Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:00:18.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Two Methylcarbamates on Chlorpropham Toxicity to Safflower and Common Buckwheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. Kirkland  and
A. P. Appleby
K. Kirkland
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon 97331
A. P. Appleby
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth-chamber studies were conducted to determine the effect of p-chlorophenyl-N-methylcarbamate (PPG-124) and 1-naphthyl N-methyl carbamate (carbaryl) on the response of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L. ‘Gila’) and common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) to isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (chlorpropham). Addition of PPG-124 or carbaryl did not increase the sensitivity of safflower, a resistant species, to chlorpropham and affected buckwheat, a susceptible species, only at the lowest dosage level.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 183 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Bowling, C. C. and Hudgins, H. R. 1966. The effect of insecticides on the selectivity of propanil on rice. Weeds 14:94–95.Google Scholar
2. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Eshel, Y and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root vs. shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.Google Scholar
4. Hacskaylo, J., Walker, J. K. Jr., and Pires, E. G. 1964. Response of cotton seedlings to combinations of preemergence herbicides and systemic insecticides. Weeds 12: 288–291.Google Scholar
5. Kearney, P. C. 1965. Purification and properties of an enzyme responsible for hydrolyzing phenylcarbamates. J. Agr. Food Chem. 13:561–564.Google Scholar
6. Machlis, L. and Torrey, J. G. 1956. Plants in Action: A Laboratory Manual of Plant Physiology. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 288 p.Google Scholar
7. Parochetti, J. V. and Warren, G. F. 1968. Biological activity and dissipation of IPC and CIPC. Weed Sci. 16:13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Prendeville, G. N., Eshel, Y., James, C. S., Warren, G. F., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Movement and metabolism of CIPC in resistant and susceptible species. Weed Sci. 16:432–435.Google Scholar
9. Roberts, H. A. 1965. Comparative tolerance of some dicotyledons to chlorpropham. Weed Res. 5:61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Swanson, C. R. and Swanson, H. R. 1968. Inhibition of degradation of monuron in cotton leaf tissue by carbamate insecticides. Weed Sci. 16:481–484.Google Scholar
11. Tammes, P. M. L. 1964. Isoboles, a graphic representation of synergism in pesticides. Neth. J. Plant Pathol. 70:73–80.Google Scholar
12. Vesecky, J. F. and Appleby, A. P. 1968. Combinations for increasing longevity of CIPC and IPC. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Progr. Rep. pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
13. Yih, R. Y., McRae, D. H., and Wilson, H. F. 1968. Mechanism of selective action of 3′,4′-dichloropropionanilide. Plant Physiol. 43:1291–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar