Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:57:49.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Management of Spreading Pricklypear (Opuntia humifusa) with Fluroxypyr and Aminopyralid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason Ferrell*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Brent Sellers
Affiliation:
Range Cattle REC, University of Florida, Ona, FL 33865
Ramon Leon
Affiliation:
West Florida REC, Jay, FL32565
*
Corresponding author's Email: [email protected].

Abstract

Experiments were conducted throughout central Florida from 2010 to 2014 to determine the effectiveness of fluroxypyr or aminopyralid for control of spreading pricklypear. Aminopyralid + 2,4-D (0.09 + 0.75 kg ae ha−1) was not effective and provided only 15% control by 18 mo after application (MAT). However, fluroxypyr at 0.55 kg ae ha−1 or sequential applications of 0.27 kg ha−1 provided greater than 82% control at 18 MAT. Reducing fluroxypyr rates to 0.32 kg ha−1 reduced control to 40 and 71% for spring versus fall applications, respectively. However, the addition of aminopyralid + 2,4-D to fluroxypyr at 0.32 kg ha−1 improved pricklypear control to 92%, regardless of application timing.

Se realizaron experimentos a lo largo de Florida Central desde 2010 a 2014 para determinar la efectividad de fluroxypyr o aminopyralid para el control de Opuntia humifusa. Aminopyralid + 2,4-D (0.09 + 0.75 kg ae ha−1) no fue efectivo y brindó solamente 15% de control a 18 meses después del tratamiento (MAT). Sin embargo, fluroxypyr a 0.55 kg ae ha−1 o en aplicaciones secuenciales de 0.27 kg ha−1 brindó un control superior a 82% a 18 MAT. El reducir las dosis de fluroxypyr a 0.32 kg ha−1 disminuyó el control a 40 y 71% para aplicaciones en la primavera y el otoño, respectivamente. Sin embargo, el agregar aminopyralid + 2,4-D a fluroxypyr a 0.32 kg ha−1 mejoró el control de O. humifusa a 92% sin importar el momento de aplicación.

Type
Research Article
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

Abella, SR, Jaeger, JF (2004) Ecology of Eastern pricklypear cactus (Opuntia humifusa) in Oak Openings Preserve, in northwestern Ohio. Michigan Bot 43:111 Google Scholar
Cook, CW (1942) Insects and weather as they influence growth of cactus on the central great plains. Ecology 23:209214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, MS (2004) Prickly pear cactus Opuntia spp.−A spine-tingling tale. Weed Technol 18:869877 Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA, MacDonald, GE, and Kline, WN (2009) Influence of herbicide and application timing on blackberry control. Weed Technol 23:531534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Mullahey, JJ, Langeland, KA and Kline, WN (2006) Control of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) with aminopyralid. Weed Technol 20: 453457 Google Scholar
Hanselka, C W and Falconer, L L (1994) Pricklypear management in South Texas. Rangelands 16:102106.Google Scholar
Hernandez, F, Hanke, SE, Hernandez, F, Silvy, NJ, Carter, D, Rollins, D (2003) Effects of prickly pear control (prescribed fire x herbicide) on three important food plants of northern bobwhite: an observation. Texas J Agric Nat Res 16:2933 Google Scholar
Hess, D and Foy, CL (2000) Interactions of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol 14:807813 Google Scholar
Hoffman, JH, Moran, VC, and Zeller, DA (1998) Long-term population studies and the development of an integrated management programme for control of Opuntia stricta in Kruger National Park, South Africa. J Appl Ecol 35:156160 Google Scholar
Majure, LC, Judd, WS, Soltis, PS, Soltis, DE (2012a) Cytogeography of the Humifusa clade of Opuntia s.s. Mill. 1754 (Cactaceae, Opuntioideae, Opuntieae): correlations with pleistocene refugia and morphological traits in a poliploid complex. Comp Cytogen 6:5377 Google Scholar
Majure, LC, Puente, R, Griffith, MP, Judd, WS, Soltis, PS, Soltis, DE (2012b) Phylogeny of Opuntia s.s. (Cactaceae): Clade delineation, geographic origins, and reticulate evolution. Am J Bot 99:847864 Google Scholar
Mayeux, H and Johnson, HB (1989) Absorption and translocation of picloram by Lindeheimer pricklypear (Opuntia lindheimeri). Weed Sci 37:161166 Google Scholar
Merrill, LB, Taylor, CA, Dusek, R, Livingston, CW (1980) Sheep losses from range with heavy prickly pear infestation. Pages 199 in Ueckert, DN, Houston, JE, eds. Rangeland Resources Research. Texas Agriculture Experiment Station Conservation Progress Report 3665Google Scholar
Nobel, PS & Castaneda, M (1998) Seasonal, light and temperature influences on organ initiation for unrooted cladodes of the prickly pear cactus Opuntia ficus-indica . J Am Soc Hortic Sci 123:4751 Google Scholar
Price, DL, Heitschmidt, RK, Dowhower, SA, Frasure, JR (1985) Rangeland vegetation response following control of brownspine pricklpear (Opuntia phaecantha) with herbicides. Weed Sci 33:640643 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Ferrell, JA, MacDonald, GE, Kline, WN (2009) Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) size at application affects herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 23:247250 Google Scholar
Taylor, J (2005) Opuntia humifusa . In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].Google Scholar
Ueckert, DN (1997) Prickly pear ecology. Pages 3342 in Rollins, D, Ueckert, DN, Brown, CG, eds. Brush Sculptors. Tex. Agric. Ext. Serv., San Angelo, Tex.Google Scholar
Wicks, GA, Fenster, CR, Burnside, OC (1969) Selective control of plains prickly pear in rangeland with herbicides. Weed Sci 17:408411 Google Scholar
Zimmerman, HG (1979) Herbicidal control in relation to distribution of Opuntia aurantiaca Lindley and effects on cochineal populations. Weed Res 19:8993 Google Scholar
Zimmerman, HG, Moran, VC, Hoffman, JH (2000) The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum: its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America. Divers Distrib 6:259269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar