Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T07:02:38.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Soil-moisture Content on the Response of Cotton to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert P. Upchurch
Robert P. Upchurch*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State College. Currently on leave-of-absence with the United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
Get access

Extract

The moisture content of soils is frequently reported to have an important effect upon the phytotoxicity of herbicides. Yet, specific experimental results establishing such relationships are, for the most part, lacking. Most moisture studies with herbicides have been designed to evaluate the effect of applied water on leaching and its indirect effect on volatilization and breakdown by exposure to sunlight. Some studies have shown the effect of moisture content on the rate of herbicide breakdown. Research on the fate of herbicides in soils has been summarized by Hill et al. and Ogle and Warren. The experiments reported here were designed to establish the effect of soil-moisture content per se upon the response of cotton to 3–(3,4–dichlorophenyl)–1,1-dimethylurea (diuron), isopropyl–N–(3–chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC) and 4,6–dinitro ortho secondary butylphenol (DNBP) as the alkanolamine salts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1957 , pp. 112 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © 1957 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. Aldrich, Richard J. and Willard, C. J. Factors affecting the pre-emergence use of 2,4–D in corn. Weeds 1:338–345. 1952.Google Scholar
2. Brown, J. W. and Mitchell, J. W. Inactivation of 2,4–D in soils as affected by soil moisture, temperature, manure and autoclaving. Bot. Gaz. 109:314–323. 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Davis, Franklin L. and Selman, Frank L. Effect of water upon the movement of dinitro weed killers in soils. Weeds 3:11–20. 1954.Google Scholar
4. Hawthorn, L. R., Timmons, F. L. and Lee, W. O. Promising herbicidal methods for the control of annual weeds in seed crops of onions. Weeds 3:345–350. 1954.Google Scholar
5. Hill, G. D., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. Jour. 47:93–104. 1955.Google Scholar
6. Holstun, John T. Jr. and McWhorter, Chester G. A progress report on the pre-emergence use of CIPC, CMU, and DNOSBP for weed control in cotton. Proc. Southern Weed Conference, p. 5. 1953.Google Scholar
7. Kries, O. H. Persistence of 2,4–dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in soil in relation to content of water, organic matter and lime. Bot. Gaz. 108:510–525. 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. MacGillivray, John H. and Doneen, L. D. Soil moisture conditions as related to the irrigation of truck crops on mineral soils. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 40:483–492. 1942.Google Scholar
9. Ogle, R. E. and Warren, G. F. Fate and activity of herbicides in soils. Weeds 3:257–273. 1954.Google Scholar
10. Upchurch, Robert P. Field Studies during 1953 relating to the control of weeds in cotton in North Carolina. Proc. Southern Weed Conference, p. 119. 1954.Google Scholar