Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:23:06.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microfoil Boom Application of Picloram and 2,4-D for Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney G. Lym
Rodney G. Lym*
Affiliation:
Crop Weed Sci. Dep., N.D. State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leafy spurge control with picloram and various 2,4-D formulations was evaluated to determine the optimum treatment combination and carrier volume for aerial application using a microfoil boom. Leafy spurge control was similar when the same herbicide treatments were applied at 94 and 47 L/ha but declined at 23 L/ha. Leafy spurge control was better when similar herbicide treatments were applied with a one-row microfoil nozzle boom compared to a two-row nozzle. Leafy spurge control 12 months after treatment tended to be better with picloram at 0.28 and 0.56 kg ae/ha applied with 2,4-D mixed amine compared to picloram plus 2,4-D dimethylamine or oil-soluble amine formulations during average growing conditions. However, picloram plus 2,4-D oil-soluble amine was the best formulation in dry conditions.

Keywords

2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidpicloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acidleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. #3 EPHESRangeland weed controlaerial brush controlEPHES
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 393 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Kirch, J. H. 1971. The microfoil boom. Arborist's News 36(1): 9a–11a.Google Scholar
2. Kirch, J. F., Waldrum, J. E., and Bishop, P. W. 1969. The microfoil, an aerial device for controlling drift from conventional sprays. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:385–388.Google Scholar
3. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1982. 2,4-D dimethylamine SULV for leafy spurge control. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:65.Google Scholar
4. 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
5. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control and improved forage production with herbicides. J. Range Manage. 38:386–391.Google Scholar
6. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Leafy spurge control and herbicide residue from annual picloram and 2,4-D application. J. Range Manage. 40:194–198.Google Scholar
7. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Leafy spurge control with picloram plus dicamba or various 2,4-D formulations. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 44:89.Google Scholar
8. Messersmith, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1983. Distribution and economic impacts of leafy spurge in North Dakota. N.D. Farm Res. 40(5): 8–13.Google Scholar
9. Richardson, R. G. 1977. A review of foliar absorption and translocation of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Weed Res. 17:259–272.Google Scholar