Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:50:11.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in selective weed control III. The control of annual weeds in leguminous crops with 2:4-dinitro-6-secondary-butyl-phenol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. A. Roberts  and
G. E. Blackman
H. A. Roberts
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
G. E. Blackman
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 1947–9, field and pot experiments have been carried out first to assess the herbicidal properties of 2:4-dinitro-6-secondary-butyl-phenol, and secondly to determine its value for selective weed control in leguminous crops. In order to obtain precise estimates of the concentration required to produce a given percentage mortality of either weed or crops species, such experiments were so designed that the results are capable of probit analysis.

From the data of field experiments on thirteen species of annual weeds, it is evident that there are wide variations in the concentration required to produce a standard kill. Irrespective of the species, susceptibility is greatest in the young seedling stage and there is a rapid increase in resistance with age. For example, with Raphanus raphanistrum between the cotyledon and pre-flowering stage a sixfold increase in concentration is needed to give a 90% mortality.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 1950 , pp. 263 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

REFERENCES

Barrons, K. C. (1949). Proc. North-eastern States Weed Control Conf. p. 219.Google Scholar
Barrons, K. C. & Grigsby, B. H. (1945). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. 28, 145.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. (1945). J. R. Agric. Soc. 106, 137.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. (1950). J. R. Soc. Arts, 98, 500.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E., Holly, K. & Roberts, H. A. (1949). Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 3, 283.Google Scholar
Crafts, A. S. (1945). Science, 101, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, A. S. & Reiber, H. G. (1948). Hilgardia, 18, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grigsby, B. H. & Barrons, K. C. (1945). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. 27, 301.Google Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Hyslop, G. R. (1942). Bull. Oreg. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 403.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. A. & Riddle, O. C. (1946). Div. Bot. Coll. Agric. Davis, Calif. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. W., Carr, R. B. & Leonard, O. A. (1949). Proc. 2nd Southern Weed Control Conf. p. 43.Google Scholar
Litzenberger, S. C., Post, A. H. & Bingham, G. H. (1945). Bull. Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 430.Google Scholar
Osvald, H. & Åberg, E. (1949). Växtodling, 4, 100.Google Scholar
Robbins, W. W. (1947). Minutes 9th Ann. Western Weed Control Conf. p. 27.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. (in press). Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Crop Protection.Google Scholar
Schwendiman, A., Torrie, J. H. & Briggs, G. M. (1943). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 35, 901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wain, R. L. (1942). Ann. Appl. Biol. 29, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, G. F. (1946). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47, 415.Google Scholar
Warren, G. F. & Buchholtz, K. P. (1947). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 49, 347.Google Scholar
Westgate, W. A. & Raynor, R. N. (1940). Bull. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 634.Google Scholar