Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:10:27.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption and Translocation of Triclopyr in Honey Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney W. Bovey ,
Hugo Hein Jr.  and
Robert E. Meyer
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Hugo Hein Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leaves of greenhouse-grown honey mesquite [Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell # PRCJG] initially absorbed more triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid} from application of the ester than the amine salt. After 24 h, however, honey mesquite had absorbed 66% of the applied ester formulation and 72% of the amine formulation. Triclopyr was rapidly transported from the treated leaf to other plant parts. Triclopyr concentrations recovered 4 h after treatment in the upper canopy, lower canopy, and roots averaged 0.12, 0.19, and 0.09 μg, respectively. Concentrations of triclopyr recovered after 24 h were not significantly different than after 4 h in the canopy. No ester from ester application was recovered in the canopy, other than that in the treated leaf. Triclopyr recovered from stems of honey mesquite in the field ranged from 0.16 to 0.72 μg/g in phloem and from 0.04 to 0.20 μg/g in xylem from a broadcast spray application of the butoxyethanol ester at 1.12 kg/ha. Concentrations of triclopyr were usually not significantly different in either the upper or lower stems whether sampled 3 or 30 days after treatment.

Keywords

Gas chromatographyphloemxylemtriclopyr estertriclopyr aminePRCJG
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , November 1983 , pp. 807 - 812
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., and Smith, J. D. 1969. Herbicide concentrations in live oak treated with mixtures of picloram and 2,4,5-T. Weed Sci. 17:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W. and Davis, F. S. 1967. Factors affecting the phytotoxicity of paraquat. Weed Res. 7:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1979. Distribution of triclopyr and picloram in huisache (Acacia farnesiana). Weed Sci. 27:527–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W. and Mayeux, H. S. Jr. 1980. Effectiveness and distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 28:666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1981. The response of honey mesquite to herbicides. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Bull. 1363. 12.Google Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E. and Baur, J. R. 1981. Potential herbicides for brush control. J. Range Manage. 34:144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. 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. 17:164–169.Google Scholar
8. Davis, F. S., Merkle, M. G., and Bovey, R. W. 1968. Effect of moisture stress on the absorption and transport of herbicides in woody plants. Bot. Gaz. 129:183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Davis, F. S., Meyer, R. E., Baur, J. R., and Bovey, R. W. 1972. Herbicide concentrations in honey mesquite phloem. Weed Sci. 20:264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Herbicide Handbook Committee. 1979. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 4th Ed. 479.Google Scholar
11. Jacoby, P. W. Jr. and Meadors, C. H. 1978. Relative effectiveness of aerially applied herbicides on honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Proc. Soc. Range Manage. 31:51 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
12. Jacoby, P. W. Jr., Meadors, C. H., and Foster, M. A. 1979. Relative effectiveness of ester and amine formulations of triclopyr for control of honey mesquite [Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell]. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. No. 115. p. 56.Google Scholar
13. Merkle, M. G. and Davis, F. S. 1966. The use of gas chromatography for determining the translocation of picloram and 2,4,5-T. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 19:557–561.Google Scholar
14. Merkle, M. G. and Davis, F. S. 1967. Effect of moisture stress on absorption and movement of picloram and 2,4,5-T in beans. Weeds 15:10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Morton, H. L., Davis, F. S., and Merkle, M. G. 1968. Radioisotopic and gas chromatographic methods for measuring absorption and translocation of 2,4, 5-T by mesquite. Weed Sci. 16:88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Radosevich, S. R. and Bayer, D. E. 1979. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on triclopyr, picloram, and 2,4,5-T translocation. Weed Sci. 27:22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Thomson, W. T. 1981. Agricultural Chemical. Book II. Herbicides. Thomson Publ., Fresno, CA. 274.Google Scholar