Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T02:23:23.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Time and Method of Application on Turkey Oak Response to Picloram + 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. D. Coble ,
R. P. Upchurch  and
J. A. Keaton
H. D. Coble
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Agronomy Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural Division, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
J. A. Keaton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Elanco Products Company, Raleigh, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Naturally-established turkey oak (Quercus laevis Walt.) shoots were treated with aqueous solutions of the product picloram + 2,4-D (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid + 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and with picloram pellets. Various application methods were utilized at several dates during the year. Responses measured 14 and 17 months after initial treatments were percent control of original shoots, percent regrowth, plant height, and live stems/plant. Leaf-stem-basal treatments provided the highest degree of control of any method studied, averaging 87% total shoot control over five treatments dates. Foliar, mist-blower, and leaf-stem applications showed no differences, averaging 75%, 79%, and 78% control, respectively. Basal applications gave poorest results averaging only 12% control over five dates. No differences were observed among treatment dates for applications made during the growing season after the full-leaf stage, but treatments made before full-leaf provided less control than others. Soil applications of picloram pellets were more effective when applied during the early spring and summer than during fall or winter but were less effective than treatments applied to foliage at all dates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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. Coulter, L. L. 1954. Some aspects of right-of-way brush control with 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. Weeds 3:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Keaton, J. A. and Upchurch, R. P. 1964. The influence of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) on Quercus laevis . Proc. SWC 17:284 (Abstr.) Google Scholar
3. Nation, H. A. 1965. Woody plant control on utility rights-of-way with Tordon herbicide pellets. Proc. SWC 18:387–391.Google Scholar
4. Nation, H. A. and Lichy, C. T. 1964. Tordon herbicide for brush control in the southern United States. Proc. SWC 17: 287–294.Google Scholar
5. Schwartzbeck, R. A. 1965. 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid pellets for brush control in the northeastern United States. Proc. NEWCC 19:385–396.Google Scholar
6. Schwartzbeck, R. A. and Wiltse, M. G. 1964. A new herbicide, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid, for brush control in the northeastern United States. Proc. NEWCC 18:414–421.Google Scholar
7. Southwick, L. 1948. Controlling woody plant growth by chemical means. Proc. NEWCC 2:182–187.Google Scholar
8. Wiltse, M. G. 1964. Tordon herbicide as a soil treatment for brush control. Down to Earth 19(4):3–6.Google Scholar