Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:59:25.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovery of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Injured by Trifluralin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ian N. Morrison ,
Ken M. Nawolsky ,
George M. Marshall  and
Allan E. Smith
Ian N. Morrison
Affiliation:
Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2
Ken M. Nawolsky
Affiliation:
Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2
George M. Marshall
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., West of Scotland Agric. Coll., Auchincruive, Ayr, U.K., KA6, 5HW
Allan E. Smith
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, S4P 3A2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between trifluralin dosages detected in the soil at seeding, initial crop injury, and subsequent recovery of spring wheat during the growing season was investigated in field experiments in 1986 and 1987. As the amount of trifluralin in the soil increased, both crop density and dry matter production decreased such that at 1 kg/ha the two were reduced by 37 and 50%, respectively, early in the season. As the season progressed, crop growth rates (CGRs) of wheat in trifluralin-treated plots exceeded those of wheat in the untreated plots. Maximum CGRs occurred between Zadok's growth stages 30 and 45 where trifluralin levels in the soil were 0.3 to 0.5 kg ai/ha at seeding. Recovery from trifluralin injury was characterized by enhanced net assimilation rates of surviving plants, increased tillering and greater dry matter production per plant. Wheat seed yield was only weakly correlated with trifluralin levels in the soil at seeding. From a linear regression model it was determined that a 35% reduction in plant dry weight from the trifluralin injury at the beginning of tillering would result in no more than a 10% reduction in seed yield at final harvest.

Keywords

Trifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminespring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Benito’Trifluralin injurygrowth analysiscrop growth ratenet assimilation rate
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 784 - 789
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Beadle, C. L. 1982. Plant growth analysis. In Coombs, J. and Hall, D. O., eds. Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Pages 20–25.Google Scholar
2. Blackman, G. E. 1968. The application of the concepts of growth analysis to the assessment of productivity. Pages 243–259 in Functioning of Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Primary Production Level. Proc. of the Copenhagen Symp. Eckardt, F. E., UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
3. Damon, R. A. Jr. and Harvey, W. R. 1987. Regression and correlation analysis. Pages 185–274 in Experimental Design, ANOVA, and Regression. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
4. Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. 1985. Growth and development. Page 202 in Physiology of Crop Plants. Iowa State Univ. Press, Iowa, U.S.A. Google Scholar
5. Gomez, A. K. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Chi-square test. Pages 458–477 in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto.Google Scholar
6. Grover, R., Smith, A. E., Shewchuk, S. R., Cessna, A. J., and Hunter, J. H. 1988. Fate of trifluralin and triallate applied as a mixture to a wheat field. J. Environ. Qual. 17:543–550.Google Scholar
7. Ketchershid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17:484–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Lemerie, D., Leys, A. R., Hinkley, R. B., and Fisher, J. A. 1985. Tolerance of wheat cultivars to pre-emergence herbicides. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 25:922–926.Google Scholar
9. Olson, B. M., McKercher, R. B., and Halstead, E. H. 1984. Effects of trifluralin on root morphology and mineral status of wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. Weed Sci. 32:382–387.Google Scholar
10. Olson, B. M. and McKercher, R. B. 1985. Wheat and triticale root development as affected by trifluralin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:723–729.Google Scholar
11. O'Sullivan, P. A., Weiss, G. M., and Friesen, D. 1985. Tolerance of spring barley to trifluralin deep-incorporated in the fall or spring. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:169–177.Google Scholar
12. O'Sullivan, P. A., Weiss, G. M., and Friesen, D. 1985. Tolerance of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to trifluralin deep-incorporated in the autumn or spring. Weed Res. 25:275–280.Google Scholar
13. Rahman, A. and Ashford, R. 1970. Selective action of trifluralin for control of green foxtail in wheat. Weed Sci. 18:754–759.Google Scholar
14. Smith, A. E. 1981. Comparison of solvent systems for the extraction of atrazine, benzoylprop, flamprop, and trifluralin from weathered field soils. J. Agric. Fd. Chem. 29:111–115.Google Scholar
15. Smith, A. E. 1982. Herbicides and the soil environment in Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 62:433–460.Google Scholar
16. Spencer, W. F. and Cliath, M. M. 1974. Factors affecting vapor loss of trifluralin from soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22:987–991.Google Scholar
17. Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stage of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.Google Scholar