Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:47:04.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trifluralin—Systemic Insecticide Interactions on Seedling Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. Fred Arle
H. Fred Arle*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, Phoenix, Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In greenhouse experiments, soil-incorporated combinations of 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-methyl]-phosphorodithioate (phorate) or 0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-ethyl]-phosphorodithioate (disulfoton) with a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) resulted in increased cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedling growth as compared to trifluralin used alone. This result apparently was due to the greater numbers of secondary roots in the zone of incorporation. Phorate was more effective than disulfoton in overcoming the inhibitory effect of trifluralin on secondary root development. A comparison of granular and emulsifiable phorate showed no advantage for either formulation. The combination of phorate and trifluralin in a 1-inch soil core, into which seeds of cotton were planted and surrounded by trifluralin-treated soil, also increased secondary root development as compared to using trifluralin alone.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 430 - 432
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. Powell, Richards, Anna Beth, and Wayne Whitworth, J. 1967. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weeds 15:224–228.Google Scholar
2. Hacskaylo, J., Walker, J. K., and Pires, E. G. 1964. Response of cotton seedlings to combinations of preemergence herbicides and systemic insecticides. Weeds 12:288–291.Google Scholar
3. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1965. Time and method of incorporation of preplant applications of trifluralin in cotton. Res. Prog. Rep. WWCC. p. 79.Google Scholar
4. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1966. Combinations of preplanting and layby applications of herbicides in irrigated cotton. Res. Prog. Rep. WWCC. p. 60.Google Scholar
5. Kempen, H. M., Carter, C. H., Lange, A. H., Fisher, B. B., and Ford, H. P. 1965. Results with trifluralin in 1964 California cotton. Res. Prog. Rep. WWCC. p. 80.Google Scholar
6. Nash, R. G. 1967. Phytotoxic pesticide interactions in soil. Agron. J. 59:227–230.Google Scholar
7. Standifer, L. C. and Thomas, C. H. 1965. Response of Johnsongrass to soil-incorporated trifluralin. Weeds 13:302–306.Google Scholar