Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:14:41.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relative Response of Two Foxtail (Setaria) Species to Diclofop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ian N. Morrison  and
Denise C. Maurice
Ian N. Morrison
Affiliation:
Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Denise C. Maurice
Affiliation:
Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ED50 values (the dosage required to reduce the posttreatment gain in dry weight by 50%) for diclofop applied to green and yellow foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. ♯3 SETVI and S. lutescens (Weigel.) Hubb. ♯ SETLU] at the two- and four-leaf stages were calculated from linear regression equations derived by plotting the logarithm of the applied dosage against the relative growth reduction expressed as a probit value. At the two-leaf stage, green foxtail was more susceptible to the chemical than yellow foxtail but at the four-leaf stage there was no significant difference in response of the two species. At least part of the difference in sensitivity of the two species at the two-leaf stage could be accounted for by differences in spray retention, with green foxtail retaining 1.8 times (expressed as μL/cm2) or 3.5 times (expressed as μL/g dry weight) as much spray as yellow foxtail, despite the fact that yellow foxtail had a greater projected leaf area. At the four-leaf stage, the amount of spray retained by both species calculated on a per gram dry-weight basis was significantly less than at the two-leaf stage, accounting in part for the higher ED50 values obtained at the later growth stage. However, there appeared to be no direct relationship between the amount of spray retained and the comparative growth response of the two weeds at the later stage of application.

Keywords

Spray retentionleaf areaSETVISETLU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , September 1984 , pp. 686 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Andersen, R. N. 1976. Response of monocotyledons to HOE 22870 and HOE 23408. Weed Sci. 24:266–269.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 525 pp.Google Scholar
3. Blackman, G. E. 1952. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. I. The assessment of relative toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 3:1–27.Google Scholar
4. Blackman, G. E., Bruce, R. S., and Holly, K. 1958. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. V. Interrelationships between specific differences in spray retention and selective toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 9:175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bliss, C. I. 1934. The method of probits. Science 79:38–39.Google Scholar
6. Finney, D. J. 1971. Probit Analysis, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press. 333 pp.Google Scholar
7. Hawton, D. and Stobbe, E. H. 1971. Selectivity of nitrofen among rape, redroot pigweed and green foxtail. Weed Sci. 19:42–44.Google Scholar
8. Holloway, P. J. 1969. The effects of superficial wax on leaf wettability. Ann. Appl. Biol. 63:145–153.Google Scholar
9. Holloway, P. J. 1970. Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pestic. Sci. 1:156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Holly, K. 1976. Selectivity in relation to formulation and application methods. Pages 249–277 in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides, Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. Vol. 2. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
11. Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8:515–520.Google Scholar
12. Neter, J. and Wasserman, W. 1974. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Regression, Analysis of Variance and Experimental Design. R. D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL. 800 pp.Google Scholar
13. Sampford, M. R. 1952. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. II. Experimental designs and techniques of statistical analysis for the assessment of toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 3:28–46.Google Scholar
14. Sargent, J. A. 1976. Relationship of selectivity to uptake and movement. Pages 303–312 in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides, Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. Vol. 2. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
15. Schreiber, M. M., Warren, G. F., and Orwick, P. L. 1979. Effects of wetting agents, stage of growth, and species, on the selectivity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 27:679–683.Google Scholar
16. Thomas, A. G., ed. 1982. The 1981 Weed Survey of Cultivated Land in Manitoba. Public No. 82–1. Agric. Canada, Regina. 124 pp.Google Scholar
17. Todd, B. G. and Stobbe, E. H. 1977. Selectivity of diclofop methyl among wheat, barley, wild oats (Avena fatua) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 25:382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wu, C. and Santelmann, P. W. 1976. Phytotoxicity and soil activity of HOE 23408. Weed Sci. 24:601–604.Google Scholar