Brush Management. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
14. Scifres, C. J. 1982. Woody plant control in the Post Oak Savannah of Texas with hexazinone. J. Range Manage. 35:401–404.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., and Bovey, R. W. 1981. Control of oaks (Quercus spp.) and associated woody species on rangeland with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:270–275.Google Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., Kirby, D. R., and Angell, R. F. 1981. Forage and livestock production following oak (Quercus spp.) control with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:535–539.Google Scholar
17. Smith, H. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland Restoration. Part I. The Texas brush problem. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv. 4–19114.Google Scholar
18. Vines, R. A. 1960. Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of the Southwest. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.Google Scholar