Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:31:40.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Various Factors on the Movement of CIPC in Certain Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. Hurtt ,
J. A. Meade  and
P. W. Santelmann
W. Hurtt
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, now Graduate Assistant, Farm Crops Department, Michigan State University
J. A. Meade
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
P. W. Santelmann
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Get access

Extract

Once it has been determined that the primary mode of action of a herbicide is dependent upon entry into the plant through its roots, it becomes important to know what factors will influence its movement in the soil. The findings of Ennis (3, 4) and Baldwin, Freed, and Fang (1) that certain cereals absorb carbamates by means of their roots rather than through their leaves stimulated experiments to study the effects of various soil factors upon the persistence and movement of carbamates in the soil. Blouch and Fults (2) found that the effect of various soil types on the effectiveness of pre-emergence applications of CIPC to several crops was much less than the effect of soil structure and high levels of organic matter. Data presented by Ogle and Warren (9) indicated that organic matter may have considerable effect on inhibiting the movement of CIPC in the soil. They also emphasized that the herbicidal behavior of a chemical in soil cannot be predicted from a study of one soil type, since there appears to be an interaction between soil type and movement of the herbicide. Smith and Ennis (12) reported similar results and also found that oil solutions of CIPC were less mobile than aqueous solutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 1958 , pp. 425 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 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. Baldwin, R. E., Freed, V. H., and Fang, S. C. Herbicide action: Absorption and translocation of carbon-14 applied as 0-isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate in Avena and Zea . J. of Agr. and Food Chem. 2:428–430. 1954.Google Scholar
2. Blouch, R., and Fults, J. The influence of soil type on the selective action of chloro-IPC and sodium TCA. Weeds 2:119–124. 1953.Google Scholar
3. Ennis, W. B. Jr. Some effects of O-isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate upon cereals. Science. 105:95. 1947.Google Scholar
4. Ennis, W. B. Jr. Response of crop plants to O-isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate. Bot. Gaz. 109:473–493. 1948.Google Scholar
5. Freed, V. H. Some factors influencing the herbicidal efficacy of isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate. Weeds 1:48–60. 1951.Google Scholar
6. Hollingsworth, E. B. Cotton response to two substituted ureas and CIPC and their persistence and movement in the soil. Proc. Southern Weed Conf. 8:294–304. 1955.Google Scholar
7. Linder, P. J. Movement and persistence of herbicides following their application to the soil surface. Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conf. 6:7–11. 1952.Google Scholar
8. Logan, A. V., Odell, N. R., and Freed, V. H. The use of C14 in a study of the leaching rate of isopropyl N-phenylcarbamate. Weeds 2:24–26. 1953.Google Scholar
9. Ogle, R. E., and Warren, G. F. Fate and activity of herbicides in soils. Weeds 3:257–273. 1954.Google Scholar
10. Pray, B. O., and Witman, E. D. Comments: On distribution of CIPC in soil. Weeds 2:300–301. 1953.Google Scholar
11. Shaw, W. C., and Swanson, C. R. Techniques and equipment used in evaluating chemicals for their herbicidal properties. Weeds 1:352–365. 1952.Google Scholar
12. Smith, R. J., and Ennis, W. B. Jr. Studies on the downward movement of 2,4–D and 3–chloro–IPC in soils. Proc. Southern Weed Conf. 6:63–71. 1953.Google Scholar