Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:11:14.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural Product Herbicides for Control of Annual Vegetation Along Roadsides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steve L. Young
Steve L. Young*
Affiliation:
University of California Hopland Research and Extension Center, Hopland, CA 95449
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural product herbicides for vegetation control are being considered as alternatives to synthetic herbicides by many public agencies. Studies were conducted along roadsides at the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC) in 2001 and 2002 and on California State Route 29 (SR29) in 2002 to evaluate acetic acid, pine oil, and plant essentials compared with glyphosate for control of herbaceous vegetation. In 2001, annual grass control after a single application of pine oil at HREC was 40% or less effective, whereas acetic acid was at least 79% effective. A second application of pine oil or acetic acid did not control regrowth or new plants. In 2002, plant essentials was the most effective (>80%) natural product at HREC for control of annual grasses, except slender oat. Pine oil often provided similar control of slender oat as plant essentials (71 and 69%, respectively). At SR29, five applications of acetic acid provided 83% or better control of slender oat, hare barley, medusahead, and broadleaf filaree. Plant essentials and pine oil controlled hairy vetch, broadleaf filaree, and hare barley at least 83%, but yellow starthistle, soft chess, buckhorn plantain, and medusahead control never exceeded 85%. Glyphosate controlled all vegetation in these experiments with one or two applications. The cost of one or more applications of the natural products was greater than 10 times the cost of using one or two applications of glyphosate. Natural products were neither efficaciously nor economically comparable with glyphosate for control of annual roadside vegetation.

Keywords

Acetic acidglyphosatepine oilpine oil terpenesplant essentials2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol 2-phenethyl propionatebroadleaf filaree, Erodium botrys (Cav.) Bertol. # EROBObuckhorn plantain, Plantago lanceolata L. # PLALAhairy vetch, Vicia villosa Roth # VICVIhare barley, Hordeum leporinum L. # HORLEmedusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski # ELYCMslender oat, Avena barbata Pott ex Link # AVEBAsoft chess, Bromus mollis L. # BROMOyellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. # CENSOChemical weed controleconomicsintegrated roadside vegetation managementDAT, days after treatmentEPA, Environmental Protection AgencyFIFRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide ActHREC, Hopland Research and Extension CenterSR29, California State Route 29
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 580 - 587
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

Bingaman, B. R. and Christians, N. E. 1995. Greenhouse screening of corn gluten meal as a natural control product for broadleaf and grass weeds. Hortscience 30:1256–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingaman, B. R., Howieson, M. J., and Christians, N. E. 2000. Alldown™ natural herbicide study. Turfgrass Research Report. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Pesticide Registration and Classification Procedures. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 152.25 (f). Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kan, T. and Pollak, O. 2000. Taeniatherum caput-medusae. in Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C., eds. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Santa Rosa, CA: University of California Press. Pp. 309–312.Google Scholar
Neal, J. C. 1998. Postemergence, Non-selective Herbicides for Landscapes and Nurseries. Horticulture Information Leaflets. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 4 p.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, B. P. 1986. Effect of pine oil on landing and attack by the southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Entomol. Sci 21:319–321.Google Scholar
Radhakrishnan, J., Teasdale, J. R., and Coffman, B. 2002. Spray weeds with vinegar?. USDA-ARS News Brief 5/15/02. Web page: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2002/020515.htm Accessed: April 23, 2004.Google Scholar
Simon, J. E. 1997. New crop introduction: exploration, research and commercialization of aromatic plants in the new world. in Proceedings of the Prairie Medicinal and Aromatic Plants conference. Brandon, MB, Canada: Western Economic Diversification Canada. 131 p.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F. and Ksander, G. G. 1995. Influence of acetic acid on regrowth of dioecious hydrilla from root crowns. J. Aquat. Plant Manag 33:61–63.Google Scholar
Vurro, M. and Gressel, J. 2001. Enhancing biocontrol agents and handling risks. NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Enhancing Biocontrol Agents and Handling Risks. Florence, Italy. Amsterdam. Washington, DC: IOS.Google Scholar
Werner, R. A. 1986. Evaluation of pine oil for protecting white spruce from spruce beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attack. J. Entomol. Soc. B. C 83:3–5.Google Scholar