Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:08:19.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Absorption and Translocation of Picloram by Lindheimer Pricklypear (Opuntia lindheimeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Herman S. Mayeux Jr.
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Grassland, Soil and Water Res. Lab., Temple, TX 76502
Hyrum B. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Grassland, Soil and Water Res. Lab., Temple, TX 76502

Abstract

Removing the epicuticular wax from mature pads (cladophylls) of Lindheimer pricklypear increased picloram absorption by four- to sixfold in the laboratory, while the addition of surfactant had little effect on absorption. Absorption decreased with increasing pH of the picloram solution, indicating that picloram diffused through the cuticle as the undissociated molecule. Picloram entered detached pads at the areoles more readily than through the surrounding cuticle. In the glasshouse, whole plants consisting of an old, mature pad supporting a young, growing pad absorbed picloram very slowly whether picloam was applied as a spray to old or young pads or to the soil. About 90 and 80% of the applied picloram remained on the waxy surface of old and new pads, respectively, and about 2% of the applied picloram was recovered from within the epicuticular wax after 30 days. Picloram concentrations within pads treated in the glasshouse were greater when the herbicide was applied to new pads (4.6 μg/g) than old pads (1.9 μg/g) after 30 days. More picloram was translocated basipetally from treated new pads to untreated old pads than in the opposite direction, but concentrations in untreated pads were low (<1 μg/g). Little picloram was absorbed by roots, compared to pads, and little was translocated into or out of roots. These results conflict with the view that the effectiveness of picloram for pricklypear control is attributable to extensive root uptake and acropetal transport. However, observations of plants 6 months after treatment indicated that soil applications were more effective than sprays in the glasshouse.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
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. Alley, H. P. and Lee, G. A. 1969. Chemical control of plains pricklypear in Wyoming. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 497. 4 pp.Google Scholar
2. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., Baker, R. D., and Riley, I. 1971. Absorption and penetration of picloram and 2,4,5-T into detached live oak leaves. Weed Sci. 19:138141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., and Riley, I. 1974. Effect of pH on foliar uptake of 2,4,5-14C. Weed Sci. 22:481486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bement, R. E. 1968. Plains pricklypear: relation to grazing intensity and blue grama yield on central Great Plains. J. Range Manage. 21:8386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1979. Distribution of triclopyr and picloram in huisache (Acacia farnesiana). Weed Sci. 27:527531.Google Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W. and Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1980. Effectiveness and distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and 3,6-dichloro-picolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 28:666670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chow, P. N., Burnside, O. C., Lavy, T. L., and Knoche, H. W. 1966. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of silvex in pricklypear. Weed Sci. 14:3841.Google Scholar
8. Cotterill, E. G. 1978. Determination of 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid residues in soil by gas chromatography of the 1-butyl ester. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15:471474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Davis, F. S., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1968. The role of light, concentration, and species in foliar uptake of herbicides in woody plants. For. Sci. 14:164169.Google Scholar
10. Hoffman, G. O. 1967. Controlling pricklypear in Texas. Down Earth 23(1):912.Google Scholar
11. Lundgren, G. K., Whitson, R. E., Ueckert, D. N., Gilstrap, F. E., and Livingston, C. W. Jr. 1981. Assessment of the pricklypear problem on Texas rangelands. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Publ. No. 1483. 22 pp.Google Scholar
12. Mayeux, H. S. Jr. and Scifres, C. J. 1980. Foliar uptake and transport of 2,4-D and picloram by Drummond's goldenweed (Isocoma drummondii). Weed Sci. 28:678682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Meyer, R. E. and Meola, S. M. 1978. Morphological characteristics of leaves and stems of selected Texas woody plants. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Tech. Bull. No. 1564. 200 pp.Google Scholar
14. Meyer, R. E. and Morton, H. L. 1967. Several factors affecting the response of pricklypear to 2,4,5-T. Weed Sci. 15:207209.Google Scholar
15. Potter, R. L., Petersen, J. L., and Ueckert, D. N. 1986. Seasonal trends of nonstructural carbohydrates in Lindheimer pricklypear (Opuntia lindheimeri). Weed Sci. 34:361365.Google Scholar
16. Price, D. L., Heitschmidt, R. K., Dowhower, S. A., and Frasure, J. R. 1985. Rangeland vegetation response following control of brownspine pricklypear (Opuntia phaecantha) with herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:640643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Shuster, J. L. 1971. Night applications of phenoxy herbicides to plains pricklypear. Weed Sci. 19:585587.Google Scholar
18. Smith, C. G. and Ueckert, D. N. 1983. Prescribed fire/herbicide systems for pricklypear control. Proc. 36th Annu. Meeting, Soc. Range Manage. Abstr. No. 87.Google Scholar
19. Swanson, C. R. and Baur, J. R. 1969. Absorption and penetration of picloram into potato tuber discs. Weed Sci. 17:311314.Google Scholar
20. Wicks, G. A., Fenster, C. R., and Burnside, O. C. 1969. Selective control of plains pricklypear in rangeland with herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:408411.Google Scholar