Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:48:57.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selectivity of Nitrofen among Rape, Redroot Pigweed, and Green Foxtail

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. Hawton  and
E. H. Stobbe
D. Hawton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg
E. H. Stobbe
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The selectivity of 2,4-dichlorophenyl p-nitrophenyl ether (nitrofen) among rape (Brassica campestris L., var. Echo) and two weed species, redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.), was determined quantitatively by a replicated dosage-response experiment. On an ED50 basis, green foxtail and redroot pigweed were, respectively, 5.8 and 63.3 times more susceptible than rape. Selectivity was divided into three parameters; viz., differential spray retention, differential penetration, and differential effects within the plant. Differences in retention were measured with the use of a water-soluble dye, while differences in penetration were determined with 14C-labelled nitrofen. Spray retention on green foxtail was 66% of that on the rape and 64% as much nitrofen penetrated redroot pigweed as penetrated rape. Under the conditions of these tests it was estimated that green foxtail and redroot pigweed were, respectively, 9 and 99 times more susceptible to nitrofen than was rape.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 42 - 44
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. Blackman, G. E. 1952. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. I. The assessment of relative toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 3:1–27.Google Scholar
2. Blackman, G. E., Bruce, R. S., and Holly, K. 1958. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. V. Interrelationships between specific differences in spray retention and selective toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 9:175–205.Google Scholar
3. Brunskill, R. T. 1956. Physical factors affecting the retention of spray droplets on leaf surfaces. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 3:593–603.Google Scholar
4. Fogg, G. E. 1947. Quantitative studies on the wetting of leaves by water. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 134:503–522.Google Scholar
5. Fogg, G. E. 1948. Adhesion of water to the external surfaces of leaves. Discuss. Faraday Soc. 3:162.Google Scholar
6. Holly, K. 1956. Penetration of chlorinated phenoxyacetic acids into leaves. Ann. Appl. Biol. 44:195–199.Google Scholar
7. Holly, K. 1964. Herbicide selectivity in relation to formulation and application methods, p 423–464. In Audus, L. J. (ed.). Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
8. Mason, G. W. 1963. Weed control in field brassica crops. Proc. New Zealand. Weed Pest Contr. Conf. 16:65–70.Google Scholar
9. Repp, G. 1958. On the selective action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. The relationship between the susceptibility to growth regulators and the structure of the outer surfaces of plants. Z. Acker Pflanz. 107:49–66.Google Scholar