Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:59:54.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fungicidal properties of certain spray-fluids, XI. Synthetic solvents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Martin  and
E. S. Salmon
H. Martin
Affiliation:
(Research Department, South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
E. S. Salmon
Affiliation:
(Research Department, South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fungicidal and phytocidal properties of manufactured hydrocarbons and their simpler hydroxyl-derivatives and esters have been examined by application in spray-form to young leaves of hops bearing powdery patches of the hop powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca humuli (D.C.) Burr.). The sprays were prepared by agitation with 0·25 per cent. Agral I solutions. For ease of description the term fungicidal is applied only to sprays which are lethal to the fungus, whilst a spray is termed phytocidal when injury to the leaf results at areas not invaded by the fungus.

1. Benzene was fungicidal and phytocidal at concentrations of 2 per cent., whereas the hydrogenation products, cyclohexane, methyl cyclohexane and dekalin, were inactive at this concentration. Fungicidal and phytocidal properties were shown at 7 per cent, of the two former, and 3–4 per cent. of the latter.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 1934 , pp. 469 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

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

REFERENCES

(1)Angell, H. R., Walker, J. C. and Link, K. P.Phytopath. (1930), 20, 431.Google Scholar
(2)Austin, M. D., Jary, S. G. and Martin, H.Hort. Educ. Assoc. Year Book (1932), 1, 85.Google Scholar
(3)Bewley, W. F. and Orchard, O. B.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1932), 19, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Cook, M. T. and Taubenhaus, J. J.Bull. Delaware, Agric. Exp. Sta. (1911), No. 91.Google Scholar
(5)Eyre, J. V., Salmon, E. S. and Wormald, L. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1919), 9, 283.Google Scholar
(6)Fargher, R. G., Galloway, L. D. and Probert, M. E.Shirley Inst. Mem. (1930), 9, 37.Google Scholar
(7)Headlee, T. J., Ginsburg, J. M. and Filmer, R. S.J. Econ. Entom. (1930), 23, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Johnstone, K. H.J. Pom. Hort. Sci. (1931), 9, 195.Google Scholar
(9)Martin, H.J.S.C.I. (1931), 50, 91T.Google Scholar
(10)Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1931), 21, 638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1933), 23, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Morris, L. E.J. Textile Ind. (1927), 18, T99.Google Scholar
(13)Orthmann, A. C. and Highby, W. M.J. Amer. Leather Chem. Assoc. (1929), 24, 657.Google Scholar
(14)Tattersfield, F.J. Agric. Sci. (1932), 22, 396.Google Scholar
(15)Tattersfield, F., Gimingham, C. T. and Morris, H. M.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1925), 12, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar