Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T19:33:26.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Two Adenostoma Species to Several Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S.R. Radosevich ,
W.L. Graves  and
H.A. Agamalian
S.R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Univ. California, Davis CA 95616
W.L. Graves
Affiliation:
Coop. Ext. San Diego CA
H.A. Agamalian
Affiliation:
Coop. Ext. Salinas CA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Single applications of several herbicides were compared after 12 to 48 months for control of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum H. & A.) and redshank chamise (Adenostoma sparsifolium Torr.). Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] provided more effective control and canopy reduction than any other herbicide tested. Triclopyr {[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid} and DX-1108 (ammonium ethyl carbanoylphosphonate) were also effective for control of chamise. Reduction in chamise canopy without leaf necrosis was observed with DPX-1108. Any herbicide tested could provide an alternative to currently used herbicides for chamise suppression.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 1977 , pp. 188 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Hanes, T.L. 1965. Ecological studies on two closely related chaparral shrubs in southern California. Ecol. Monogr. 35:213–235.Google Scholar
2. Leonard, O.A. 1956. Studies of factors affecting control of chamise (Adenostoma fasiculatum) with herbicides. Weeds 4:241–254.Google Scholar
3. Leonard, O.A. and Crafts, A.S. 1956. Studies on the uptake and distribution of radioactive 2,4-D by brush species. Hilgardia 26:366–415.Google Scholar
4. Leonard, O.A. and Murphy, A.H. 1974. Effect of grazing, herbicides and fire on chaparral control. Calif. Agric. 28:10–13.Google Scholar
5. Murphy, A.H. and Torrel, D.T. 1972. Brushland range improvement … economic values. Calif. Agric. 26:3–6.Google Scholar
6. Weed, M.B., McCall, G.L., and Barrier, E.E. 1974. A new approach to brush control. Abstr. Weed Sri. Soc. Am. p. 26.Google Scholar