Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:35:18.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phytotoxicity, Absorption, and Translocation of Five Clopyralid Formulations in Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Pest Management Res. Unit, Southern Crops Res. Lab. in cooperation with Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77841
Hugo Hein Jr.
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Pest Management Res. Unit, Southern Crops Res. Lab. in cooperation with Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77841
F. Nelson Keeney
Affiliation:
Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, MI 48640

Abstract

Foliar sprays of the monoethanolamine salt, potassium salt, free acid, and 1-decyl ester of clopyralid were more effective in killing greenhouse-grown honey mesquite than the 2-ethylhexyl ester at rates of 0.28 ae/ha or less. More clopyralid was transported to the lower canopy from application of the monoethanolamine salt and potassium salt than the 2-ethylhexyl ester of clopyralid at 4 h or 1, 3, or 8 days after treatment. Application of the monoethanolamine salt and the 2-ethylhexyl ester to leaves with a pipet indicated that about twice as much clopyralid was absorbed within 15 min from the ester form (26%) than from the amine form (12%) of the total recovered. However, after 24 h, absorption of the ester was less than the amine. More than twice as much clopyralid was transported from the treated leaf after application of amine than the ester. Only the acid form of clopyralid was transported away from the site of application of either ester or amine.

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. Bouse, L. F. and Bovey, R. W. 1967. A laboratory sprayer for potted plants. Weeds 15:8991.Google Scholar
2. 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. 28:666670.Google Scholar
3. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1983. Absorption and translocation of triclopyr in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 31:807812.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1985. Herbicide mixtures for control of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Weed Sci. 33:349352.Google Scholar
5. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1986. Concentration of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram, and clopyralid in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) stems. Weed Sci. 34:211217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., Meyer, R. E., and Bouse, L. F. 1987. Influence of adjuvants on the deposition, absorption, and translocation of clopyralid in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Weed Sci. 35:253258.Google Scholar
7. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1987. Influence of adjuvants and plant growth regulators on herbicide performance in honey mesquite. J. Plant Growth. Regul. 5:225234.Google Scholar
8. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1988. Mode of clopyralid uptake by honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Weed Sci. 36:269272.Google Scholar
9. Coterill, E. G. 1978. Determination of 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid residues in soil by gas chromatography. The 1 - butyl ester. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15:471474.Google Scholar
10. Jacoby, P. W., Meadors, C. H., and Foster, M. A. 1981. Control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) with 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Weed Sci. 29:376381.Google Scholar
11. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1986. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar