Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:46:36.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Method for Simulating Subsurface Disposal of Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J.M. Cupello ,
A.L. Young  and
J.C.H. Smith
J.M. Cupello
Affiliation:
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840
A.L. Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840
J.C.H. Smith
Affiliation:
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Specially designed growth boxes were used to simulate field subsurface injection of phenoxy herbicides. Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) seedlings were grown in stainless steel containers (inserts) which were placed in plexiglass boxes containing a soil layer that had received 2,240 kg/ha of a 50:50 mixture of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-acetic acid] and 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-acetic acid]. Plant height data were collected periodically for all treatments. Subsurface herbicide application to both intact and cut root systems significantly altered root growth. Plants with treated, intact root systems showed retarded growth which became more pronounced with time. Plants whose root systems were treated, and cut on day 22, showed an initial acceleration of growth; a trend which eventually reversed itself and resulted in control plant height exceeding that of treated plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 368 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Appleby, A.P., and Furtick, W.R. 1965. A technique for controlled exposure of emerging grass seedlings to soil-active herbicides. Weeds 13:172–173.Google Scholar
2. Arnold, E.L., Young, A.L., and Wachinski, A.M. 1976. Three years of field studies on the soil persistence and movement of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and TCDD. Abstr. 206, Weed Sci. Soc. Amer., p. 86.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W.L., and Warren, G.F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:31–37.Google Scholar
4. Barrentine, W.L., and Wooten, O.B. 1967. Equipment for evaluating methods of applying preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:366–368.Google Scholar
5. Dowler, C.C., and Hauser, E.W. 1970. An injector-planter for sub-surface placement of herbicides. Weed Sci. 18:461–464.Google Scholar
6. Duffy, S.L. 1976. A root isolation method for testing root-active chemicals. Weed Sci. 24:214–216.Google Scholar
7. Eshel, Y., and Prendeville, G.N. 1967. A technique for studying root versus shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.Google Scholar
8. Flocker, W.J., and Timm, H. 1969. Plant growth and root distribution in layered sand columns. Agron. J. 61:530–534.Google Scholar
9. Goulding, R.L. 1973. Waste pesticide management. Final narrative report. Environmental Health Sciences Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 82 pp.Google Scholar
10. Knake, E.L., Appleby, A.P., and Furtick, W.R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.Google Scholar
11. Muzik, T.J., and Whitworth, J.W. 1962. A technique for the periodic observation of root systems in situ . Agron. J. 54:56–57.Google Scholar
12. Nishimoto, R.K., and Warren, G.F. 1971. Site of uptake, movement, and activity of DCPA. Weed Sci. 19:152–155.Google Scholar
13. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
14. Wooten, O.B., and McWhorter, C.G. 1961. A device for the sub-surface application of herbicides. Weeds 9:36–41.Google Scholar