Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:52:32.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radican) Control with Dicamba and 2,4-D Applied Alone and in Tank Mixture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Science
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wehtjgr@auburn.edu.

Abstract

Poison ivy is a virulent weed that is frequently treated with herbicides. Dicamba, 2,4-D, and two fixed-ratio tank mixtures of dicamba plus 2,4-D were evaluated across a series of rates for poison ivy control. Objective was to test whether tank mixtures were more effective than either herbicide applied alone. Dicamba alone, 2,4-D alone, a 1 : 3, and a 3 : 1 ratio (by weight) mixture of dicamba plus 2,4-D, respectively, were applied at eight rates to 2-yr-old, container-grown poison ivy plants. The eight rates ranged from 0.036 to 1.79 kg ae ha−1, which, in terms of phytotoxicity, generally ranged from none to death. Percentage of control was determined from plant fresh-weight reduction relative to a nontreated control and was determined at 1 and 4 mo after treatment (MAT). Rates required for 95% control at 1 MAT and for control of regrowth at 4 MAT and the cost of those treatments were determined for the dicamba and 2,4-D applied alone and in the two mixtures. At the 1-MAT evaluation, 2,4-D alone was more cost effective than either dicamba alone or the two mixtures. By the 4-MAT evaluation, however, which followed clipping at 3 MAT, dicamba alone was more cost effective than either mixture. The 2,4-D alone failed to provide 95% control at the 4 MAT evaluation, even at the highest rate evaluated (1.79 kg ha−1). Response curves for the two mixtures were equivalent to the response curves of the components applied alone at the 1 MAT evaluation and fell between the response curves of the components at the 4 MAT evaluation. Hence, 2,4-D plus dicamba mixtures were neither antagonistic nor synergistic. Results indicate that dicamba applied alone is far more effective than 2,4-D is for control of established and perennial poison ivy, assuming the intent is to obtain control with a single, one-time application.

Toxicodendron radican es una maleza virulenta que es tratada frecuentemente con herbicidas. Se evaluó dicamba, 2,4-D, y dos mezclas en tanque con proporciones fijas de dicamba más 2,4-D con una serie de dosis para el control de T. radican. El objetivo fue evaluar si las mezclas en tanque fueron más efectivas que cualquiera de dichos herbicidas aplicado solo. Dicamba solo, 2,4-D solo, y mezclas de dicamba más 2,4-D en proporciones (por peso) 1:3 y 3:1, respectivamente, fueron aplicados a ocho dosis a plantas de 2 años de edad crecidas en potes. Las ocho dosis variaron entre 0.036 a 1.79 kg ae ha−1, las cuales en términos de fitotoxicidad, generalmente variaron de ningún daño a muerte. El porcentaje de control fue determinado a partir de la reducción en el peso fresco en relación al testigo no-tratado y se este se determinó a 1 y 4 meses después del tratamiento (MAT). Las dosis requeridas para 95% de control a 1 MAT y para el control del rebrote a 4 MAR además del costo de esos tratamientos fueron determinados para dicamba y 2,4-D aplicados solos y en las dos mezclas. En la evaluación a 1 MAT, 2,4-D rindió un mayor beneficio/costo que dicamba solo o las mezclas. Sin embargo, en la evaluación a 4 MAT, la cual se dio después de una poda 3 MAT, dicamba solo tuvo el mayor beneficio/costo el cual fue superior a cualquiera de las mezclas. El 2,4-D solo falló en brindar 95% de control en la evaluación a 4 MAT, inclusive con la dosis evaluada más alta (1.79 kg ha−1). Las curvas de respuesta para las dos mezclas fueron equivalentes a las curvas de respuesta de los componentes aplicados solos en la evaluación a 1 MAT y se localizaron entre las curvas de respuesta de los componentes en la evaluación a 4 MAT. Así, mezclas de 2,4-D más dicamba no fueron antagónicas ni sinérgicas. Los resultados indican que dicamba aplicado solo es mucho más efectivo que 2,4-D para el control de plantas perennes establecidas de T. radican, cuando se realiza una sola aplicación.

Type
Research Article
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

Cobb, AH, Reade, JPH (2010) Herbicide and Plant Physiology. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Pp 133155 Google Scholar
Colby, SR (1967) Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 20:2022 Google Scholar
Chang, FY, Vanden Born, WH (1971a) Translocation and metabolism of dicamba in Tartary buckwheat. Weed Sci 19:107112 Google Scholar
Chang, FY, Vanden Born, WH (1971b) Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci 19:113117 Google Scholar
Epstein, WL, Byers, VS (1981) Poison Oak and Poison Ivy Dermatitis: Prevention and Treatment in Forest Service Work. Missoula, MT: U.S. Forest Service, Equipment Development Center. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Jagschits, JA, Skogley, CR (1966) Dicamba, mecoprop and 2,4-D combinations for the control of clover, chickweed, and dandelion in turfgrass. Proc Northeast Weed Sci Soc 20:496501 Google Scholar
Martin, TJ (1987) Broad versus narrow-spectrum herbicides and the future of mixtures. Pestic Sci 20:289299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, JH, Miller, KV (1999) Forest Plants of the Southeast and Their Wildlife Uses. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 452 pGoogle Scholar
Mitich, LW (1995) Poison-ivy/poison-oak/poison-sumac—the virulent weeds. Weed Technol 9:653656 Google Scholar
Motulsky, H, Christopoulos, A (2004) Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Nonlinear Regression. New York: Oxford University Press. 351 pGoogle Scholar
Skaptason, JS (1971) Double substitution by mecoprop in herbicide mixtures in control of Pennsylvania smartweed in corn. Proc North Cent Sci Soc 26:3537 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218227 Google Scholar
Streibig, JC, Jensen, JE (2000) Actions of herbicides in mixtures. Pages 153180 in Cobb, AH, Kirkwood, RC, eds. Herbicides and Their Mechanisms of Action. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Google Scholar
Wehtje, G, Gilliam, CH (2012) Cost effectiveness of glyphosate, 2,4-D and triclopyr, alone and in select mixtures for poison ivy control. Weed Technol 26:469473 Google Scholar
Wehtje, G, Gilliam, CH, McElroy, JS (2013) Poison ivy control with triclopyr and metsulfuron, applied alone and in tank mixtures. Weed Technol 27:725728 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (1999) Fundamentals of Weed Science. 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Academic. Pp 329330 Google Scholar