Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T10:28:42.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chorella vulgaris Assay of the Activity of Soil Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. A. Addison  and
C. E. Bardsley
C. E. Bardsley
Affiliation:
NDEA Fellow and Associate Professor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An assay technique utilizing Chlorella vulgaris Beijerinck gave highly significant responses to low concentrations of aqueous 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-l,l dimethylurea (monuron), 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (diuron), and 2,4-bis(isopropylamino)-6-methylmercapto-s-triazine (prometryne) following 6 days of incubation. Water extracts of diuron from soil assayed with this organism were highly correlated with diuron added to the soil. Similar correlations for oats (Avena sativa L.) grown on the soil and for diuron in the water extracts as dichloroaniline serve to substantiate the relative effectiveness of the method. Assay of soil samples from field residue plots taken 150 days after herbicidal application showed that active residues of diuron and prometryne were detectable by the organism. Although the chemical method was faster, it has the disadvantage of measuring any dichloroaniline residues rather than only the active residues. The method developed insures a considerable saving in time over herbicide assays involving higher plants and gives reasonably good quantitative data on low concentrations of toxic monuron, diuron, and prometryne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 427 - 429
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. Bishop, N. I. 1958. The influence of the herbicide, DCMU, on the oxygen-evolving system of photosynthesis. Biochem. et Biophys. Acta 27:205–206.Google Scholar
2. Bleidner, W. E., Baker, H. M., Levitsky, N. and Lowen, W. K. 1954. Determination of 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea in soil and plant tissue. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2:476–479.Google Scholar
3. Geoghegan, M. J. 1957. The effect of some substituted methyl-ureas on the respiration of Chlorella vulgaris var. viridis . New Phytol. 56:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gramlich, J. R. and Frans, R. E. 1964. Kinetics of Chlorella inhibition by herbicides. Weeds 12:184–189.Google Scholar
5. Maloney, T. E. 1958. Control of algae with chlorophenyl dimethylurea. J. Aimer. Water Works Assoc. 50:417–422.Google Scholar
6. Maloney, T. E. and Palmer, C. M. 1956. Toxicity of six chemical compounds to thirty cultures of algae. Water and Sewage Works 103:509.Google Scholar
7. Pease, H. L. 1962. Separation and colorimetric determination of monuron and diuron residues. J. Agr. Food Chem. 10:279–281.Google Scholar
8. Schweizer, E. E. and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1966. Persistence of five cotton herbicides in four southern soils. Weeds 14:22–26.Google Scholar
9. Wolf, F. T. 1962. Growth inhibition of Chlorella induced by 3-amino-l,2,4-triazole and its reversal by purines. Nature 193:901–902.Google Scholar