Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:42:18.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Response to AC 263,222

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert A. Masters ,
Daniel D. Beran  and
Fernando Rivas-Pantoja
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Daniel D. Beran
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Fernando Rivas-Pantoja
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leafy spurge is an exotic perennial weed that infests more than 1 million ha in North America and reduces rangeland carrying capacity. Experiments were initiated on range sites in Nebraska and North Dakota in 1994 and 1995 to determine the response of leafy spurge and other vegetation to AC 263,222. Herbicide treatments evaluated included AC 263,222 at 0 to 280 g ai/ha, picloram at 560 g ai/ha plus 2,4-D at 1,120 g ae/ha, and quinclorac at 1,120 g ai/ha. In Nebraska, a single application of AC 263,222 in the fall at 140 g/ha provided ≥ 90% leafy spurge control 11 to 12 mo after treatment. At Jamestown, ND, leafy spurge control increased to almost 90% and stem density declined to two shoots/m2 12 mo after the second consecutive fall application of AC 263,222 at 140 g/ha. At Hankinson, ND, leafy spurge control was ≤ 50% when AC 263,222 was applied in the fall only, but increased to > 80% when AC 263,222 was applied in the fall and again at 70 or 140 g/ha in the spring. There were no differences in herbage biomass of established cool- and warm-season grasses where AC 263,222 at 140 g/ha, picloram plus 2,4-D, quinclorac, or no herbicide was applied in the fall. In contrast, application of AC 263,222 in the fall and again in the spring usually reduced cool-season grass biomass.

Keywords

AC 263,222, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidpicloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acidquinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. # EPHESRangelandperennial grassesimidazolinone herbicidesperennial weed controlwarm-season grassescool-season grassesforbsEPHES
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 602 - 609
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Belcher, J. W. and Wilson, S. D. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. J. Range Manage. 42:172–175.Google Scholar
Dunn, P. H. 1979. The distribution of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and other weedy Euphorbia spp. in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:509–516.Google Scholar
Fales, S. L., Hill, R. R., and Hoover, R. J. 1990. Chemical regulation of growth and forage quality of cool-season grasses with imazethapyr. Agron. J. 82:9–17.Google Scholar
Federer, W. T. and Raghavarao, D. 1975. On augmented designs. Biometrics 31:29–35.Google Scholar
Kuehl, B. D. and Lym, R. G. 1997. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with quinclorac. Weed Technol. 11:265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control with herbicides in North Dakota: 20 year summary. J. Range Manage. 38:149–154.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Nissen, S. J. 1998. Revegetating leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.)-infested grasslands with native tallgrasses. Weed Technol. 12:381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R.A., Stritzke, R., and Waller, S. S. 1990. How to conduct a prescribed burn and prescribed burning checklist. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Servive. EC 90–121.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Stougaard, R. N., and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with fall-applied imazapyr, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8:58–63.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., and Stougaard, R. N. 1994. Imazethapyr absorption and fate in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 42:158–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., Thompson, W. M., and Stougaard, R. N. 1995. Absorption and fate of imazapyr in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pestic. Sci. 45:325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, L. 1977. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D, and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 44:469–475.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1998. AC 263,222 absorption and fate in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar