Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:18:32.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Studies on the Behavior of the Herbicide Safener CGA-43089

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. Nyffeler ,
H. R. Gerber  and
J. R. Hensley
A. Nyffeler
Affiliation:
Research and Develop. Dep., Agric. Chem. Div., CIBA-GEIGY Ltd., Basle, Switzerland
H. R. Gerber
Affiliation:
Research and Develop. Dep., Agric. Chem. Div., CIBA-GEIGY Ltd., Basle, Switzerland
J. R. Hensley
Affiliation:
Research and Develop. Dep., Agric. Div., CIBA-GEIGY Corp., Vero Beach, FL 32960
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

CGA-43089 [α-(cyanomethoximino)-benzacetonitrile] applied as a seed treatment enables sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] to tolerate metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide]. Improved tolerance of alexandergrass [Brachiaria plantaginea, (Link) A. Hitchc.] Eleusine spp., proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) to metolachlor also was demonstrated. Seven sorghum cultivars, representing widely divergent types of germplasm, responded similarly to the safening effect of CGA-43089 when the cultivars were exposed to metolachlor. Treated sorghum seed may be stored more than 1 yr without a loss of safening activity. In these growth chamber experiments, neither extremes of soil moisture nor temperature reduced the effectiveness of the safener. The predominant site of uptake of CGA-43089 is the coleoptile of sorghum seedlings.

Keywords

Herbicide antidotemetolachlorsorghum
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 6 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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. Arle, H. F., Bowser, C. W., and McRae, G. N. 1962. Chemical control of saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra) . Res. Prog. Rep. West. Weed Control Conf. p. 18.Google Scholar
2. Cords, H. P. and Badiei, A. A. 1964. Root reserves and susceptibility to systemic herbicides in two phreatophytes. Weeds 12:299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hughes, E. E. 1966. Single and combination mowing and spraying treatments for control of saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra Pall.) Weeds 14:276–278.Google Scholar
4. Hughes, E. E. 1966. Results of field applications of herbicides for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.). U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric. Res. Serv., ARS-34-79. 19 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hull, H. M. 1970. Leaf structure as related to absorption of pesticides and other compounds. Residue Rev. 31:1–155.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Jellum, M. D. and Worthington, R. E. 1966. A rapid method of fatty acid analysis of oil from individual corn (Zea mays L.) kernels. Crop Sci. 6:251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Martin, J. T. 1960. Determination of the components of plant cuticles. J. Sci. Food Agric. 11:635–640.Google Scholar
8. Quimby, P. C. Jr., Hollingsworth, E. B., and McDonald, R. L. 1977. Techniques for greenhouse evaluation of herbicides on saltcedar. Weed Sci. 25:1–4.Google Scholar
9. Swain, T. 1963. Chemical Plant Taxonomy. Acad. Press, New York. 543 pp.Google Scholar
10. Wilkinson, R. E. 1966. Seasonal development of anatomical structures of saltcedar foliage. Bot. Gaz. 127:231–234.Google Scholar
11. Wilkinson, R. E. 1966. Reproduction of saltcedar by cuttings. Weeds 14:173–174.Google Scholar
12. Wilkinson, R. E. 1972. Sicklepod hydrocarbon response to photoperiod. Phytochemistry 11:1273–1280.Google Scholar
13. Wilkinson, R. E. 1974. Sicklepod surface wax response to photoperiod and S-(2,3-dichloroallyl)diisopropylthiocarbamate (Diallate.). Plant Physiol. 53:269–275.Google Scholar
14. Wilkinson, R. E. and Kasperbauer, M. J. 1972. Epicuticular alkane content of tobacco as influenced by photoperiod, temperature, and leaf age. Phytochemistry 11:2439–2442.Google Scholar