Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-rcs6z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T02:49:53.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Phytotoxicity of Trifluralin and Nitralin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. L. Barrentine  and
G. F. Warren
W. L. Barrentine
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative phytotoxicity of α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) and 4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylaniline (nitralin) on several plant species indicated trifluralin was more toxic than nitralin to the shoots while nitralin was more toxic than trifluralin to the roots. An E0 concentration, defined as that concentration required to prevent seedling emergence, was established for trifluralin on nearly all species assayed. Nitralin did not prevent emergence of any species. Trifluralin was more toxic than nitralin to the shoots of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, var. RS-610) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus L., var. Wis. SMR-15 and Pioneer) via shoot exposure. Nitralin was more toxic than trifluralin to the roots via root exposure. A comparison of the phytotoxicity through vapor activity showed trifluralin was much more toxic than nitralin.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 31 - 37
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, W. P., Richards, A. B., and Whitworth, J. W. 1968. Leaching of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin in soil columns. Weed Sci. 16:165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bardsley, C. E., Savage, K. E., and Walker, J. C. 1968. Trifluralin behavior in soil. II. Volatilization as influenced by concentration, time, soil moisture content, and placement. Agron. J. 60:89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Barry, Robert J., Hernandez, T., and Etzel, W. W. 1968. Evaluation of herbicides for cucurbits. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 21:171–177.Google Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C. 1968. Preplant, preemergence, and postemergence herbicides for soybeans. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 25:111–112.Google Scholar
5. Cialone, J. C. and Schales, F. D. 1966. Combinations of herbicides and plastic mulch for weed control in muskmelon and cucumbers. Proc. North East. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:76–80.Google Scholar
6. Dallyn, S. L. and Sawyer, R. L. 1963. Results of herbicide trials on onions, tomatoes, and strawberries. Proc. North East. Weed Contr. Conf. 17:98–103.Google Scholar
7. Davis, D. W. and Sweet, R. D. 1968. Subsurface applications of herbicides for vegetables. Proc. North East. Weed Contr. Conf. 22:89–94.Google Scholar
8. Doll, J. D., and Meggitt, W. F. 1967. Preemergence and preplant weed control in soybeans. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 24:148.Google Scholar
9. Doll, J. D. and Meggitt, W. F. 1968. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in Michigan soybeans. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 25:107–108.Google Scholar
10. Esau, Katherine. 1964. Anatomy of seed plants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 376 p.Google Scholar
11. Eshel, Y. and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root vs shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.Google Scholar
12. Fink, R. J. 1967. Preplant and preemergence herbicides for weed control in soybeans. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 24:137–138.Google Scholar
13. Fletchall, O. H. and Pryor, J. D. 1967. Wild cane control in soybeans. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 24:135.Google Scholar
14. Frans, R. E. 1968. Some implications of early and double applications of herbicides for preemergence control in cotton. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 21:75 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
15. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 347. 31 p.Google Scholar
16. Ketchersid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17: 484–485.Google Scholar
17. McGlamery, M. D. and Knake, E. L. 1966. Combinations of atrazine with trifluralin or SD-11831 on corn. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:91–92.Google Scholar
18. McWhorter, C. G. and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1961. Phytotoxicity of s-triazines to corn and weeds as related to structural differences. Weeds 9:592–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Nuland, D. S. and Boyes, C. 1968. Weed control and stand establishment in pickling cucumbers at Lincoln, Nebraska in 1968. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 25:28–29.Google Scholar
20. Oliver, L. R. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
21. Orr, J. E., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1969. The effect of incorporation procedure on nitralin activity. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:42.Google Scholar
22. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
23. Savage, K. E. and Barrentine, W. L. 1969. Trifluralin persistence as affected by depth of soil incorporation. Weed Sci. 17:349–352.Google Scholar
24. Schultz, D. P., Funderburk, H. H. Jr., and Negi, N. S. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on growth, morphology, and nucleic acid synthesis. Plant Physiol. 43:265–273.Google Scholar
25. Talbert, R. E. 1967. The relative selectivity of some soil applied herbicides in soybeans. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 20: 375–379.Google Scholar