Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:51:17.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Dodder Control with Granular CIPC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. H. Dawson
J. H. Dawson*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, Washington
Get access

Abstract

In the greenhouse, 20% granular isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC) at 6 lb/A provided 100% dodder control for 3 to 6 weeks. In the field, 95 to 100% control persisted beyond the expected soil life of CIPC because shade from the crop plants inhibited dodder development and dry soil reduced dodder germination. Effective control required uniform distribution on the soil before the dodder was wrapped on the host plant. CIPC was most effective when applied on the soil surface; incorporation ½, 1½, or 3 in deep reduced its effectiveness. It controlled dodder well if applied to moist soil but was less effective when the soil surface was dry. Partial shade from the crop at the time of application increased the effectiveness of CIPC. Under certain undefined conditions, CIPC applied to the soil injured attached dodder. However, it was consistently effective only on dodder seedlings before attachment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1966 , pp. 255 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 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. Allred, Keith R. and Tingey, D. C. 1964. Germination and spring emergence of dodder as influenced by temperature. Weeds 12:45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Prolonged emergence of field dodder. Weeds 13:373–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1966. Response of field dodder to shade. Weeds 14:4–5.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H., Lee, W. O., and Timmons, F. L. 1965. Controlling dodder in alfalfa. USDA Farmers' Bull. No. 2211.Google Scholar
5. Harris, C. I. and Sheets, T. J. 1964. Influence of soil properties on adsorption and phytotoxicity of CIPC, diuron, and simazine. Weeds 13:215–219.Google Scholar
6. Harris, C. I. and Warren, G. F. 1963. Adsorption and desorption of herbicides in soil. Weeds 12:120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kaufman, D. D. and Kearney, P. C. 1965. Microbial degradation of isopropyl-N-3-chrolophenylcarbamate and 2-chloroethyl-N-3-chlorophenylcarbamate. Appl. Microbiol. 13:443–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Lee, W. O. and Timmons, F. L. 1954. CIPC gives promise of controlling dodder in alfalfa. Utah Agr. Expt. Sta. Farm and Home Sci. 15:3, 20–22.Google Scholar
9. Lee, W. O. and Timmons, F. L. 1956. Evaluation of pre-emergence and stubble treatments for control of dodder in alfalfa seed crops. Agron J. 48:6–10.Google Scholar
10. Ogle, R. E., and Warren, G. F. 1954. Fate and activity of herbicides in soils. Weeds 3:257–273.Google Scholar
11. Pray, Blaine O. and Witman, Eugene D. 1953. Comments: on distribution of CIPC in soil. Weeds 2:300–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Truscott, F. H. 1958. On the regeneration of new shoots from isolated dodder haustoria. Am. J. Botan. 45:169–177.Google Scholar