Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T03:25:12.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytotoxicity of Fluometuron and Its Derivatives to Cotton and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B. Rubin  and
Y. Eshel
B. Rubin
Affiliation:
Dep. of Field and Vegetable Crops, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agr., Rehovot, Israel
Y. Eshel
Affiliation:
Dep. of Field and Vegetable Crops, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agr., Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phytotoxicity of 1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea (fluometuron) and three of its analogs was studied on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), foxtail (Setaria sp.), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Fluometuron was the most active compound, and the demethylated derivative and aniline analog were the least phytotoxic. The activity of the monomethyl analog of fluometuron, when applied via nutrient solution and to clay soil, was about 50% and 70% of the parent compound, respectively. Photosynthesis in cotton and redroot pigweed was inhibited by fluometuron, to a lesser degree by the monomethyl analog, and not at all by the demethyl and aniline analogs. Cotton was most tolerant, and only slight differences were found between the susceptibility of foxtail and redroot pigweed. These differences in response to fluometuron and its metabolites may contribute to the differential response between cotton and weeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , September 1971 , pp. 592 - 594
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. Dalton, R. L., Evans, A. W., and Rhodes, R. C. 1966. Disappearance of diuron from cotton field soils. Weeds 14:31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Eshel, Y. 1969. Tolerance of cotton to diuron, fluometuron, norea, and prometryne. Weed Sci. 17:492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Geissbühler, H. 1969. The substituted ureas, p. 79–111. In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D. Degradation of Herbicides. Marcel Dekker. Inc., New York.Google Scholar
4. Geissbühler, H., Haselbach, C., Aebi, H., and Ebner, L. 1963. The fate of N′-(4-chlorophenoxy)-phenyl-N,N-dimethylurea (C-1983) in soils and plants. III. Breakdown in soils and plants. Weed Res. 3:277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Goren, R. 1969. The effect of fluometuron on the behaviour of citrus leaves. Weed Res. 9:121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Moreland, D. E. and Hill, K. L. 1962. Interference of herbicides with the Hill reaction of isolated chloroplasts. Weeds 10:229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Rogers, R. L. and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1968. Physiological aspects of fluometuron in cotton and cucumber. J. Agr. Food Chem. 16:434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Smith, J. W. and Sheets, T. J. 1967. Uptake, distribution, and metabolism of monuron and diuron by several plants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:577–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Umbreit, W. W., Burris, R. H., and Stauffer, J. F. 1964. Manometric Techniques and Tissue Metabolism. 4th edition. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota. 305 p.Google Scholar
10. Voss, G. and Geissbühler, H. 1966. The uptake, translocation, and metabolism of fluometuron and metobromuron in plants. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 8:266–268.Google Scholar