Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:02:26.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selectivity of Dichlofop Methyl Among Wheat, Barley, Wild Oat (Arena fatua) and Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B.G. Todd  and
E.H. Stobbe
B.G. Todd
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
E.H. Stobbe
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The selectivity of {2-[4-(2′,4′-dichlorophenoxy) phenoxy] methyl propionate}, (hereinafter referred to as dichlofop methyl), among wheat (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Neepawa’), barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Bonanza’), wild oat (Avena fatua L.), and green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.) was investigated. On an ED50 basis, barley, wild oat, and green foxtail were 2, 190, and 1,090 times more sensitive, respectively, to foliar-applied dichlofop methyl at the two-leaf stage than was wheat. Selectivity decreased with increasing maturity of the plant material with the ratio of selectivity between barley and wild oat decreasing from 55 at the two-leaf stage to three at the four-leaf-plus-one-tiller stage. Greater spray retention and more rapid penetration of dichlofop methyl partially explained the susceptibility of green foxtail, but did not explain selectivity between wheat, wild oat, and barley. Root uptake of 14C-dichlofop methyl by the four species was proportional to the amount of solution absorbed during the treatment period and to the concentration of dichlofop methyl in the treatment solution but was not related to species sensitivity to this herbicide.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , September 1977 , pp. 382 - 385
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. Blackman, G.E. 1952. Studies in the principles of phytotoxicity. I. The assessment of relative toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 3:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. 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
3. Hawton, D. and Stobbe, E.H. 1971. Selectivity of nitrofen among rape, redroot pigweed, and green foxtail. Weed Sci. 19:42–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Expt. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
5. Owino, M.G., Todd, B.C., and Stobbe, E.H. 1975. Control of wild oats in barley with HOE 23408, barban, and difenzoquat. Can. Weed Comm. Res. Rept., West. Sect. p. 42.Google Scholar
6. Owino, M.G., Todd, B.G., and Stobbe, E.H. 1975. Control of wild oats and green foxtail in wheat by HOE 23408, benzoylprop ethyl, and barban. Can. Weed Comm. Res. Rept., West. Sect. p. 516.Google Scholar
7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Todd, B.G. and Stobbe, E.H. 1974. Wild oat and green foxtail control using soil applied HOE 23408. Can. Weed. Comm. Res. Rept., West. Sect. p. 421.Google Scholar