Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-15T21:59:29.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Periderm Formation in Hypocotyl of Gossypium hirsutum L. and its Effect upon Penetration of an Herbicidal Oil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. D. Palmer  and
W. B. Ennis Jr.
R. D. Palmer
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Physiology, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi
W. B. Ennis Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Physiology, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station Crops Protection Research Branch, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Get access

Extract

In using non-fortified oils for post-emergence weed control in cotton, it has been necessary to follow certain precautions because of differential plant response at different stages of cotton growth. Several workers emphasize that certain oils can be applied safely to young cotton hypocotyls three weeks after emergence, but as soon as small bark cracks begin to appear at the base of the stem, oil usually causes injury. Palmer and Ennis found that when an oil was applied to cotton stems 14 to 80 days old, it injured the stem, and reduced final yields when cotton was 27 to 59 days old at time of application. Plants less than 27 days old and more than 59 to 80 days old were not injured by the oil.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1960 , pp. 89 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © 1960 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. Baranov, P. A. The structure and development of the cotton plant. Ogis-Isogis, Moscow. 1937.Google Scholar
2. Bingham, S. W., Easley, T., Edwards, F. E., Harris, V. C., Holstun, J. T. Jr., Normand, W. C., and Wooten, O. B. Jr. Weed control recommendations. Mississippi Agric. Expt. Sta. Bul. 556. 1958.Google Scholar
3. Dallyn, S. Herbicidal action of oils. N. Y. Agric. Expt. Sta. Memoir 316:1–43. 1953.Google Scholar
4. Dallyn, S., and Sweet, R. D. Theories on the herbicidal action of petroleum hydrocarbons. Proc. Amer. Soc. for Hort. Sci. 57:347–354.Google Scholar
5. Esau, K. Plant Anatomy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1953.Google Scholar
6. Minshall, W. H., and Helson, V. A. The herbicidal action of oils. Proc. Amer. Soc. for Hort. Sci. 53:294–298. 1949.Google Scholar
7. Palmer, R. D., and Ennis, W. B. Jr. The effect of age of cotton upon its response to an herbicidal oil applied as a directed spray. Proc. SWC 6:106–115. 1953.Google Scholar
8. Sifton, H. B. Air space in plants. Bot. Rev. 11:108–143. 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. van Overbeek, J., and Blondeau, Rene. Mode of action of phytotoxic oils. Weeds 3:55–65. 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Webber, I. E. Anatomy of the leaf and stem of Gossypium. J. Agr. Res. 57:269–286. 1938.Google Scholar