Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:43:37.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dinitroaniline Herbicides for Weed Control in Peas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R.G. Harvey  and
G.L. Jacques
R.G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
G.L. Jacques
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eight substituted dinitroaniline herbicides were studied for relative effectiveness in controlling weeds and for tolerance of peas (Pisum sativum L.). Greenhouse trials comparing 10-5 M herbicide solutions added to washed silica sand indicated that trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluroro-2,6-dinitro-N,N,-dipropyl-p-toluidine) and dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine) were the most phytotoxic to peas. Field trials conducted over a 3-yr period using 0.84 and 1.68 kg/ha application rates demonstrated that all eight of the herbicides successfully controlled the weeds present. Use of trifluralin resulted in the lowest shelled pea yields at both rates of application. Significant reductions in yield occurred from the 1.68 kg/ha rate of trifluralin in 1973 and 1975 when compared with the untreated checks. While major differences did not occur between the other chemicals, the greatest average pea yields resulted from the use of oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N4,N4-dipropylsulfanilamide), dinitramine, and fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)analine].

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 256 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Hagedorn, D.J., Holm, L.G., and Torrie, J.H. 1955. Yield-quality relationships as influenced by maturity of canning peas. Res. Bull. No. 187, Univ. of Wis., Madison. 17 pp.Google Scholar
2. Harvey, R.G. 1973. Field comparison of twelve dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:512–516.Google Scholar
3. Harvey, R.G. 1973. Relative phytotoxicities of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:517–520.Google Scholar
4. Harvey, R.G. 1974. Soil adsorption and volatility of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22:120–124.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R.G. and Gritton, E.T. 1977. Susceptibility of pea cultivars to trifluralin. Weed Sci. 25: In Press.Google Scholar
6. Harvey, R.G., Gritton, E.T., and Doersch, R.E. 1972. Effects of selected herbicides on annual weed control and production of processing peas. Agron. J. 64:812–815.Google Scholar
7. Harvey, R.G., Hagedorn, D.J., and DeLoughery, R.L. 1975. Influence of herbicides on root rot in processing peas. Crop Sci. 15:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The waterculture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
9. Weber, J.B. and Monaco, T.J. 1972. Review of the chemical and physical properties of the substituted dinitroaniline herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:31–37.Google Scholar