Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:52:38.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Macartney Rose (Rosa bracteata) and Understory Vegetation to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Range Sci. Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Range Sci. Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843

Abstract

Picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) and tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} were the most effective herbicides for killing Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata Wendl.) on the Claypan Resource Area of Texas. At 4.5 kg/ha picloram (ae/ha) and tebuthiuron (ai/ha) as sprays killed 70% of the plants and as pellets 73 and 84% 1 yr after application, respectively. Bay Met 1486 {N-[5-(ethylsulfonyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea}, buthidazole {3-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-4-hydroxy-1-methyl-2-imidazolidinone}, 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid], 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid, glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine], hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], and triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acid} were markedly less effective than either picloram or tebuthiuron. After 2 to 4 months, 2,4-D, picloram, picloram + 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid], and triclopyr reduced the Macartney rose canopy by at least 95%, but only picloram and tebuthiuron controlled Macartney rose after 3 yr. Sprays of glyphosate and hexazinone inhibited growth of grasses after 3 months. Most herbicide sprays reduced broadleaf cover for at least 3 months.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Bovey, R. W., Haas, R. H., and Meyer, R. E. 1972. Daily and seasonal response of huisache and Macartney rose to herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:577580.Google Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Lehman, S. K., Morton, H. L., and Baur, J. R. 1969. Control of live oak in south Texas. J. Range Manage. 22:315318.Google Scholar
3. Chappell, W. E. and Hipkins, P. L. 1982. Weed control in rights-of-way and noncrop areas. Pages 347348 in Chemical control of insects, plant diseases, and weeds in Virginia – 1982. VA Agric. Ext. Serv. Publ. 456–001.Google Scholar
4. Gordon, R. A. and Scifres, C. J. 1977. Burning for improvement of Macartney rose-infested coastal prairie. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1183. 15 pp.Google Scholar
5. Gordon, R. A., Scifres, C. J., and Mutz, J. L. 1982. Integration of burning and picloram pellets for Macartney rose control. J. Range Manage. 35:427430.Google Scholar
6. Haas, R. H., Lehman, S. K., and Morton, H. L. 1970. Influence of mowing and spraying dates on herbicidal control of Macartney rose. Weed Sci. 18:3337.Google Scholar
7. Hoffman, G. O. 1966. Chemical control of Macartney rose and unpalatable weeds pays. Down Earth 22(3):811.Google Scholar
8. Hoffman, G. O., Haas, R. H., and Jeter, B. E. 1964. Macartney rose control in Texas. Tex. Agric. Ext. Serv. Misc. Publ. 745. 12 pp.Google Scholar
9. Link, M. L., Hipkins, P. L., and Chappell, W. E. 1981. Multiflora rose control studies with soil applied herbicides. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:221222.Google Scholar
10. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and understory vegetation with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:5158.Google Scholar
11. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1979. Control of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) and Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata) with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:280284.Google Scholar
12. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1973. Control of woody plants with herbicide mixtures. Weed Sci. 21:423426.Google Scholar
13. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., Riley, T. E., and Flynt, T. O. 1976. Seasonal response of Macartney rose and huisache to herbicides. J. Range Manage. 29:157160.Google Scholar
14. Pettit, R. D. 1979. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron pellets on sand shinnery oak communities. J. Range Manage. 32:196200.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J. 1975. Fall application of herbicides improves Macartney rose-infested coastal prairie rangelands. J. Range Manage. 28:483486.Google Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J. 1975. Systems for improving Macartney rose-infested coastal prairie rangeland. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Publ. 1125. 12 pp.Google Scholar
17. Scifres, C. J. 1982. Woody plant control in the post oak savannah of Texas with hexazinone. J. Range Manage. 35:401404.Google Scholar
18. Scifres, C. J. and Kelley, D. M. 1979. Range vegetation response to burning thicketized live oak savannah. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1246. 15 pp.Google Scholar
19. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., and Bovey, R. W. 1981. Control of oaks (Quercus spp.) and associated woody species on rangeland with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:270275.Google Scholar
20. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., Kirby, D. R., and Angell, R. F. 1981. Forage and livestock production following oak (Quercus spp.) control with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:535539.Google Scholar
21. Smith, H. N. and Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland Restoration. Part I. The Texas brush problem. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv. 4–19 114. 49 pp.Google Scholar
22. Stroube, E. and Underwood, J. F. 1980. Multiflora rose control. Ohio Agric. Ext. Serv. Leafl. 303. 4 pp.Google Scholar
23. Williams, R. L. and Hacker, J. D. 1982. Control of multiflora rose in West Virginia. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:237 (Abstr.).Google Scholar