Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:42:46.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Sensitivity of Several Plants to Diphenamid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Deli  and
G. F. Warren
J. Deli
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concentration of N,N-dimethyl-2,2-diphenylacetamide (diphenamid) required to cause 50% growth inhibition (I50) of the shoots or roots in soil, or the roots in a bioassay, was determined for several species. of the plants tested, grasses were the most sensitive, while Solanaceae were among the most tolerant to diphenamid. Based on shoot inhibition, the sensitivity difference between the sensitive foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) and the tolerant pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) was 150 fold. Highly significant correlations among the I50 values indicate that any of the three methods would be satisfactory for measuring the sensitivity of species to diphenamid.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 70 - 72
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. Andersen, R. N. and Ziebart, D. J. 1968. Evaluation of herbicides in a soybean weed nursery. Res. Rept. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 25:102–106.Google Scholar
2. Cialone, J. C. and Lassiter, G. 1968. Studies on the field performance preplant and preemergence application of diphenamid. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 22:236–239.Google Scholar
3. Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. A simplified method for determining phytotoxicity, leaching and adsorption of herbicides in soil. Weeds 15:115–118.Google Scholar
4. Gentner, W. A. 1962. Promising new chemicals for weed control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 16:23–26.Google Scholar
5. LeBaron, H. M. 1962. Progress report on chemical weed control in leaf crops of Eastern Virginia. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 16:92–98.Google Scholar
6. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
7. Scudder, N. T. 1968. Weed control in spinach on the organic soils of central Florida. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 21:194–197.Google Scholar
8. Sweet, R. D., Cialone, J. C. and Bayer, G. 1962. Some promising uses of Du Pont 326 a new substituted urea herbicide. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 16:60–63.Google Scholar
9. Wisk, E. L. and Cole, R. H. 1967. Herbicide combinations in soybeans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 21:358–365.Google Scholar