Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:43:21.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of Six Substituted Dinitrobenzamine Herbicides Applied at Layby of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. H. Miller  and
C. H. Carter
J. H. Miller
Affiliation:
Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
C. H. Carter
Affiliation:
Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six substituted dinitrobenzamine herbicides, including butralin [4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N-(1-methylpropyl)-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine), fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)aniline], pendimethalin [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], profluralin [N-(cyclopropylmethyl)-α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-p-toluidine], and trifluralin (α,α,α,-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine), were evaluated as directed broadcast sprays applied and soil incorporated at time of last cultivation (layby) of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Acala SJ-2’). At the rates used, all herbicides provided more than 90% control of annual grasses. During 1976 and 1977, control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) ranged from 90 to 100% and none of the herbicides differed significantly in their effect. However in 1975, butralin at 1.1 kg/ha did not improve pigweed control when compared to the untreated control. None of the herbicides consistently controlled black nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.) and except pendimethalin, none caused detectable cotton injury. In 2 of 3 yr, pendimethalin caused enlarged growth of the cotton stem in the cotyledonary node area contacted by the herbicide spray. Stem breakage following wind occurred in about 5% of the cotton plants; however, the injury was not manifested by reduced yield. None of the herbicides influenced cotton yield. Residues from soil samples collected 4 months after herbicide application reduced growth of Japanese millet [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. var. frumentacea (Link) Wright]3 and grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] 24 to 49%.

Keywords

Soil incorporationlast cultivationdirected spraysweed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , March 1980 , pp. 212 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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. Anderson, W. P., Richards, A. B., and Whitworth, J. W. 1967. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weeds 15:224–227.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:31–37.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Shoot zone activity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:37–41.Google Scholar
4. Bayer, D. E., Foy, C. L., Mallory, T. E., and Cutter, E. G. 1967. Morphological and histological effects of trifluralin on root development. Am. J. Bot. 54:945–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gentner, W. A. and Burk, L. G. 1968. Gross morphological and cytological effects on nitralin on corn roots. Weed Sci. 16:259–260.Google Scholar
6. Hacskaylo, Joseph and Amato, V. A. 1968. Effects of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Sci. 16:513–515.Google Scholar
7. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1976. Preplanting applications of dinitroanilines in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Harvey, R. G. 1973. Field comparison of twelve dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:512–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Harvey, R. G. 1973. Relative phytotoxicity of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:517–520.Google Scholar
10. Kust, C. A. and Struckmeyer, B. E. 1971. Effect of trifluralin on growth, nodulation, and anatomy of soybean. Weed Sci. 19:147–152.Google Scholar
11. Miller, J. H. and Carter, C. H. 1976. Incorporation of herbicides at layby of cotton with sweep and rolling cultivators. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 29:177–187.Google Scholar
12. Miller, J. H. and Carter, C. H. 1978. Evaluation of substituted dinitrobenzamine herbicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) plantings. Weed Sci. 26:16–19.Google Scholar
13. Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Soil persistence of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 23. 211–214.Google Scholar
14. Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Thullen, R. J., and Carter, C. H. 1978. Persistence and movement of ten herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 26: 20–27.Google Scholar
15. Murray, D. S., Santelman, P. W., and Breer, H. A. L. 1973. Differential phytotoxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Agron. J. 65:34–36.Google Scholar
16. Probst, G. W., Golab, T., Herberg, R. J., Holzer, F. J., Parka, S. J., Van der Schan, C., and Tepe, J. B. 1967. Fate of trifluralin in soils and plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:592–599.Google Scholar
17. Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Aberrations in sugarbeet roots as induced by trifluralin. Weed Sci. 18:131–134.Google Scholar
18. Struckmeyer, B. E., Binning, L. K., and Harvey, R. G. 1976. Effect of dinitroaniline herbicides in a soil medium on snap bean and soybean. Weed Sci. 24:366–369.Google Scholar