Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
AbstractArticles

Contributed Abstract

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 1981, 7 (7) 182; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.182
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

A comparison of dichlobenil four per cent granular and dichlobenil fifty per cent wettable plus a polymer extender for use as a fall applied perennial weed herbicide by W.D. Richards, Research Supervisor, Pacific Coast Nursery Inc., Route 1, Box 320, Portland, Oregon 97231.

A trial was established at Pacific Coast Nursery Inc., Sauvie Island, on 4 deciduous tree varieties to determine the comparative effectiveness of 1 herbicide in 2 different formulations. The first formulation was a 4 per cent ai granular material and was applied alone. The second formulation was a 50 per cent ai wettable material and was applied in conjunction with a polymer extender at a 1 to 1 ratio. All 4 of the shade tree varieties were grown in the field from seed and were transplanted in the test area on May 11, 1979. These plants were white birch, cockspur hawthorn, littleleaf linden, and thornless honeylocust. The trees were planted in commercial rows 4 feet apart on a 1 foot spacing and the treatments were applied in an 18 inch by 12 foot plot and were replicated 3 times for each variety. The herbicides applied to each variety were dichlobenil 4G at 3.75 Ib ai/A and diclobenil 50W at 5 Ib ai/A plus polymer extender in a 1 to 1 ratio. The treatments were applied on October 23, 1979.

Initial observations on weed control and crop tolerance were taken on December 20, 1979 with 2 subsequent checks made on February 25, 1980 and April 13, 1980. The plots were given a visual rating from 0 to 10 for weed control and crop tolerance. The weeds observed were annual bluegrass, chickweed, dandelion, foxtail, common lambsquarters, mustard, redroot pigweed, wild raddish, shepardspurse, and bull thistle.

The dichlobenil 4G proved to give only slightly better weed control than the dichlobenil 50W plus polymer extender and neither material caused any significant economic loss from crop tolerance. The materials should be compared in terms of cost and ease of application by the user.

TreatmentRatebirch(test only) hawthornlindenlocust
dichlobenil 4G3.75 Ib ai/A
broadleaf control109.1109.1
grass control9.79.8109.8
crop tolerance1.32.02.11.7
check0
broadleaf control5.13.54.33.1
grass control2.03.34.15.1
crop tolerance001.01.0
dichlobenil 50W plus5 Ib ai/A
polymer extender5 Ib ai/A
broadleaf control109.59.58.5
grass control9.59.19.08.5
crop tolerance2.72.43.12.1
  • Control and crop tolerance are an average taken from 3 rating dates with 10 = total control or total crop kill.

  • © 1981, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 7, Issue 7
July 1981
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Contributed Abstract
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Contributed Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1981, 7 (7) 182; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.182

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Contributed Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1981, 7 (7) 182; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.182
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire