Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:13:32.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction of Alachlor and Carbofuran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Allan S. Hamill  and
Donald Penner
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing, Mich.
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing, MI. 48823
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The combination of the herbicide 2-chloro-2′,6′ diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl) acetanilide (alachlor) with the insecticide 2,2-dimethyl-2,3-dihydrobenzofuranyl-7-N-methyl-carbamate (carbofuran) interacted synergistically to reduce barley [Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Larker’] but not corn [Zea mays L. ‘Michigan 400’] growth. Alachlor alone increased the respiration rate of barley. Accumulation of 14C from 14C-alachlor was greater in the plant roots than shoots. The increased accumulation of alachlor in the roots was accentuated by a reduced rate of alachlor metabolism. The basis for the observed interaction appeared to be greater alachlor uptake by barley plants grown from seed treated with carbofuran. A statistical procedure for pesticide combinations in experiments with a completely randomized design was developed for the calculation of interaction significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 1973 , pp. 330 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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. Bowling, C. C. and Hudgins, H. R. 1966. The effect of insecticides on the selectivity of propanil on rice. Weeds 14: 94–95.Google Scholar
2. Cargill, R. L. and Santelmann, P. W. 1971. Response of peanuts to combinations of herbicides with other pesticides. Weed Sci. 19:24–27.Google Scholar
3. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–21.Google Scholar
4. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1964. The autoradiography of plant materials. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 35. 143 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hassawy, G. S. and Hamilton, K. C. 1971. Effects of trifluralin and organophosphorous compounds on cotton seedlings. Weed Sci. 19:166–169.Google Scholar
6. Jaworski, E. G. 1969. Chloroacetamides. Pages 165–185 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. The degradation of herbicides. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.Google Scholar
7. Kappelman, A. J. Jr., Buchanan, G. A., and Lund, Z. F. 1971. Effect of fungicides, herbicides and combinations on root growth of cotton. Agron. J. 63:3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Matsunaka, S. 1968. Propanil hydrolysis: Inhibition in rice plants by insecticides. Science 160:1360–1361.Google Scholar
9. Milborrow, B. V. 1970. Interaction of plant hormones: Abscisic acid and gibberellic acids. Science 168:875–877.Google Scholar
10. Pancholy, S. K. and Lynd, J. Q. 1969. Bromacil interactions in plant bioassay, fungi cultures and nitrification. Weed Sci. 17:460–463.Google Scholar
11. Tsay, S., Lee, J., and Lynd, J. Q. 1970. The interactions of Cu++ and Cn- with paraquat phytotoxicity to a Chlorella . Weed Sci. 18:596–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Wang, C. H. and Willis, D. L. 1965. Radiotracer methodology in biological science. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 363 pp.Google Scholar