Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:46:36.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Herbicides Against Aquatic Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert D. Blackburn
Robert D. Blackburn*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Get access

Abstract

Techniques were developed for evaluating herbicides on submersed, floating, and emersed aquatic weeds. Among 75 herbicides evaluated on three species of submersed weeds only 1:1′-ethylene-2:2′-dipyridylium (diquat); 1:1′-dimethyl-4:4′-dipyridylium (paraquat); di-N,N-dimethylcocoamine salt of 3,6-endoxohexahydrophthalic acid (endothal); and acrylaldehyde (acrolein) gave 85 percent or better control at 1 ppmw in still-water tests. Only acrolein and the di-N,N-dimethylcocoamine salt of endothal were effective on submersed weeds at 1 ppmw in the limited-exposure test. The evaluation of 17 herbicides on three species of floating aquatic weeds indicated that diquat was effective when applied at rates of 1 or 2 lb/A. The tertiary fatty acid amines of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) were more effective on floating weeds than an ester of 2,4-D. Many of the 78 herbicides evaluated on alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.) killed the tops, but only two retarded the sprouting of underwater nodes longer than 6 weeks. Applications of 20 lb/A of 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-propionic acid (silvex) in two formulations retarded sprouting of underwater nodes for 8 weeks.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1963, pp. 21 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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. Blackburn, Robert D., and Weldon, L. W. 1962. Control of southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis) and other submersed weeds in south Florida irrigation and drainage canals. Proc. SWC 15:254–255. (abstract).Google Scholar
2. Frank, P. A., Otto, N. E., and Bartley, T. R. 1961. Techniques for evaluating aquatic weed herbicides. Weeds 9:515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hardcastle, W. S. 1958. A rapid laboratory method of screening herbicides against aquatic plants. Weeds 6:64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hitchcock, A. E., Zimmerman, P. W., Kirkpatrick, Henry, and Earle, T. T. 1949. Water hyacinth: its growth, reproduction, and practical control by 2,4-D. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 15(7):363–401.Google Scholar
5. Hodgson, Jesse M. 1957. A method for evaluating the control of water-weeds with herbicides. Weeds 5:138–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hudson, N. S., and Hudson, Bee. 1957. A laboratory test for screening chemicals for toxicity to submerged aquatic plants. Weeds 5:371–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lawrence, J. M., Blackburn, R. D., Davis, D. E., Spencer, S. L., and Beasley, P. G. 1961. Aquatic weed herbicides evaluated. Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala. Highlights of Agricultural Research. 8:2.Google Scholar
8. Oborn, Eugene T. 1957. Control of aquatic weeds that impede flow of western irrigation waters. Weeds 3:231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Seaman, D. E., Blackburn, R. D., and Weldon, L. W. 1961. Suggested control measures for common aquatic weeds of Florida. USDA. Crops Research Progress Report CR-42. 10 pp.Google Scholar
10. Zimmerman, P. W., Hitchcock, A. E., Kirkpatrick, Henry, and Earle, T. T. 1950. Control of water hyacinth. Agr. Chem. 5(1):45–47.Google Scholar