Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:16:58.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ethalfluralin Activity in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jeffrey F. Derr
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
Thomas J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650

Abstract

In greenhouse studies, soil organic matter reduced the herbicidal activity of ethalfluralin (N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine). Fifty percent inhibition (I5.0) values for barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] stand, injury, and shoot fresh weight increased as the soil organic-matter level increased. No difference in ethalfluralin tolerance was found among 16 cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) cultivars. When grouped according to market type, fresh market cultivars tended to be injured more than pickling cultivars by excess ethalfluralin. Both shoots and roots of cucumber absorbed the herbicide, but exposure of roots to ethalfluralin was more toxic than exposure of shoots. Field studies indicated that with certain edaphic and environmental conditions, cucumbers can be injured by preemergence applications of ethalfluralin. Injury was greatest in a low organic-matter soil following a heavy rain. Ethalfluralin at 1.3 kg/ha gave adequate weed control in 1 and 3% organic-matter soils, but not in a 9% organic-matter soil.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:3137.Google Scholar
2. Eshel, Y. and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root versus shoot uptake of soil applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242245.Google Scholar
3. Harrison, G. W., Weber, J. B., and Baird, J. V. 1976. Herbicide phytotoxicity as affected by selected properties of North Carolina soils. Weed Sci. 24:120126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Humphreys, W. H., Addison, D. A., Hicks, R. D., McNeil, K. E., Nicholson, J. C., Rowland, L. B., and Webster, H. L. 1978. Ethalfluralin for weed control in cucurbits. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31:159166.Google Scholar
5. Locascio, S. J. 1978. Weed control with ethalfluralin, oryzalin, and pendimethalin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31:152158.Google Scholar
6. Monaco, T. J. and Skroch, W. A. 1980. A summary of ethalfluralin performance on cucurbits. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:7180.Google Scholar
7. Nishimoto, R. K. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Site of uptake, movement, and activity of DCPA. Weed Sci. 19:152155.Google Scholar
8. Skroch, W. A. and Monaco, T. J. 1981. Chemical weed control in vegetable crops. Pages 393394 in 1981 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. School of Agric., and Life Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
9. Weber, J. B., Weed, S. B., and Waldrep, T. W. 1974. Effect of soil constituents on herbicide activity in modified soil field plots. Weed Sci. 22:454459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Williamson, S. W. and Beste, C. E. 1980. Soil residue of ethalfluralin with cucumbers. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:189194.Google Scholar