Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:58:48.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compatibility of Diclofop and BAS 9052 with Bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James R. Campbell  and
Donald Penner
James R. Campbell
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Pesticide Res. Center, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Pesticide Res. Center, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BAS 9052 {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)-butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one} effectively controlled annual grasses in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] alone or in combination with bentazon [3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide] in greenhouse and field experiments. The activity of diclofop {2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoic acid} on annual grasses was reduced if combined with bentazon in a tank mixture. The wettable powder formulation of bentazon, as well as a day temperature of 30 C, slightly reduced the antagonistic interaction from that of the emulsifiable concentrate formulation of bentazon or a day temperature of 15 C. In greenhouse studies ‘Corsoy’ soybean plants were injured by the diclofop-bentazon combination. In field studies, however, the injury was not sufficient to reduce grain yields.

Keywords

Interactionantagonism
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , September 1982 , pp. 458 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Andersen, R. N. 1976. Response of monocotyledons to HOE 22870 and HOE 23408. Weed Sci. 24:266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chandler, J. M. 1980. Recent equipment and chemicals for bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. Pers.) control in cotton. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 14.Google Scholar
3. Chow, P.N.P. 1978. Selectivity and site of action in relation to field performance of diclofop. Weed Sci. 26:352–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dortenzio, W. A. and Norris, R. F. 1979. Antagonistic effects of desmedipham on diclofop activity. Weed Sci. 27:539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Giannopolitis, C. N. and Strouthopoulos, Th.G. 1979. Herbicide tank-mixing for postemergence weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Res. 19:213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hagood, E. S. Jr., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Bauman, T. T. 1980. Influence of herbicide injury on the yield potential of soybean (Glycine max . Weed Sci. 28:40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hargar, T. R. and Vidrine, P. R. 1980. Control of itchgrass (Rottboella exaltata L.F.) in soybeans. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 28–29.Google Scholar
8. McAvoy, W. J., Hendrik, L. W., Veenstra, M. A., Sciarappa, W. J., Schroeder, M., and Tasker, A. 1980. Selective postemergence perennial grass control with BAS 9052 OH. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 13–14.Google Scholar
9. Pearson, J. O. 1980. Postemergence graminicide for broadleaf crops. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 114.Google Scholar
10. Putnam, A. R. and Penner, D. 1974. Pesticide interactions in higher plants. Residue Rev. 50:73–110.Google Scholar
11. Rao, S. R. and Sweet, R. D. 1977. Weed and crop response to methyl 2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoate (HOE 23408). I. Rates, timing, and environmental factors. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 43.Google Scholar
12. Woldetatios, T. and Harvey, R. G. 1977. Diclofop and bentazon interactions on soybeans and annual weeds. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:42–43.Google Scholar