Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:52:49.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seedling Growth Responses of Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) to Tebuthiuron and Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. Allen Rasmussen ,
Roger P. Smith  and
Charles J. Scifres
G. Allen Rasmussen
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843 Res. Asst., Dep. Range and Wildlife Manage., Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock, TX 79409
Charles J. Scifres
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} at 2 or 4 ppmw placed 0 to 3, 8 to 11, or 15 to 18 cm deep in soil columns reduced root and shoot weights of buffelgrass [Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link # PESCI] 30 days after emergence. Plains bristlegrass (Setaria macrostachya H.B.K.) seedling shoot weights were not reduced when 2 ppmw tebuthiuron was placed 8 to 11 cm deep or deeper. Effects of tebuthiuron at 0.13 to 0.50 ppmw on buffelgrass shoot and net tiller production were not moderated by the presence of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa # PRCJG) in the pots. However, regardless of tebuthiuron dosage, average height and shoot weight of buffelgrass seedlings were greater when seedlings were grown in soil collected from beneath honey mesquite canopies compared to growth in soil from interspaces. Therefore, spatial variations in buffelgrass response to applications of tebuthiuron for control of invading shrubs may largely be attributed to soil changes induced by woody plants rather than to presence of shrubs.

Keywords

Range grassesgrass-shrub competitionSetaria macrostachyaPESCIPRCJG
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 88 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Allison, L. E. 1965. Organic carbon. Pages 1372–1376 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis (Part II). Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
2. Barth, R. C. 1980. Influence of pinyon pine trees on soil chemical and physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:112–114.Google Scholar
3. Brock, J. H., Haas, R. H., and Shaver, J. C. 1978. Zonation of herbaceous vegetation associated with honey mesquite in northcentral Texas. Proc. Int. Rangeland Congr. 1:187–189.Google Scholar
4. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184–187.Google Scholar
5. Charley, J. L. and West, N. E. 1975. Plant-induced soil chemical patterns in some shrub-dominated semi-desert ecosystems of Utah. J. Ecol. 63:945–964.Google Scholar
6. Charley, J. L. and West, N. E. 1977. Micro-patterns of nitrogen mineralization activity in soils of some shrub-dominated semi-desert ecosystems of Utah. Soil Biol. Biochem. 9:357–365.Google Scholar
7. Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. Pages 562–566 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Am. Soc. Agron. (Part I), Madison, WI.Google Scholar
8. Duncan, K. W. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Influence of clay and organic matter contents of rangeland soils on tebuthiuron effectiveness. J. Range Manage. 36:295–297.Google Scholar
9. Hamilton, W. T. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) responses to tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 31:634–638.Google Scholar
10. Heslop-Harrison, J. 1957. The experimental modification of sex expression in flowering plants. Biol. Rev. 32:38–91.Google Scholar
11. Masters, R. A. and Scifres, C. J. 1984. Forage quality responses of selected grasses to tebuthiuron. J. Range Mange. 37:83–87.Google Scholar
12. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. and Hamilton, W. T. 1983. Response of common goldenweed (Isocoma coronopifolia) and buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) to fire and soil-applied herbicide. Weed Sci. 31:355–360.Google Scholar
13. Paulsen, H. A. Jr. 1950. A comparison of surface soil properties under mesquite and perennial grass. Ecology 34:727–732.Google Scholar
14. Scifres, C. J. and Halifax, J. C. 1972. Development of range grass seedlings germinated in picloram. Weed Sci. 20:341–344.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J. and Mutz, J. L. 1978. Herbaceous vegetation changes following applications of tebuthiuron for brush control. J. Range Manage. 31:375–378.Google Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:155–158.Google Scholar
17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar
19. Tiedemann, A. R. and Klemmedson, J. O. 1973. Nutrient availability in desert grassland soils under mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) trees and adjacent open areas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:107–110.Google Scholar
20. Tiedemann, A. R. and Klemmedson, J. O. 1977. Effects of mesquite trees on vegetation and soils in the desert grassland. J. Range Manage. 30:361–367.Google Scholar
21. Ueckert, D. N., Jacoby, P. W. Jr., and Hartman, F. S. 1982. Tarbush and forage response to selected herbicides in the western Edwards Plateau. Tex. Agric. Stn. Bull. 1393. 5 pp.Google Scholar
22. United States Naval Observatory and Royal Greenwich Observatory. 1983. The Astronomical Almanac. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar