Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T00:04:03.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Light and Temperature on Bentazon Phytotoxicity to Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Teasdale  and
Richard W. Thimijan
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Beltsville, MD 20705
Richard W. Thimijan
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In greenhouse and growth-chamber studies, increasing the level of either light or temperature increased bentazon [3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide] phytotoxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Light had a greater influence on phytotoxicity than did temperature. Light and temperature conditions after bentazon application had a greater influence on phytotoxicity than did light and temperature conditions before application. Maximum phytotoxicity was obtained from treatment with low light level before application and high light level after application.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1983 , pp. 232 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Borner, H. 1979. Causes of the selective action of the photosynthetic inhibitors phenmedipham and bentazon. Z. Naturforsch. 34:926–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Davies, L. G., Cobb, A. H., and Taylor, F. E. 1979. The susceptibility of Chenopodium album to bentazone under different environmental conditions. Proc. European Weed Res. Soc. Symposium. The Influence of Different Factors on the Development and Control of Weeds. Mainz. pp. 97–104.Google Scholar
3. Hayes, R. M. and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential intraspecific responses of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Koukkari, W. L. and Johnson, M. A. 1979. Oscillations of leaves of Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf) and their sensitivity to bentazon in relation to low and high humidity. Physiol. Plant. 47:158–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Mahoney, M. D. and Penner, D. 1975. The basis for bentazon selectivity in navy bean, cocklebur, and black nightshade. Weed Sci. 23:272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Mine, Akihiko, Miyakado, M., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. The mechanism of bentazon selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Nalewaja, J. D. and Adamczewski, K. A. 1977. Uptake and translocation of bentazon with additives. Weed Sci. 25:309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Nalewaja, J. D. and Adamczewski, K. A. 1977. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) control with bentazon plus additives. Weed Sci. 25:506–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Penner, Donald. 1975. Bentazone selectivity between soybean and Canada thistle. Weed Res. 15:259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Potter, J. R. and Wergin, W. P. 1975. The role of light in bentazon toxicity to cocklebur: physiology and ultrastructure. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:458–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wills, G. D. 1976. Translocation of bentazon in soybeans and common cocklebur. Weed Sci. 24:536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar