Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:36:38.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Tolerance of Woody Nursery Crop Seedlings to Napropamide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sumaryono  and
Garvin Crabtree
Sumaryono
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Garvin Crabtree
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments are conducted to evaluate the tolerance of three deciduous species: black locust, honeylocust, apple, and three coniferous species: Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and Japanese black pine, in the seedling stage to napropamide. Deciduous species were more susceptible to napropamide than coniferous species. Domestic apple had the slowest seed germination and root development and was more susceptible. The deciduous species had more secondary roots in the shallow soil layer which contained most of the herbicide than the coniferous species. The roots of all woody species tested in vitro were inhibited significantly by contact with the herbicide, but only shoot growth of domestic apple and black locust was inhibited. Injury to woody nursery crop seedlings may be avoided by delaying herbicide application.

Keywords

Napropamide, N,N-diethyl-2-(1-naphthalenyloxy)-propanamidedomestic apple, Malus domestica Borkh. ♯3 MABSD)Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco ♯ PSTMEblack locust Robinia pseudoacacia L. ♯ ROBPShoneylocust, Gleditsia triacanthos L. ♯ GLITRJapanese black pine, Pinus thunbergii Parl. ♯ PIUTHponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws, ♯ PIUPOApplication timeselectivityseedling developmentroot systemGleditsia triacanthosMalus domesticaPseudotsuga menziesiiPinus ponderosaPinus thunbergiiGLITRMABSDPSTMEPIUPOPIUTH
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 584 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Abbott, H. G., and Fitch, S. D. 1977. Forest nursery practices in the United States. J. For. 75:141–145.Google Scholar
2. Ahrens, J. F. 1981. Preemergence herbicides for transplanted herbaceous perennials. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:267–272.Google Scholar
3. Ahrens, J. F., and Cubanski, M. 1981. Herbicide trials in newly seeded hemlock, white spruce, white pine, and Douglas-fir. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:213–217.Google Scholar
4. Ahrens, J. F., Merrill, C. D., and Cubanski, M. 1976. Herbicides for conifer seedbeds. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ahrens, J. F., Stevenson, E. E., Cubanski, M., and Merrill, C. D. 1976. Herbicides for seedbeds of deciduous woody plants. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:277–282.Google Scholar
6. Barrett, M., and Ashton, F. M. 1981. Napropamide uptake, transport, and metabolism in corn (Zea mays) and tomato (Lycopersicum esculentus). Weed Sci. 29:697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Clay, D. V., Lawrie, J., and Richardson, W. B. 1988. New herbicides for forest seedbeds, pot experiments to evaluate crop tolerance. Aspects Appl. Biol. 16:223–230.Google Scholar
8. Elmore, C. L., Humphrey, W. A., and Mock, T. W. 1977. Effect of two pre-emergence herbicides on container-grown ornamentals progress report. Flower Nursery Rep., Coop. Ext, Univ. Calif., Fall 1977, p. 45.Google Scholar
9. Eshel, Y., Katan, J., and Polevitch, D. 1973. Selective action of diphenamid and napropamide in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) and weeds. Weed Res. 13:379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Geyer, W. A., Melichar, L., and Long, C. E. 1987. Preemergent herbicide trials with direct-seeded black locust grown in different soils. J. Aboric. 13:105–107.Google Scholar
11. Gjerstad, D. H., South, D. B., and Crowley, R. H. 1979. Effect of selected herbicides on production of southern pines (Pinus spp.) in the nursery seedbeds. Weed Sci. 27:173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hoagland, D. R., and Anion, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Univ. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347.Google Scholar
13. Jachetta, J. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Elmore, C. L. 1979. Differential susceptibility of two pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) species to napropamide. Weed Sci. 27:189–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Kozlowski, T. T., and Kuntz, J. F. 1963. Effects of simazine, atrazine, propazine, and Eptam on growth and development of pine seedlings. Soil Sci. 95:164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kuhns, L. J., Fine, A., and Leiby, R. 1982. Timing of herbicide applications in conifer seedbeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:243–244.Google Scholar
16. Mason, W. L., and Williamson, D. R. 1988. Recent research into weed control on seedbeds in forest nurseries. Aspects Appl. Biol. 16:231–238.Google Scholar
17. Schuurman, J. J., and Goedewaagen, M.A.J. 1971. Methods for the examination of root systems and roots. Cent. Agric. Publ. Doc., Wageningen.Google Scholar
18. South, D. B. 1977. Pre- and post-emergent weed control in forest nurseries. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:269–278.Google Scholar
19. Warmund, M. R., Geyer, W. A., and Long, C. E. 1983. Preemergent herbicides for direct seeding Kentucky coffeetree, honeylocust and black locust. Tree Planters' Notes 34:24–27.Google Scholar
20. Wu, C. H., Buehring, N., Davidson, J. M., and Santelmann, P. W. 1975. Napropamide adsorption, desorption, and movement in soils. Weed Sci. 23:454–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Zilkah, S., Bocion, P. F., and Gressel, J. 1978. Target tissue for napropamide inhibition: effects on green and white callus cultures and seedlings. Weed Sci. 26:711–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar