Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:22:31.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Placement of Charcoal on Protection of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) from Diuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. M. Chandler ,
O. B. Wooten  and
F. E. Fulgham
J. M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
O. B. Wooten
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
F. E. Fulgham
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of activated charcoal in protecting seedling cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213’) from diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea] at 1.78 and 3.55 kg/ha was investigated under field conditions over a 5-yr period. Charcoal did not provide adequate protection when applied through the seed hopper box or sprayed in the seed furrow over each hill. Charcoal at 83 and 167 kg/ha applied as a spot over each hill of cotton gave adequate protection. Shallow incorporation of the charcoal significantly reduced the degree of protection. The optimum combination, providing maximum weed control and minimum crop injury, was diuron at 3.55 kg/ha applied over non-incorporated charcoal at 83 kg/ha.

Keywords

Application modeincorporationsurfacespotcarbon
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , May 1978 , pp. 239 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Ahrens, J. F. 1964. Antidote for herbicides. Frontiers of Plant Sci. 17:5–7.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, A. H. 1968. The inactivation of simazine and linuron in soil by charcoal. Weed Res. 8:58–60.Google Scholar
3. Arle, H. F., Leonard, O. A., and Harris, V. C. 1948. Inactivation of 2,4-D on sweetpotato slips with activated carbon. Science 107:247–248.Google Scholar
4. Bovey, R. W. and Miller, F. R. 1969. Effect of activated carbon on the phytotoxicity of herbicides in a tropical soil. Weed Sci. 17:189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Burr, R. J., Lee, W. O., and Appleby, A. P. 1972. Factors affecting use of activated carbon to improve herbicide selectivity. Weed Sci. 20:180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Jordan, P. D. and Smith, L. W. 1971. Adsorption and deactivation of atrazine and diuron by charcoals. Weed Sci. 19:541–544.Google Scholar
7. Kennedy, J. M. and Talbert, R. E. 1973. Activated charcoal as a herbicide antidote. Arkansas Farm Res. 22:12.Google Scholar
8. Lee, W. O. 1973. Clean grass seed crops established with activated carbon bands and herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:537–541.Google Scholar
9. Sheets, T. J. and Harris, C. I. 1965. Herbicide residues in soils and their phytotoxicities to crops grown in rotation. Residue Rev. 11:119–140.Google Scholar
10. Toth, J. and Milham, P. J. 1973. Burning reduces herbicide effect. Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 84:62.Google Scholar
11. Toth, J. and Milham, P. J. 1975. Activated-carbon and ash-carbon effects on the adsorption and phytotoxicity of diuron. Weed Res. 15:171–176.Google Scholar
12. Weber, J. B., Perry, P. W., and Upchurch, R. P. 1965. The influence of temperature and time on the adsorption of paraquat, diquat, 2,4-D and prometone by clays, charcoal, and an anion-exchange resin. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:678–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar