Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:46:20.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Aminocyclopyrachlor to Common Herbicides for Kudzu (Pueraria montana) Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Patrick J. Minogue ,
Stephen F. Enloe ,
Anna Osiecka  and
Dwight K. Lauer
Patrick J. Minogue*
Affiliation:
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy FL 32351
Stephen F. Enloe
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Anna Osiecka
Affiliation:
North Florida Research and Education Center, Quincy, FL 32351
Dwight K. Lauer
Affiliation:
Silvics Analytic, 122 Todd Circle, Wingate, NC 28174
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pminogue@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kudzu is an invasive perennial climbing vine characterized by fast growth rates and tolerance to control measures. Repeated applications with high rates of 2,4-D plus picloram provide effective kudzu control, but picloram use is not permitted in certain states due to groundwater pollution concerns. Studies were conducted in Alabama and Florida to compare kudzu control with aminocyclopyrachlor, a new herbicide, to control provided by aminopyralid, clopyralid, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram plus 2,4-D, which are common treatments for kudzu management. Two annual applications of the same herbicide treatment were evaluated for effects on kudzu cover, kudzu volume index, and cover of other vegetation. Aminocyclopyrachlor at 140 to 280 g ae ha−1 (2 to 4 oz ae ac−1) was as effective as the standard 4.48 kg ae ha−1 (4 lb ae ac−1) 2,4-D amine plus 1.2 kg ae ha−1 picloram for kudzu control. There were no differences in kudzu control among the three rates of aminocyclopyrachlor tested. Colonization by graminoids, forbs, and Rubus spp. at 2 yr was greatest for herbicides providing the best kudzu control: aminocyclopyrachlor, and 2,4-D plus picloram. Herbicide treatments were more effective in controlling kudzu at the Alabama location, but repeated annual applications for 2 yr did not completely eliminate kudzu with any treatment at either site.

Keywords

2,4-Daminocyclopyrachloraminopyralidclopyralidmetsulfuron methylpicloramkudzu, Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr., USDA code PUMOL, EPPO code PUELOApplication frequencyforbsgraminoidsRubus
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 419 - 426
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

Anonymous, . 2009. DuPont DPX-MAT28 herbicide. Technical Bulletin No. K15023. Wilmington, DE E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 7 p.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Klingeman, W. E., Flanagan, P. C., and Breeden, G. K. 2009. Comparisons of DPX-KJM44 with aminopyralid for control of key invasive weeds in Tennessee. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 49:410. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Berisford, Y. C., Bush, P. B., and Taylor, J. W. Jr. 2006. Leaching and persistence of herbicides for kudzu (Pueraria montana) control on pine regenerated sites. Weed Sci. 54:391–400.Google Scholar
Brender, E. V. and Moyer, E. L. 1965. Further progress in control of kudzu. Down to Earth 20:16–17.Google Scholar
Bukun, B., Lindenmayer, R. B., Nissen, S. J., Westra, P., Shaner, D. L., and Brunk, G. 2010. Absorption and translocation of aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 58:96–102.Google Scholar
Bukun, B., Nissen, S. J., Westra, P., Brunk, G., Shaner, D. L., and Gaines, T. 2008. Absorption and translocation of 14C DPX-KJM44 and DPX-MAT28 in Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle). Pages 277 in Proc. 5th Internat. Weed Sci. Soc. Congress, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. International Weed Sci. Soc. [Abstract 655] http://www.iwss.info/proceedings.asp. Accessed: June 10, 2011.Google Scholar
Corley, R. N., Woldeghebriel, A., and Murphy, M. R. 1997. Evaluation of the nutritive value of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) as a feed for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 68:183–188.Google Scholar
Dickens, R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1971. Influence of time of application on control of kudzu. Weed Sci. 19:669–671.Google Scholar
[EPPO] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 2006. Pueraria montana var. lobata (Fabaceae—kudzu). EPPO RS 2004/141. www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/plants/Pueraria_lobata/Pueraria_lobata_DS.pdf. Accessed: June 10, 2011.Google Scholar
Evans, C. C., Montgomery, D. P., and Martin, D. L. 2009. Musk thistle control on Oklahoma rights-of way with DPX-KJM44. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. America 49:420. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Fujita, K., Matsumoto, K., Ofosu-Budu, G. K., and Ogata, S. 1993. Effect of shading on growth and dinitrogen fixation of kudzu and tropical pasture legumes. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 39:43–54.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons. 680 p.Google Scholar
Harrington, T. B., Rader-Dixon, L. T., and Taylor, J. W. 2003. Kudzu (Pueraria montana) community response to herbicides, burning, and high density loblolly pine. Weed Sci. 51:965–974.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1985. Testing herbicides for kudzu eradication on a Piedmont site. South. J. Appl. For. 9:128–132.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Chambliss, E. B., and Loewenstein, N. J. 2010a. A Field Guide for the Identification of Invasive Plants in Forests. U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-119. 126 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Manning, S. T., and Enloe, S. F. 2010b. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-131. 120 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and True, R. E. 1986. Herbicide Tests for Kudzu Eradication. Georgia Forest Research Paper No. 65, July 1986. Macon, GA Georgia Forestry Commission. 11 p.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. Intriguing world of weeds: kudzu [Pueraria lobata (Wild.) Ohwi.]. Weed Technol. 2000. 14:231–235.Google Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1971–2000. In: Climatography of the United States No. 81.08—Florida. Asheville, NC National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim81/FLnorm.pdf. Accessed: June 10, 2011.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th Edition. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458 p.Google Scholar
Turner, R. G., Claus, J. S., Hidalgo, E., Holliday, M. J., and Armel, G. R. 2009. Technical introduction of the new DuPont vegetation management herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor. In: Proc. 49th Annual Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Orlando, Florida Champaign, IL Weed Sci. Soc. Am. [Abstract 405]Google Scholar
[USDA NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2011. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Accessed: June 10, 2011.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, L. J. G. 1985. Revision of the Genus Pueraria DC. with Some Notes on Teyleria backer (Leguminosae). Wageningen, The Netherlands Agriculture University Wageningen Papers. 132 p.Google Scholar
Weaver, M. A., Lyn, M. E., Boyette, C. D., and Hoagland, R. E. 2009. Kudzu suppression by herbicides in two-year field trials. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. America 49:155. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Westra, P., Nissen, S., Shaner, D., Lindenmayer, B., and Brunk, G. 2009. Invasive weed management with aminocyclopyrachlor in the central Great Plains. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. America 49:407. [Abstract]Google Scholar