Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:53:56.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forage and Livestock Production Following Oak (Quercus spp.) Control with Tebuthiuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles J. Scifres,
Jerry W. Stuth,
Donald R. Kirby and
Raymond F. Angell
Charles J. Scifres
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Jerry W. Stuth
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Donald R. Kirby
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Raymond F. Angell
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aerial applications of 20% tebuthiuron JA/-[5-(1,1- dimethylethyl) - 1, 3, 4 - thiadiazol-2 -yl] -N, N' dimethylurea pellets at 2.2 or 4.4 kg/ha in the spring to heavy brush cover in Texas Post Oak Savannah did not increase the amount of grass, compared to that of untreated pastures, until the growing season after application. By the second growing season after tebuthiuron application, however, native grass stands were composed of a higher proportion of perennial species of good-to-excellent grazing value than were stands on adjacent, untreated rangeland. Tebuthiuron at 4.4 kg/ha did not improve botanical composition of grass stands, but increased the amount of grass during the second and third growing season after application compared to those where 2.2 kg/ha were applied. Daily steer gains were increased in one experiment in the fall after application of 2.2 kg/ha of tebuthiuron in the spring, but were unchanged after two growing seasons in another. Days of available grazing were increased, however, by the second or third growing season after treatment with 2.2 kg/ha of the herbicide in both experiments.

Keywords

Quercus marilandicaQuercus stellatabrush controlrange managementgrass production

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , September 1981, pp. 535 - 539
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Bell, H. M. 1973. Rangeland Management for Livestock Production, Univ. Okla. Press, Norman. 303 pp.Google Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Morton, H. L., Meyer, R. E., Flynt, T. O., and Riley, T. E. 1972. Control of yaupon and associated species. Weed Sci. 20:246–249.Google Scholar
3. Brown, D. W. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation. Bull. 42, Commonwealth Bur. Pastures and Field Crops. Commonwealth Agric. Bur., Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. 223 pp.Google Scholar
4. Darrow, R. A. and McCully, W. G. 1959. Brush control and range improvement in the post oak-blackjack oak area of Texas. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 942. 16 pp.Google Scholar
5. Gould, F. W. 1975. Texas Plants. A checklist and ecological summary. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-585 (Rev.). 121 pp.Google Scholar
6. Gould, F. W. and Box, T. W. 1965. Grasses of the Texas Coastal Bend. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 186 pp.Google Scholar
7. Haas, R. H. and Watson, R. L. 1968. Post oak and mixed hardwood control using 2,4, 5 -T and picloram. Pages 47–50 in Brush Research in Texas. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Consolidated Prog. Rep. 2583–2609.Google Scholar
8. Hoffman, G. O., Rodgers, J. D., Ragsdale, B. J., and Miller, R. V. 1970. Know your grasses. Texas Agr. Ext. Serv. Bull. 182. 47 pp.Google Scholar
9. Kirby, D. R. and Stuth, J. W. 1981. Brush management influences the nutritive content of cattle diets in east-central Texas. J. Range Manage. 34:(In press).Google Scholar
10. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., and Baur, J. R. 1978. Control of an oak (Quercus) complex with herbicide granules. Weed Sci. 26:444–453.Google Scholar
11. Mutz, J. L., Scifres, C. J., Mohr, W. C., and Drawe, D. L. 1979. Control of willow baccharis and spiny aster with pelleted herbicides. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. B-1194. 12 pp.Google Scholar
12. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Brush Management. Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 360 pp.Google Scholar
13. Scifres, C. J. and Haas, R. H. 1974. Vegetation changes in a post oak savannah following woody plant control. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-1136. 12 pp.Google Scholar
14. Scifres, C. J. and Mutz, J. L. 1978. Herbaceous vegetation changes following applications of tebuthiuron for brush control. J. Range Manage. 31:375–378.Google Scholar
15. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., and Bovey, R. W. 1981. Control of oaks and associated woody species on rangeland and tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:270–274.Google Scholar
17. Stritzke, J. F. 1976. Selective removal of brush by grid placement of herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:255 (Abstr.).Google Scholar