Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:35:53.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Incorporation Depth on Chloramben Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Duane N. Sommerville  and
L. M. Wax
Duane N. Sommerville
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Illinois; and Agronomist, Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Urbana, Illinois 61801
L. M. Wax
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Illinois; and Agronomist, Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Urbana, Illinois 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rates of 0, 1.7, and 3.4 kg/ha of 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (chloramben) were incorporated to 0, 3.8, and 7.6-cm depths in 0.7 by 0.7-m microplots under low, moderate, and high rainfall conditions. Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr., var. Amsoy] injury increased with increasing depth of incorporation of 3.4 kg/ha chloramben. Chloramben incorporation under low rainfall conditions significantly improved control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberii Herrm.), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) compared to surface treatments. Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) was not controlled well by chloramben regardless of rate or incorporation depth. In larger field plots over a 3-year period, 3.4 kg/ha chloramben incorporated with a disc produced slight but insignificant soybean injury. Giant foxtail, smooth pigweed, common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), and velvetleaf control with incorporated chloramben was equal to or better than the control obtained with surface-applied chloramben. Regardless of method of application, control of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.), jimsonweed, and annual morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) was poor.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , July 1971 , pp. 394 - 397
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. Burnside, O. C. and Lipke, W. G. 1962. The effect of applied water on preemergence applications of amiben. Weeds 10:100–103.Google Scholar
2. De la Cruz, R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1969. Phytotoxicity of soil applied atrazine and amiben to seedlings of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Proc. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 24:76.Google Scholar
3. Doll, J. D. and Meggitt, W. F. 1968. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in Michigan soybeans. Res. Rep. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 25:107–108.Google Scholar
4. Herr, D. E. and Stroube, E. W. 1970. Velvetleaf control as influenced by herbicide placement and seed depth. Weed Sci. 18:459–461.Google Scholar
5. Knake, E. L. and Wax, L. M. 1968. The importance of the shoot of giant foxtail for uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:393–395.Google Scholar
6. Rauser, W. E. and Switzer, C. M. 1962. Factors contributing to the loss of amiben phytotoxicty in soils. Weeds 10:62–64.Google Scholar
7. Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1968. Amiben metabolism and selectivity. Weed Sci. 16:283–288.Google Scholar
8. Talbert, R. E., Runyan, R. L., and Baker, H. R. 1970. Behavior of amiben and dinoben derivatives in Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 18:10–15.Google Scholar