Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:09:56.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility of Pea Cultivars to Trifluralin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Harvey  and
Earl T. Gritton
Robert G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Earl T. Gritton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative susceptibility of ‘Alaska’ and ‘Perfection’ cultivars of peas (Pisum sativum L.) to trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) was studied in excised roots, and in greenhouse and field plantings. Elongation of excised Alaska and Perfection pea roots was reduced 32 and 25%, respectively, by 4 mg/L dosages of trifluralin in aseptic culture, and 25 and 10% by 1.68 kg/ha dosages in greenhouse-grown plants. Seedling emergence in the greenhouse and field was reduced or delayed in both cultivars by 1.68 kg/ha trifluralin. Yields of field-grown Alaska and Perfection peas were reduced by trifluralin dosages equal to and exceeding 0.84 and 1.68 kg/ha, respectively, when there was a June water deficit (8 cm). Yields were not reduced in either cultivar when June rainfall was near normal (10.9 cm).

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 23 - 26
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. Anderson, W.P., Richards, A.B., and Whitworth, J.W. 1967. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weed Sci. 15:224–227.Google Scholar
2. Hacskaylo, J. and Amato, V.A. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Sci. 16:513–515.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Harvey, R.G. 1973. Field comparison of twelve dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:512–516.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R.G. 1974. Soil absorption and volatility of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22:120–124.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. Hawxby, K., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P.W. 1972. Temperature effects on absorption and translocation of trifluralin and methazole in peanuts. Weed Sci. 20:285–289.Google Scholar
8. Nelson, D.C. and Nylund, R.E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
9. Torrey, J.G. and Shigemura, Y. 1957. Growth and controlled morphogenesis in pea root callus tissue grown in liquid medium. Am. J. Bot. 44:334–334.Google Scholar
10. Vostral, H.J. and Bucholtz, K.P. 1966. Pea responses to MCPB applications at different growth stages. Crop Sci. 6:313–316.Google Scholar
11. Weed Science Society of America. 1974. Herbicide Handbook, 3rd ed. Champaign, Illinois. 430 pp.Google Scholar