Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:57:37.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Honeyvine Milkweed (Ampelamus albidus) to Herbicide Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. J. Moshier
L. J. Moshier*
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies revealed that glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] at 3.4 kg/ha or picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) at 0.3 kg/ha more effectively reduced further growth of honeyvine milkweed [Ampelamus albidus (Nutt.) Britt.] when treated at a height of 30 cm than did 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] at 1.1 kg/ha or dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) at 0.6 kg/ha. Glyphosate or picloram applications were also more effective than 2,4-D or dicamba applications in reducing amount of regrowth that occurred after treated plants were cut at the soil surface. Glyphosate plus 2,4-D, glyphosate plus dicamba, glyphosate plus picloram or 2,4-D plus picloram combinations also effectively reduced further growth of treated plants and subsequent regrowth after plants were initially harvested. Greenhouse studies revealed that glyphosate plus ethephon [(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid] at 1.7 plus 0.6 kg/ha or glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate at 1.1 plus 6.7 kg/ha were no more effective than glyphosate alone at 1.7 kg/ha. Dowco 290 (3,6-dichloropicolinic acid) at up to 2.2 kg/ha did not effectively inhibit growth of honeyvine milkweed.

Keywords

Herbicide interactions2,4-DdicambaglyphosatepicloramDowco 290
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , November 1980 , pp. 722 - 724
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

1. Barkley, T. M. 1977. A Manual of the Flowering Plants of Kansas. Annotated Reprint. Kansas State University Endowment Association, Manhattan, Kansas. 402 pp.Google Scholar
2. Blair, A. M. 1975. The addition of ammonium salts or a phosphate ester to herbicides to control Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 15:101–105.Google Scholar
3. Coble, H. D. and Slife, F. W. 1970. Development and control of honeyvine milkweed. Weed Sci. 18:352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Frazier, J. C. 1945. Nature and development of root system of Gonolobus laevis . Bot. Gaz. 106:325–332.Google Scholar
5. Hitchcock, A. A. and Clothier, G. L. 1898. Fifth report on Kansas Weeds: Vegetative propagation of perennial weeds. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 76. Manhattan, Kansas. 52 pp.Google Scholar
6. Robinson, E. L. 1969. Reproductive characteristics of honeyvine milkweed. Weed Sci. 16:436–438.Google Scholar
7. Suwanketnikom, R. and Penner, D. 1975. Yellow nutsedge control with bentazon and glyphosate. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 30:115.Google Scholar
8. Suwanketnikom, R. and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of ammonium salts on bentazon and glyphosate activity on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Abstr. No. 160.Google Scholar
9. Suwunnamek, U. and Parker, C. 1975. Control of Cyperus rotundus with glyphosate: the influence of ammonium sulfate and other additives. Weed Res. 15:13–19.Google Scholar
10. Turner, O. J. and Loader, M. P. C. 1975. Further studies with additives: Effects of phosphate esters and ammonium salts on the activity of leaf-applied herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 6:1–10.Google Scholar