Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:10:51.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fluometuron-Disulfoton Interactions in Cotton as Affected by Soil Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. E. Savage  and
H. W. Ivy
K. E. Savage
Affiliation:
S. Weed Sci. Res. Lab., Agr. Res. Ser., U.S. Dep. Agr., Stoneville, MS. 38776
H. W. Ivy
Affiliation:
Delta Branch, Mississippi Agr. and Forest. Exp. Sta., Stoneville, MS. 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the activity of fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α-α-α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] and disulfoton [o,o-diethyl s-(ethylthio ethyl) phosphorodithioate] alone and in combination on the height of seedling cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in 10 light-textured soils from the lower alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River. An antogonistic interaction was demonstrated between the two pesticides in six of the soils studied. The phytotoxic effects of high rates of fluometuron applied preemergence were decreased by granular application of disulfoton. This interaction was repeated in four of the soils and was modified but not eliminated by partial sterilization of the soils, by autoclaving, or by fumigation before treatment. Correlation analyses detected no significant association between the antagonistic interaction and any measurable soil property in the 10 soils. Three field studies failed to demonstrate this interaction. Neither the greenhouse nor the field studies revealed any deleterious interaction between these two chemicals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 1973 , pp. 275 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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. Darding, R. L. and Freeman, J. F. 1968. Residual phytotoxicity of fluometuron in soils. Weed Sci. 16:226–229.Google Scholar
2. Erwin, D. C. and Reynolds, H. T. 1958. The effect of seed treatment of cotton with Thimet, a systemic insecticide, on Rhizoctonia and Pythium seedling diseases. Plant Dis. Rep. 42:174–176.Google Scholar
3. Hacskaylo, J. and Raney, C. D. 1961. Emergence of phorate-treated cottonseed as affected by substrate moisture and temperature. J. Econ. Entomol. 54:296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hacskaylo, J. and Stewart, R. B. 1962. Efficacy of phorate as a fungicide. Phytopathology 52:371–372.Google Scholar
5. Hacskaylo, J., Walker, J. K. Jr., and Pires, E. G. 1964. Response of cotton seedlings to combinations of preemergence herbicides and systemic insecticides. Weeds 12:288–291.Google Scholar
6. Nash, R. G. 1967. Phytotoxic pesticide interactions in soil. Agron. J. 59:227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Parencia, C. R. Jr., Davis, J. W., and Cowan, C. B. Jr. 1957. Control of early season cotton insects with systemic insecticide employed as seed treatments. J. Econ. Entomol. 50: 31–36.Google Scholar
8. Reynolds, H. T., Fukute, T. R., Metcalf, R. L., and March, R. B. 1957. Seed treatment of field crops with systemic insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 50:527–539.Google Scholar
9. Sheets, T. J. 1958. The comparative phytotoxicities of four phenylurea herbicides in several soil types. Weeds 6:413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Swanson, C. R. and Swanson, H. R. 1968. Inhibition of degradation of monuron in cotton leaf tissue by carbamate insecticide. Weed Sci. 16:481–484.Google Scholar
11. Upchurch, R. P. and Mason, D. D. 1962. The influence of soil organic matter on the phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weeds 10:9–14.Google Scholar