Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:09:45.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant Response to Herbicide Placement in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roy K. Nishimoto ,
Arnold P. Appleby  and
William R. Furtick
Roy K. Nishimoto
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Crops, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Arnold P. Appleby
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Crops, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
William R. Furtick
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Crops, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and growth chamber studies were conducted to investigate effects of herbicide placement in soil on toxicity to emerging seedlings. The use of a technique involving a plastic bag over the plants for 3 to 4 weeks to reduce soil moisture loss did not change the apparent site of 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine (atrazine) uptake by green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.) or oats (Avena sativa L.). Atrazine was more effective on oats through root exposure and more effective on green foxtail through shoot exposure when an untreated buffer zone around the seed was used. But in subsequent studies without the buffer zone, atrazine was most active when placed immediately below the seed of both oats and green foxtail. Proximity to the seed increased effectiveness of atrazine, S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), and 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (diuron). Also, a narrow concentrated layer of these three herbicides adjacent to the seed was more effective than a wider dilute layer above or below the seed. A diurnal fluctuating temperature regime with a low night temperature increased toxicity of EPTC to oats through root exposure, when compared to a constant temperature regime.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1969 , pp. 475 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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., Furtick, W. R., and Fang, S. C. 1965. Soil placement studies with EPTC and other carbamate herbicides on Avena sativa . Weed Res. 5:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Friesen, H. A., Banting, J. B., and Walker, D. R. 1962. The effect of placement and concentration of 2,3-DCDT on the selective control of wild oats in wheat. Can. J. of Plant Sci. 42:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Knake, E. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kuiper, P. J. C. 1964. Water uptake of higher plants as affected by root temperature. Meded. Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 64(4):1–11.Google Scholar
6. McCready, C. C. 1960. The translocation of herbicides in plants. Proc. British Weed Contr. Conf. 5:665–667.Google Scholar
7. Nishimoto, R. K., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. West. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Prog. Rept. p. 121–122.Google Scholar
8. Oliver, L. R., Prendeville, G. N., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Species differences in site of root uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:534–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Prendeville, G. N., Oliver, L. R., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Species differences in site of shoot uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:538–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar