Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:21:11.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nolina texana Control with Soil-Applied Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joseph L. Petersen  and
Darrell N. Ueckert
Joseph L. Petersen
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., 7887 N. Hwy. 87, San Angelo, TX 76901
Darrell N. Ueckert
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., 7887 N. Hwy. 87, San Angelo, TX 76901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tebuthiuron, picloram, hexazinone, and bromacil were evaluated at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g ai or ae per plant for sacahuista control on gravelly loam soils in western Texas. Tebuthiuron applied at 2.0 g per plant killed 87% of the sacahuista, which was significantly greater mortality than that achieved with the same rate of bromacil (62%) and hexazinone (44%). The 2.0 g plant-1 rate of tebuthiuron, bromacil, and hexazinone reduced live canopies of sacahuista 88 to 98%. Picloram did not control sacahuista. Sacahuista mortality increased curvilinearly with increasing rates of tebuthiuron and bromacil, whereas the response to hexazinone was linear.

Keywords

Bromacil, 5-bromo-6-methyl-3-(1-methylpropyl)-2,4(1H,3H)pyrimidinedionehexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dionepicloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acidtebuthiuron, N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylureasacahuista, Nolina texana WatsIndividual plant treatmentrangeland weed controltoxic plantsbromacilhexazinonepicloramtebuthiuron
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 904 - 908
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Ahlstrand, G. M. 1982. Response of Chihuahuan Desert mountain shrub vegetation to burning. J. Range Manage. 35:62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Allison, L. E. 1965. Organic carbon. p. 1367–1378 in Black, C. A., Evans, D. D., White, J. L., Ensminger, L. E., and Clark, F. E., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Hein, H. Jr. 1982. Soil persistence of tebuthiuron in the claypan resource area of Texas. Weed Sci. 30:140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Camp, B. J., Bridges, C. H., Hill, D. W., Patamalai, B., and Wilson, S. 1988. Isolation of a steroidal sapogenin from the bile of a sheep fed Agave lecheguilla . Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 30:533–535.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Res. Foundation, Renner, TX. p. 403–404.Google Scholar
6. Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. p. 545–567 in Black, C. A., Evans, D. D., White, J. L., Ensminger, L. E., and Clark, F. E., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
7. Duncan, K. W. and Scifres, C. J. 1983. Influence of clay and organic matter of rangeland soils on tebuthiuron effectiveness. J. Range Manage. 36:295–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Emmerich, W. E., Helmer, J. D., Renard, K. G., and Lane, L. J. 1984. Fate and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 13:382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kingsbury, J. M. 1964. Angiosperms. p. 453–456 in Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
10. Mathews, F. P. 1940. Poisoning in sheep and goats by sacahuista Nolina texana buds and blooms. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 585. Texs Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station.Google Scholar
11. Merrill, L. B. and Schuster, J. L. 1978. Grazing management practices affect livestock losses from poisonous plants. J. Range Manage. 31:351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1988. Tebuthiuron formulation and placement effects on response of woody plants and soil residue. Weed Sci. 36:373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Peach, M. 1965. Hydrogen-ion activity. p. 914–926 in Black, C. A., Evans, D. D., White, J. L., Ensminger, L. E., and Clark, F. E., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
14. Rankins, D. L. Jr., Ross, T. T., Kloppenburg, P. B., and Smith, G. S. 1989. Effects of intra-ruminally dosed sacahuista inflorescences on serum bilirubin and digesta kinetics of lambs fed alfalfa hay. Proc. West. Sect., Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 40:461–463.Google Scholar
15. Sperry, O. E., Dollahite, J. W., Hoffman, G. O., and Camp, B. J. 1963. Texas plants poisonous to livestock. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1028. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station.Google Scholar
16. Van Pelt, N. S. and West, N. E. 1989. Aboveground dissolution of tebuthiuron particles placed beneath the crowns of small pinyon trees. J. Environ. Qual. 18:281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Whisenant, S. G. and Clary, W. P. 1987. Tebuthiuron distribution in soil following application of pellets. J. Environ. Qual. 16:397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wiedenfeld, C. C. 1986. Soil survey of Irion County, Texas. U. S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv., Temple, TX.Google Scholar