Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:38:00.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Processing Peas (Pisum sativum) and Annual Weeds to Acetanilide Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. L. Jordan  and
R. G. Harvey
G. L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative effectiveness of eight acetanilide herbicides for controlling annual weeds in processing peas (Pisum sativum L.) was evaluated in field studies and the susceptibility of peas to injury from these herbicides was studied in both the field and greenhouse. Alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] was the most phytotoxic to peas grown in washed silica sand in the greenhouse when the herbicides were applied at concentrations of 2 and 8 mg/L. Field trials conducted over a 2-yr period and simulated rainfall experiments in the greenhouse demonstrated that the phytotoxicity to peas by acetanilide herbicides applied preemergence at 2.2 and 4.5 kg/ha was greatly influenced by subsequent rainfall. When 2.5 cm of simulated rainfall were applied immediately after herbicide application, pea injury increased. Injury to peas was avoided in the field by delaying alachlor application at 2.2 kg/ha until peas began to emerge. This treatment also gave excellent control of annual grass weeds. Greenhouse studies demonstrated that injury to peas by all eight acetanilide herbicides at 2.2 and 4.5 kg/ha could be avoided by delaying application until pea emergence. Alachlor, propachlor (2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide), and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] gave slightly superior weed control than butachlor [N-(butoxymethyl)diethylacetanilide] and H 22234 [N-chloroacetyl-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-glycine ethyl ester].

Keywords

Simulated rainfallphytotoxicitycrop yield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , July 1978 , pp. 313 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. 1977. Chemical retention in soils. Pages 153–169 in Weed Science: Principles. West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
2. Harvey, R. G. and Gritton, E. T. 1973. Annual weed control in canning peas. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 30:36–37.Google Scholar
3. Harvey, R. G. and Jacques, G. L. 1977. Dinitroaniline herbicides for weed control in processing peas. Weed Sci. 25:256–259.Google Scholar
4. Harvey, R. G., Gritton, E. T., and Doersch, R. E. 1972. Effects of selected herbicides on annual weed control and production of processing peas. Agron. J. 64:812–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Harvey, R. G., Hagedorn, D. J., and DeLoughery, R. L. 1975. Influences of herbicides on root rot in processing peas. Crop Sci. 15:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Harvey, R. G. and Gritton, E. T. 1977. Susceptibility of pea cultivars to trifluralin. Weed Sci. 25:23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lueschen, W. E. and Anderson, R. N. 1976. Control of black nightshade in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 31:93.Google Scholar
8. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Vostral, H. J. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1966. Pea responses to MCPB applications at different growth stages. Crop Sci. 6:313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar