Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T11:47:46.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antagonistic Responses with Combinations of Carbamate and Growth Regulator Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. N. Prendeville ,
C. S. James ,
G. F. Warren  and
M. M. Schreiber
G. N. Prendeville
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
C. S. James
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep, of Agr., Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
M. M. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep, of Agr., Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antagonistic responses were noted on sorghum (Sorghum vulgare pers.) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberii Herrm.) using preemergence combinations of (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D) and the carbamates S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (chlorpropham), and 2-chloroallyl diethyldithiocarbamate (CDEC). Combinations of EPTC and (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T) or 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid (dicamba) gave similar results. Effects of these combinations were mainly additive on four dicotyledonous species. Combinations of 2,4-D and N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid (naptalam) also were antagonistic on sorghum and giant foxtail but were additive on the remaining species. Eight other herbicide combinations were mainly additive on all six species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 1969 , pp. 307 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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. Arle, Fred H. 1967. Increasing the tolerance of cotton seedlings to herbicides by soil application of trifluralin. Proc. WWCC 21:36.Google Scholar
2. Colby, S. R., Wojtaszek, T., and Warren, G. F. 1965. Synergistic and antagonistic combinations for broadening herbicidal selectivity. Weeds 13:87–91.Google Scholar
3. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
4. Hoffmann, O. L. 1962. Chemical seed treatments as herbicidal antidoes. Weeds 10:322–323.Google Scholar
5. Mentzer, C., Mohlo, D., and Pacheco, H. 1950. Relation between chemical structure and inhibition of plant tropisms. Bull. Soc. Chim. Biol., Paris 32:572–582.Google Scholar
6. Oliver, R., Prendeville, G. N., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Species difference in site of root uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:534–537.Google Scholar
7. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
8. Prendeville, G. N., Eshel, Y., Schreiber, M. M., and Warren, G. F. 1967. Site of uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Pfeiffer, R. K., Baker, C., and Holmes, H. M. 1960. Factors affecting the selectivity of barban for the control of Avena fatua in wheat and barley. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 5:441–452.Google Scholar