Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:21:35.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Cucurbits to Certain Analogs of Chloramben

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. A. Ivany  and
R. D. Sweet
J. A. Ivany
Affiliation:
Dep. of Vegetable Crops, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York 14850
R. D. Sweet
Affiliation:
Dep. of Vegetable Crops, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York 14850
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to compare the response of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Ashley’), muskmelon (Cucumis melo L. ‘Delicious 51’), watermelon (Citrillus vulgaris L. ‘Charleston Grey’), and three winter squashes (Cucurbita moschata Duch. ex Poir. ‘Butternut’, Cucurbita pepo L. ‘Table Queen’, and Cucurbita maxima Duch. ‘Boston Marrow’) to 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (chloramben) and six of its analogs (ammonium salt, amide, mixed salts, methyl ester, hydroxy propyl ester, and butoxy ethyl ester). There were little differences among the analogs except the amide was generally nontoxic to all test crops and weeds. Great differences in growth were noted among species. When chloramben was incorporated in the soil, cucumber and watermelon were very susceptible to all analogs except the amide. Muskmelon was tolerant of all analogs. Squashes exhibited variable susceptibility with ‘Butternut’ the least tolerant, ‘Table Queen’ intermediate, and ‘Boston Marrow’ quite tolerant of the analogs. Separation of exposure of the germinating and emerging seedling on the basis of root or shoot showed cucumber to be most susceptible to root exposure but also susceptible to shoot exposure. Muskmelon and ‘Boston Marrow’ squash were susceptible to root exposure but not to shoot exposure. Muskmelon was not susceptible to either hypocotyl or cotyledon exposure, but cucumber was susceptible to both these treatments. All three species were severely injured by postemergence sprays of chloramben.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , September 1971 , pp. 491 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Baker, R. S. and Warren, G. F. 1962. Selective herbicidal action of amiben on cucumber and squash. Weeds 10:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. and Lipke, W. G. 1962. The effect of applied water on preemergence applications of amiben. Weeds 10:100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Colby, S. R. 1966. Factors affecting the selectivity of amiben on soybeans. Proc. No. East. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:337–344.Google Scholar
4. Colby, S. R. 1965. Factors affecting the tolerance of soybeans to trifluralin, R-1607 and amiben. Proc. No. East. Weed Contr. Conf. 19:233–238.Google Scholar
5. Cooke, Anson R. 1966. Controlled studies on the interaction of rainfall and preemergence herbicide activity. Proc. No. East. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:632–635.Google Scholar
6. Eshel, Y. and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root versus shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Feulner, R. L., Kuratle, H., and Rahn, E. M. 1968. Weed control in cucurbits. Proc. No. East. Weed Contr. Conf. 22:219–223.Google Scholar
8. Knake, Ellery L., Appleby, Arnold P., and Furtick, William A. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. McLane, S. R. and Parkins, M. D. 1966. Biological and physical attributes of several amiben derivatives. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 8:283–290.Google Scholar