Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T01:33:24.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Soybeans (Glycine max) and Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to Fluometuron Residue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. W. Jackson ,
L. S. Jeffery  and
T. C. McCutchen
A. W. Jackson
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee
L. S. Jeffery
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
T. C. McCutchen
Affiliation:
Milan Field Station, Milan, TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted for a 3-yr period to determine the feasibility of planting an alternate crop on fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] treated cotton land in event that an adequate cotton (Gossypium hirustum L.) stand fails to materialize. Fluometuron treatments were 1.7 kg/ha on a treated area basis as a banded application, and 1.7 and 3.4 kg/ha as a broadcast application. Grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘AKS-614’, ‘Excel’ and ‘BR 64’] and soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Dare’ and ‘Lee 68’] were planted 3, 6, and 9 weeks after fluometuron application. Grain sorghum and soybean tolerance to fluometuron residues varied between locations. Very little injury occurred on the Sequatchie loam in Knoxville, Tennessee, but considerable injury occurred on the Memphis silt loam at Milan, Tennessee. The differences were attributed to higher rainfall during the first 3-week period and to higher organic matter and higher sand content at Knoxville. Nevertheless, at Milan, grain sorghum was successfully grown 3 weeks after the 1.7 kg/ha banded application, 6 weeks after the 1.7 kg/ha broadcast application and 9 weeks after the 3.4 kg/ha application. Soybeans, also at Milan, were partially injured when planted between the fluometuron (1.7 kg/ha) treated bands 6 weeks after application and 9 weeks after application when planted on the 1.7 kg/ha broadcast-treated areas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 1978 , pp. 454 - 458
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. Dowler, Clyde C. and Hauser, E. W. 1975. Weed control systems in cotton on Tifton loamy sand soil. Weed Sci. 23:40–42.Google Scholar
2. Darding, R. L., and Freeman, J. F. 1968. Residual phytotoxicity of fluometuron in soils. Weed Sci. 16:226–229.Google Scholar
3. Davidson, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1968. Displacement of fluometuron and diuron through saturated glass beads and soil. Weeds 16:544–548.Google Scholar
4. Overton, Joseph R., Jeffery, L. S., Chambers, A. Y., and McCutcheon, T. C. 1972. A comparison of preemergence herbicides for cotton. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. 84:16–19.Google Scholar
5. Rubin, R. and Eshel, Y. 1971. Phytotoxicity of fluometuron and its derivatives to cotton and weeds. Weed Sci. 19:592–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Savage, K. E. and Wauchope, R. D. 1974. Fluometuron absorption-desorption equilibria in soil. Weed Sci. 22:106–110.Google Scholar
7. Weber, J. B., Weed, S. B., and Waldrep, T. W. 1974. Effect of soil constituents on herbicide activity in modified soil field plots. Weed Sci. 22:454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar