Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:30:11.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Implanted Soil Mass Technique to Study Herbicide Effects on Root Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Zane F. Lund ,
R. W. Pearson  and
Gale A. Buchanan
Zane F. Lund
Affiliation:
U. S. Dep. of Agr., Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama
R. W. Pearson
Affiliation:
U. S. Dep. of Agr., Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama
Gale A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
U. S. Dep. of Agr., Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An implanted soil mass technique was modified to study the effect of soil-incorporated herbicides on root growth. The technique was used to study the effects of α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) and 4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylaniline (nitralin) on root growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., var. Auburn 56) and the effects of trifluralin and S-propyl dipropylthiocarbamate (vernolate) on soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr., var. Bragg). Vernolate had no effect, but there was only 57% as much soybean root tissue in the soil receiving 1 ppm of trifluralin as there was in the untreated check 2 months after initiating the treatments. Trifluralin and nitralin at 1 ppm reduced cotton roots to 75% and 50%, respectively, of that of the untreated check. The effects of trifluralin and low soil pH were additive, but there was no interaction between them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , March 1970 , pp. 279 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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. Anderson, W. P., Richards, A. B., and Whitworth, J. W. 1957. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weeds 15:224–227.Google Scholar
2. Garner, M. R. and Telfair, D. 1954. New techniques for the study of restoration of compacted soil. Science 120:668–669.Google Scholar
3. Hicks, R. D. and Fletchall, O. H. 1964. Preplant incorporation studies in cotton weed control. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 17:157.Google Scholar
4. Oliver, L. R. and Frans, R. E. 1965. Influence of trifluralin rate and depth of incorporation on cotton and soybean lateral root development. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 18:85–91.Google Scholar
5. Oliver, L. O. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
6. Talbert, R. E. 1965. Effects of trifluralin on soybean root development. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 18:652.Google Scholar
7. Telfair, D., Garner, M. R. and Miars, D. 1957. The restoration of structurally degenerated soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 21:131–134.Google Scholar
8. Thompson, J. T. and Hardcastle, W. S. 1965. Influence of incorporated trifluralin on cotton in Georgia. Proc. So. Week Conf. 18:79–84.Google Scholar