Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T17:18:47.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Inhibition of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and Soybean (Glycine max) Roots and Shoots by Three Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. S. Murray ,
J. E. Street ,
J. K. Soteres  and
G. A. Buchanan
D. S. Murray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soil, Auburn Univ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
J. E. Street
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soil, Auburn Univ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
J. K. Soteres
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soil, Auburn Univ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
G. A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soil, Auburn Univ., Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Environmental control chamber experiments showed that cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213′) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Bragg’] root and shoot growth were reduced when treated with increasing rates of dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-tri-fluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine), profluralin [N-(cyclopropylmethyl)-α,αα-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-p-toluidine], and trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dintrio-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine). Viusal root ratings, dry root weights, and fresh and dry herbage weights were used to evaluate plant response to herbicide treatments in environmental chambers. The order of increasing GR50 values for cotton on two soils and with all response measurements, except dry root weights on one soil, was trifluralin, dinitramine, and profluralin. The order of increasing GR50 values for soybeans on two soils and with all response measurements was dinitramine, trifluralin, and profluralin.

Keywords

Dinitramineprofluralinand trifluralin
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , May 1979 , pp. 336 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the 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. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Shoot zone activity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:37–41.Google Scholar
3. Hacskaylo, J. and Amato, V. A. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Sci. 16:513–515.Google Scholar
4. Hicks, R. D. and Fletchall, O. H. 1964. Pre-plant incorporation studies in cotton weed control. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 17:157.Google Scholar
5. Murray, D. S., Santelmann, P. W., and Greer, H. A. L. 1973. Differential phytotoxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Agron. J. 65:34–36.Google Scholar
6. Oliver, R. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
7. Pieczarka, S. J., Wright, W. L., and Alder, E. F. 1962. Trifluralin as a soil-incorporated preemergence herbicide for agronomic crops. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 15:92–96.Google Scholar
8. Standifer, L. C. Jr. and Thomas, C. H. 1965. Response of johnsongrass to soil-incorporated trifluralin. Weeds 13:302–306.Google Scholar