Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T16:31:49.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Substituted Dinitrobenzamine Herbicides in Cotton (Gossypium Lirsutum) Plantings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. H. Miller  and
C. H. Carter
J. H. Miller
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
C. H. Carter
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seven substituted dinitrobenzamine herbicides were evaluated at two rates as preplant soil-incorporated treatments for 2 yr. Herbicides were applied broadcast and incorporated 7 cm deep into a sandy loam with a power-driven rototiller before the preplanting irrigation and 3 weeks before crop planting. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Acala SJ-1’) stands were reduced by the higher rate of nitralin [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylaniline], dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-a,a,a-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine), fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)aniline], and AN 56477 [N,N-di-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-methylaniline]. Cotton yields were reduced by the higher rate of nitralin, dinitramine, and AN 56477. The poorest weed control was obtained with the lower rate of nitralin, AN 56477, and butralin [4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N-(1-methylpropyl)-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine]. A bioassay with Japanese millet [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. var. frumentacea (Roxb.) Wight] and grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] was used to evaluate herbicides remaining in soil sampled 1, 120, and 240 days after application. Residual herbicide phytotoxicity at 240 days indicated dinitramine < trifluralin (a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) = butralin < profluralin [N-(cyclopropylmethyl)-a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-p-toluidine] = AN 56477 < nitralin < fluchloralin. In greenhouse experiments, cotton taproot elongation was retarded by both rates of nitralin, dinitramine, and AN 56477 and by the higher rate of fluchloralin. All herbicides inhibited lateral roots of cotton in the herbicide-treated zone of soil, but butralin and profluralin caused the least inhibition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 16 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Weeds 15:224–227.Google Scholar
2. Bardsley, C. E., Savage, K. E., and Walker, J. C. 1968. Trifluralin in soils. II. Volatilization as influenced by concentration, time, soil moisture content and placement. Agron. J. 60:89–92.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:31–37.Google Scholar
4. Hallist, R. L. and Foy, C. L. 1971. Trifluralin interaction with soil constituents. Weed Sci. 19:11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1976. Preplanting applications of dinitroaniline in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Harvey, R. G. 1973. Field comparison of twelve dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:512–516.Google Scholar
7. Harvey, R. G. 1973. Relative phytotoxicity of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:517–520.Google Scholar
8. Harvey, R. G. 1974. Soil adsorption and volatility of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22:120–124.Google Scholar
9. Ketcherid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Messersmith, C. G., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1971. Biological and nonbiological dissipation of trifluralin from soil. Weed Sci. 19:285–290.Google Scholar
11. Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Soil persistence of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 23: 211–214.Google Scholar
12. Murray, D. S., Santelman, P. W., and Greer, H. A. L. 1973. Differential phytotoxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Agron. J. 65:34–36.Google Scholar
13. Oliver, L. R. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
14. Parka, S. J. and Tepe, J. B. 1969. The disappearance of trifluralin from field soils. Weed Sci. 17:119–122.Google Scholar
15. Savage, K. E. and Barrentine, W. L. 1969. Trifluralin persistence as affected by depth of soil incorporation. Weed Sci. 17:349–352.Google Scholar
16. Weber, J. B. and Monaco, T. J. 1972. Review of the chemical and physical properties of the substituted dinitroaniline herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:31–37.Google Scholar
17. Weise, A. F. and Hudspeth, E. B. Jr. 1968. Subsurface application and shallow incorporation of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 16: 494–498.Google Scholar
18. Weise, A. F., Chenault, E. W., and Hudspeth, E. B. Jr. 1969. Incorporation of preplant herbicides for cotton. Weed Sci. 17:481–483.Google Scholar
19. Wright, W. L. and Warren, G. W. 1965. Photochemical decomposition of trifluralin. Weeds 13:329–331.Google Scholar