Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:44:36.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Efficacy Using a Wet-Blade Application System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott E. Henson ,
Walter A. Skroch ,
James D. Burton  and
A. Douglas Worsham
Scott E. Henson
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Walter A. Skroch
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
James D. Burton*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
A. Douglas Worsham
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jim_burton@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted to test a method of herbicide application in which chemical is placed directly onto cut surfaces of plants during a mowing operation. Specially designed mowers equipped with a fluid application system allow for low-volume herbicide application from the cutting blades during the mowing process (wet blade). Two prototype wet-blade machines, including a sickle bar cutter and a Burch Wet-Blade rotary mower, were used to apply triclopyr, clopyralid, and 2,4-D at various rates and combinations using a total carrier volume of 25 L/ha. Weed management studies were conducted on dogfennel, annual lespedeza, and clovers during a 2-yr period. Wet-blade herbicide applications were effective and performed as well as or better than comparative rates applied using a foliar spray technique. Triclopyr at 2.24 kg ae/ha controlled dogfennel when applied with either the rotary mower or the sickle bar cutter (94 and 77%, respectively). Rotary mower applications of 0.20 kg ae triclopyr + 0.07 kg ae clopyralid per hectare in rough turf achieved 90% control of annual lespedeza and 95% control of red and white clovers.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-Dtriclopyrannual lespedeza, Lespedeza striata (Thunb.) H. & A.dogfennel, Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) Small #3 EUPCPred clover, Trifolium pratense L. # TRFPRwhite clover, Trifolium repens L. # TRFREBuckhorn plantainclopyralidcloverdogfennelherbicide application technologylow volumePlantago lanceolata L., triclopyrBWB, Burch Wet BladeRCBD, randomized complete block design

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 320 - 324
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

Altom, J. V., Strizke, J. F., and Weeks, D. L. 1992. Sericea lespedeza control with selected postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 6: 573–576.Google Scholar
Bohannan, D. R. and Jordan, T. N. 1995. Effects of ultra-low volume application on herbicide efficacy using oil diluents as carriers. Weed Technol. 9: 682–688.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., and Meyer, R. E. 1983. Absorption and translocation of triclopyr in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci. 31: 807–812.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R., DeValeria, J. T., and Pettersen, M. S. 2001. Biological control of tropical soda apple with plant pathogens and integration of biological control with other management options. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 80.Google Scholar
Domingue, L. Jr. 1993. Centrifugal combination sprayer/cutter apparatus. U.S. Patent 5,237,803.Google Scholar
Grote, D. E., Schaff, R., Logue, B. A., Mitchell, T., and Sutton, T. A. 1993. Mower having fluid dispersion characteristics. U.S. Patent 5,195,308.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E. 1996. Development of a Wound Surface Method of Herbicide Application. M.S. thesis. Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Johansson, T. 1988. Preventing stump regrowth with a herbicide-applying tree cutter. Weed Res. 28: 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, C. M. 1963. Liquid distributing mower blade. U.S. Patent 3,090,187.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1994. Chemical and mechanical control of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Weed Technol. 8: 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, J. L. 1985. Hardwood control by injection with two new chemicals. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38: 164–167.Google Scholar
Mullin, A. R. 1959. Rotary lawn mower spraying attachment. U.S. Patent 2,908,444.Google Scholar
Reed, D. J. and Yeiser, J. L. 1990. Injecting imazapyr (Chopper) with wide spacings. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 196–200.Google Scholar
Vicendese, A. D. and Vicendese, F. 1976. Chemical dispensing lawn mower arrangement. U.S. Patent 3,942,308.Google Scholar
Wahlers, R. L., Burton, J. D., Maness, E. P., and Skroch, W. A. 1997a. A stem cut and blade delivery method of herbicide application for weed control. Weed Sci. 45: 829–832.Google Scholar
Wahlers, R. L., Burton, J. D., Maness, E. P., and Skroch, W. A. 1997b. Physiological characteristics of a stem cut and blade delivery method of application. Weed Sci. 45: 746–749.Google Scholar