Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:13:54.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil Sterilization Properties of Monuron, Diuron, Simazine, and Isocil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. P. Upchurch ,
J. A. Keaton  and
F. L. Selman
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
J. A. Keaton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
F. L. Selman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under field conditions in North Carolina, yearly retreatment was required to provide reasonable soil sterility when an initial rate of 40 lb/A was used for each of the compounds 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (monuron), 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (diuron), and 2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine (simazine). Lateral movement of these three herbicides was a major factor limiting their utility as soil sterilizers. Attempts to reduce lateral movement by using reduced herbicidal rates in combination with contact active additives were partially successful. The total soil sterilization performance index derived from sterility ratings and lateral movement ratings indicated that the combination of 5 lb/A of diuron and 2 lb/A of 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium salt (paraquat) could not be excelled by diuron or 5-bromo-3-isopropyl-6-methyluracil (isocil) regardless of the rate used. When used alone, the soil sterilization properties of diuron were equivalent to those for isocil, provided that the diuron rates were two and one-half times as great as those for isocil.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 358 - 364
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. Brown, D. A., Duke, W. B., and Furtick, W. R. 1964. Comparison of long period soil sterilants. Res. Prog. Rep. WWCC. pp. 114–115.Google Scholar
2. Button, E. F. and Wright, John L. 1960. Comparison of certain weed killers for roadside weed control in central Connecticut. Proc. NEWCC 14:1–8.Google Scholar
3. Eue, L. 1966. The use of total herbicides in Germany. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 8:494–498.Google Scholar
4. Gast, A. and Fankhauser, E. 1966. The contribution of triazine herbicides to industrial weed control. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 8:485–490.Google Scholar
5. Klingman, Glenn C. 1961. Weed Control: As A Science. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, London. 421 p.Google Scholar
6. McCall, G. L. 1955. Comparative use efficiency of the substituted urea herbicides for industrial weed control. Proc. NEWCC 9:451 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
7. Montgomery, D. 1966. The use of picloram as a residual herbicide for industrial weed control. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 8:516–527.Google Scholar
8. Sigler, William V. Jr. and Andrews, Henry. 1961. Residual effects of soil sterilants. Proc. SWC 14:273–286.Google Scholar
9. Varner, R. W. and Bingeman, C. W. 1962. A new class of chemicals for industrial weed control. Proc. SWC 15:215–220.Google Scholar
10. Whitaker, E. P. 1966. Field trials with simazine/amitrole mixtures. Proc. British Weed Control Conf. 8:528–532.Google Scholar
11. Woestemeyer, V. W., Crawford, R. F., Hallett, J. T., and Cooper, R. H. 1965. Control of perennial broadleaf species and mixed vegetation with two herbicides. Proc. SWC 18:413–416.Google Scholar
12. Woodford, E. K. and Evans, S. A. (Ed.) Weed Control Handbook. 1965. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England. 4th Edition. 434 p. Issued by The British Weed Control Council.Google Scholar