Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:32:44.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Incorporation and Method of Irrigation on Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. S. Jordan ,
B. E. Day  and
W. A. Clerx
L. S. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, University of California, Riverside, California
B. E. Day
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, University of California, Riverside, California
W. A. Clerx
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, University of California, Riverside, California
Get access

Abstract

Ten herbicides were applied preemergence to proso millet (Panicum miliaceum), three Amaranthus species, and Chenopodium album L. The herbicides were either incorporated or left on the soil surface and plots were either sprinkler or furrow irrigated. The phytotoxicity of some herbicides was increased by soil incorporation and/or sprinkler irrigation. Some were unaffected by method of irrigation, and others were not affected by incorporation. Grass and broadleaf weed control were affected differently by incorporation and irrigation. When incorporated with furrow irrigation, five herbicides developed weed control patterns indicating a movement similar to salt movement. A more complex pattern occurred with non-incorporated herbicides.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1963 , pp. 157 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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. Antognini, J. 1960. Soil incorporation of herbicides. Proc. California Weed Conf. 112–114.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. 1960. The major problem in vegetable crops—weed control. Proc. California Weed Conf. 72–74.Google Scholar
3. Ashton, Floyd M., and Dunster, Kenneth. 1961. The herbicidal effect of EPTC, CDEC, and CDAA on Echinochloa crusgalli with various depths of soil incorporation. Weeds 9:312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bandeen, J. D., Switzer, C. M., and Jones, G. E. 1959. An investigation of pre-planting soil incorporation of herbicides for the control of weeds in sugar beets. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. East U.S. and Canada. 41–44.Google Scholar
5. Barnsley, G. E. and Rosher, P. H. 1961. The relationship between the herbicidal effect of 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile and its persistence in the soil. Weed Res. 1:147–158.Google Scholar
6. Fireman, Milton. 1960. Preemergence herbicides—factors affecting their performance. Proc. California Weed Conf. 111–112.Google Scholar
7. Foy, C. L. 1954. Effectiveness of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate as a selective preemergence herbicide in cotton. Weeds 3:282–291.Google Scholar
8. McWhorter, C. G., and Wooten, O. B. 1961. The use of fluorescent tracers to study distribution of soil applied herbicides. Weeds: 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Menges, R. M. 1961. Effect of irrigation methods on performance of pre-emergence herbicide treatments. Abs. WSA. p. 46.Google Scholar
10. Upchurch, R. 1957. The influence of soil-moisture content on the response of cotton to herbicides. Weeds 5:112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar