Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:45:36.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phototoxicity and Persistence of Four Thiocarbamates in Five Soil Types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ephraim Koren ,
Chester L. Foy  and
Floyd M. Ashton
Ephraim Koren
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of California, Davis
Chester L. Foy
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Floyd M. Ashton
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phytotoxicity and the persistence of ethyl N,N-dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), S-propyl butylethylthiocarbamate (pebulate), ethyl N-ethyl-N-cyclohexylthiocarbamate (hereinafter referred to as R-2063), and S-2,3-dichloroallyl N,N-diisopropylthiolcarbamate (diallate) were studied in nutrient solution and in five soil types. Both in nutrient solution and in soil, EPTC was the most toxic to barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crusgalli (L) Beauv.], followed in order by pebulate, R-2063, and diallate. Herbicidal injury, as reflected by the morphological aberrations that occurred in treated plants, was much more severe than the reduction in fresh weight. Thus, toxicity studies based on plant height had greater validity than those based on weight. The initial toxicity of each herbicide was high in those soils low in organic matter and low in soils high in organic matter. The persistence of the four thiocarbamates in the soil was associated primarily with adsorptive forces and microbial degradation. In a soil with extremely large or small adsorptive capacity, there was rapid inactivation of the herbicides because of strong adsorption to the colloids or lack of adsorption with consequent loss by volatilization. Under the latter conditions, the microbial breakdown played only a secondary role. The herbicides persisted longer in soils with more moderate adsorptive capacities but were subjected to more striking degradation by microorganisms. The patterns and rates of inactivation of the four herbicides in a given soil were quite similar. A particular concentration of each herbicide stimulated growth in barnyardgrass, as reflected both in the fresh weights and in the heights of the plants. The nature of this stimulation was not determined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1968 , pp. 172 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Antognini, J. 1958. Activity of EPTC as affected by soil moisture at time of application. Proc. NEWCC 12:398.Google Scholar
2. Antognini, J., Dye, D. F., Probandt, G. F., and Curtis, R. 1959. Soil incorporation of selective herbicides. Proc. NEWCC 13:421–422.Google Scholar
3. Ashton, F. M. and Sheets, T. J. 1959. The relationship of soil adsorption of EPTC to oats injury in various soil types. Weeds 7:88–90.Google Scholar
4. Ashton, F. M. and Dunster, K. 1961. The herbicidal effect of EPTC, CDEC and CDAA on Echinochloa crusgalli with various depths of soil incorporation. Weeds 9:312–317.Google Scholar
5. Audus, L. J. 1964. Herbicide behavior in the soil, pp. 163–206. In Andus, L. J. (ed.) The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Crafts, A. S. 1935. The toxicity of sodium arsenite and sodium chlorate in four California soils. Hilgardia 9:459–498.Google Scholar
7. Danielson, L. L., Gentner, W. A., and Jansen, L. L. 1961. Persistence of soil incorporated EPTC and other carbamates. Weeds 9:463–476.Google Scholar
8. Danielson, L. L. and Gentner, W. A. 1964. Influence of air movement on persistence of EPTC in soil. Weeds 12:92–94.Google Scholar
9. Fang, S. C., Theisen, Patricia, and Freed, V. H. 1961. Effects of water evaporation, temperature and rates of application on the retention of EPTC in various soils. Weeds 9:569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Fredga, Arne, and Björn, Anita. 1965. Studies on synthetic growth substances XVI. Absolute configurations of some auxin-active thiocarbamates. Arkiv for Kemi 23(9):91–96.Google Scholar
11. Freed, V. H., Vernetti, J., and Montgomery, M. 1962. The soil behavior of herbicides as influenced by their physical properties. Proc. WWCC 19:21–36.Google Scholar
12. Hartley, G. S. 1964. Herbicide behavior in the soil, pp. 111–161. In Audus, L. J. (ed.) The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
13. Klingman, G. C. 1961. Weed Control as a Science. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 421 p.Google Scholar
14. Selleck, G. W. 1958. Various herbicides for wild out control. Res. Rep. of the Nat. Weed Comm. of Can., West. Sec. pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
15. Sheets, T. J. 1959. Effects of soil type and time of the herbicidal activity of CDAA, CDEC, and EPTC. Weeds 7:442–448.Google Scholar
16. Upchurch, R. P. and Mason, D. D. 1962. The influence of soil organic matter on the phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weeds 10:9–14.Google Scholar
17. Upchurch, R. P. 1964. The behavior of herbicides in the soil. Proc. Brit. WCC 7:1011–1018.Google Scholar
18. Van der Kerk, G. J. M., Van Rallte, M. H., Kaars Sijpes-teign, A., and Van der Veen, R. 1955. A new type of plant growth regulating substances. Nature 4476:308–310.Google Scholar
19. Vernetti, J. and Freed, V. H. 1963. Vapor loss of thiolcarbamates and 2,4-D esters from soil as a function of vapor pressure. Res. Prog. Rep. WWCC p. 82–83.Google Scholar