Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T04:10:32.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Substituted Urea Herbicides in the Control of Undesirable Hardwoods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Merrifield  and
Thomas Hansbrough
Robert G. Merrifield
Affiliation:
North Louisiana Hill Farm Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Homer, Louisiana
Thomas Hansbrough
Affiliation:
School of Forestry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Get access

Extract

The control of hardwood vegetation is an essential step in establishing pine on upland sites in North Louisiana. In some instances removal of all vegetation is necessary before pine seeding or planting can be done. This type of operation is usually accomplished by conventional land-clearing methods, which are often rather expensive. The use of chemicals as a means of hardwood control offers certain advantages not inherent in mechanical methods. In situations where species selectivity is not desired, the substituted urea herbicides might provide an economical means of vegetation control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1961 , pp. 85 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 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. Cooke, Anson R. A possible mechanism of action of the urea type herbicides. Weeds 4:397–398. 1956.Google Scholar
2. Danielson, L. L. The crop toxicity period of CMU in a sandy clay loam soil. Weeds 4:255–263. 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Darrow, R. A., McCully, W. G., and Hughes, E. E. Woody plant and grass responses to granular applications of fenuron and chlorinated benzoic acids. Proc. SWC 12:143–146. 1959.Google Scholar
4. Hansen, H. L., and Johnson, R. R. Some effects of monuron on eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) regeneration. Minnesota Forestry Note No. 59. Apr. 1957.Google Scholar
5. Hill, G. D., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. Jour. 47:93–104. 1955.Google Scholar
6. Minshall, W. H. Influence of light on the effect of 3–(p–chlorophenyl)–1,1-dimethylurea on plants. Weeds 5:29–33. 1957.Google Scholar
7. Ogle, R. E., and Warren, G. F. Fate and activity of herbicides in soils. Weeds 3:257–273. 1954.Google Scholar
8. Rahn, E. M., and Baynard, R. E. Jr. Persistence and penetration of monuron in asparagus soils. Weeds 6:432–440. 1958.Google Scholar
9. Rodgers, E. G. Studies of vegetative growth control on land ranges at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Armed Services Tech. Information Agency Doc. AD 146 918, 78 pp. 1958.Google Scholar
10. Sheets, T. J., and Crafts, A. S. The phytotoxicity of four phenylurea herbicides in soil. Weeds 5:93–101. 1957.Google Scholar
11. Sherburne, H. R., Freed, V. H., and Fang, S. C. The use of C14 carbonyl labeled 3–(p–chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea in a leaching study. Weeds 4:50–54. 1956.Google Scholar
12. Upchurch, R. P. The influence of soil factors on the phytotoxicity and plant selectivity of diuron. Weeds 6:161–171. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Upchurch, R. P., and Pierce, W. C. The leaching of monuron from Lakeland sand soil. Part I. The effect of amount, intensity, and frequency of simulated rainfall. Weeds 5:321–330. 1957.Google Scholar
14. Upchurch, R. P., and Pierce, W. C. The leaching of monuron from Lakeland sand soil. Part II. The effect of soil temperature, organic matter, soil moisture, and amount of herbicide. Weeds 6:24–33. 1958.Google Scholar
15. Woods, F. W. Test of CMU for forestry. Forest Science 1:240–243. 1955.Google Scholar