Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:48:54.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Seed Response to Methyl Isothiocyanate and Metham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Teasdale  and
Ray B. Taylorson
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Weed Sci. Lab., Beltsville, MD 20705
Ray B. Taylorson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Weed Sci. Lab., Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methyl isothiocyanate (MIT) consistently killed large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSA] seed at concentations of 4.0 mM or greater. Concentrations of 0.6 to 1.0 mM MIT delayed germination of large crabgrass seed but ultimately allowed the majority of seed to germinate. Dormant large crabgrass seed were killed at concentrations of MIT similar to those required to kill nondormant seed. MIT stimulated germination of dormant large crabgrass seed at sublethal concentrations (0.1 to 1.0 mM). Experiments with metham (sodium methyldithiocarbamate) in the greenhouse and field (metham rapidly degrades to MIT in soils) confirmed results of laboratory experiments with MIT.

Keywords

GerminationdormancyDigitaria sanguinalisDIGSA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 1986 , pp. 520 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the 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. Adams, P. B. and Johnston, S. A. 1983. Factors affecting efficacy of metham applied through sprinkler irrigation for control of Allium white rot. Plant Dis. 67:978–980.Google Scholar
2. Adams, P. B., Johnston, S. A., Krikun, J., and Carpenter, H. E. 1983. Application of metham sodium by sprinkler irrigation to control lettuce drop caused by Sclerotinia minor . Plant Dis. 67:24–26.Google Scholar
3. Domsch, K. H. and Corden, M. E. 1970. Environmental influences on the sensitivity of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici to methylisothiocyanate. Phytopathology 60:1347–1350.Google Scholar
4. Gerstl, Z., Mingelgrin, U., Krikun, J., and Yaron, B. 1977. Behavior and effectiveness of Vapam applied to soil in irrigation water. Proc. of the Israel-France Symposium 1975: Behavior of Pesticides in Soil. Special Publ. 82:42–50.Google Scholar
5. Gerstl, Z., Mingelgrin, U., and Yaron, B. 1977. Behavior of Vapam and methylisothiocyanate in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:545–548.Google Scholar
6. Goksoyr, J. 1964. Chemical and fungicidal reactions of 3,5-dimethyltetrahydro-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (3,5-D). A comparison with sodium N-methyl dithiocarbamate and methyl isothiocyanate. Acta Chem. Scand. 18:1341–1352.Google Scholar
7. Gray, R. 1984. Vapam. Pages 177–183 in Zweig, G., ed. Analytical Methods for Pesticides, Plant Growth Regulators, and Food Additives. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Krikun, J. and Frank, Z. R. 1982. Metham sodium applied by sprinkler irrigation to control pod rot and verticillium wilt of peanut. Plant Dis. 66:128–130.Google Scholar
9. Phatak, S. C. 1982. Effect of metham sodium applied through overhead irrigation systems on weed control and yield of vegetables. Proc. Second Nat. Symp. on Chemigation. Pages 23–27.Google Scholar
10. Pieczarka, S. J. and Warren, G. F. 1960. The influence of concentration of fumigant and time of exposure on the killing of dormant imbibed seeds. Weeds 8:612–615.Google Scholar
11. Putnam, A. R. 1983. Allelopathic chemicals: Nature's herbicides in action. Chem. Eng. News 61:34–45.Google Scholar
12. Richardson, L. T. and Thorn, G. D. 1969. Comparative fungitoxicity and phytotoxicity of sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate and its n-alkyl homologues. Can. J. Bot. 47:241–245.Google Scholar
13. Smelt, J. H. and Leistra, M. 1974. Conversion of metham-sodium to methyl isothiocyanate and basic data on the behavior of methyl isothiocyanate in soil. Pestic. Sci. 5:401–407.Google Scholar
14. Teasdale, J. R., Adams, P. B., and Johnston, S. A. 1983. Weed control after chemigation with low rates of metham. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:258–262.Google Scholar
15. Wedding, R. T. and Kendrick, J. B. Jr. 1959. Toxicity of N-methyl dithiocarbamate and methyl isothiocyanate to Rhizoctonia solani . Phytopathology 49:557–561.Google Scholar
16. Wilson, R. E. and Courtney, A. D. 1981. An evaluation of the selective herbicidal activity of soil sterilants based on methylisothiocyanate. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symp. Theory and practice of the use of soil applied herbicides. Pages 291–298.Google Scholar
17. Wolf, R. B., Spencer, G. F., and Kwolek, W. F. 1984. Inhibition of velvetleaf germination and growth by benzyl isothiocyanate, a natural toxicant. Weed Sci. 32:612–615.Google Scholar