Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:25:08.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Synthetic Plant-Growth Modifiers. IV. 2–Methyl–4–chlorophenoxyacetyl Derivatives of Amino Acids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. F. Krewson
Affiliation:
Eastern Utilization Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Philadelphia 18, Pennsylvania
C. H. H. Neufeld
Affiliation:
Eastern Utilization Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Philadelphia 18, Pennsylvania
T. F. Drake
Affiliation:
Eastern Utilization Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Philadelphia 18, Pennsylvania
T. D. Fontaine
Affiliation:
Eastern Utilization Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Philadelphia 18, Pennsylvania
J. W. Mitchell
Affiliation:
Horticultural Crops Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
W. H. Preston Jr.
Affiliation:
Horticultural Crops Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Get access

Extract

In the past 10 years, phenomenal advances have been made in the regulation of plant growth by organic compounds including some now used as herbicides. The introduction of new chemicals, new weed-control techniques, such as pre-emergence treatment, and low gallonage application are among the most important recent developments in the use of organic compounds for weed control. It is estimated that losses caused by weeds on farms have now reached 5 billion dollars annually, and at present well over 30 million pounds alone of the phenoxy compounds, 2,4–dichloro, 2,4,5–trichloro-, and 2–methyl–4—chlorophenoxyacetic acids (2,4–D, 2,4,5–T and MCP) are being used for herbicidal purposes to help combat these losses (9). The most recent of these three compounds to appear on the market in this country as an active ingredient in herbicidal formulations is 2–methyl–4–chlorophenoxyacetic acid. The chief claim made for its use as a herbicide is that it is less injurious to certain grasses, cereal crops and legumes and more effective on certain weeds than 2,4–D. Fertig (4) concludes that MCP is slower in action and definitely less injurious to legumes, and Crafts (3) cites a number of investigators who have shown that MCP is more selective than 2,4–D, particularly where clover, flax and other crops having leaves hard to wet are concerned. High specificity of the compound is indicated by numerous reports in the literature; Robinson's (8), on the effectiveness of MCP in selective weed control, is one example. However, from recent recommendations (1), there appears to be some disagreement on the use of MCP, indicating need for further testing and experimentation with the compound and its derivatives. MCP as sold may contain up to 40% of impurities by weight, some of which, according to Hansen (6), may have toxic properties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1954 , pp. 28 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 1954 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. Baylor, J. E. Proceedings of Northeastern Weed Control Conference, Supplement 1953. pp 1315.Google Scholar
2. Birnbaum, S. M., Levintow, L., Kingsley, R. B., and Greenstein, J. P. J. Biol. Chem. 194: 455470. 1952.Google Scholar
3. Crafts, A. S. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 4: 253282. 1953.Google Scholar
4. Fertig, S. N. Proceedings of Northeastern Weed Control Conference. 1952. pp. 235243.Google Scholar
5. Freed, V. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 68: 2112. 1946.Google Scholar
6. Hansen, B. Physiol. Plantarum 4: 667676. 1951.Google Scholar
7. Naghski, J., Mellon, E. F., Korn, A. H., and Ogg, C. L. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc., Sci. Ed. 41: 599602. 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Robinson, B. P. Proceedings Southern Weed Control Conference. pp. 192193. 1953.Google Scholar
9. Shaw, W. C., and Lovvorn, R. L. Agricultural Chemicals 8: 3235, 127–129, May 1953.Google Scholar
10. Weintraub, R. L. Journal of Agr. and Food Chem. 1: 250254. 1953.Google Scholar
11. Wood, J. W., and Fontaine, T. D. J. Org. Chem. 17: 891896. 1952.Google Scholar