Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T09:35:29.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy Comparisons of Alachlor and Metolachlor Formulations in the Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Henry P. Wilson ,
Thomas E. Hines ,
Kriton K. Hatzios  and
J. Peyton Doub
Henry P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agric. Exp. Stn., Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agric. Exp. Stn., Painter, VA 23420
Kriton K. Hatzios
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path., Physiol., Weed Sci., VA Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacks-burg, VA 24061
J. Peyton Doub
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path., Physiol., Weed Sci., VA Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacks-burg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In field studies conducted in 1984, 1985, and 1986, annual grass control by a microencapsulated (ME) formulation of alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamide] generally was greater than that by the emulsifiable concentrate (EC) in no-till and was comparable to EC-alachlor in conventionally tilled corn (Zea mays L.) and soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. In 1986, ME-metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] controlled annual grass similar to EC-metolachlor. In greenhouse studies, shoot height and fresh weight of barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCG] sown in pots and treated with ME-alachlor was significantly greater than that treated with EC-alachlor. Soybean straw on the soil surface did not affect the differences between alachlor formulations in the greenhouse.

Keywords

Digitaria sanguinalisEchinochloa crus-galliPanicum dichotomiflorumSetaria faberimicroencapsulated formulationsstraw residueDIGSAECHCGPANDISETFA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 24 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, E. L. 1984. The fate of oryzalin applied to straw mulched and nonmulched soils. Weed Sci. 32:269–272.Google Scholar
3. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, E. L. 1986. Soil reception and activity of acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor as affected by wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw and irrigation. Weed Sci. 34:607–611.Google Scholar
4. Doub, J. P., and Wilson, H. P. 1987. Alachlor and metolachlor formulation comparisons. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:69.Google Scholar
5. Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Comparative efficacy of two formulations of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 36:In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1987. Chloroacetamide comparisons in corn and soybeans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:36.Google Scholar
7. Erbach, D. C., and Lovely, W. G. 1975. Effect of plant residue on herbicide performance in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci. 23:512–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Lowder, S. W., and Weber, J. B. 1979. Atrazine retention by crop residues in reduced-tillage systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:303–307.Google Scholar
9. Strek, H. J., and Weber, J. B. 1981. Alachlor and metolachlor comparisons in conventional and reduced tillage systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:33–40.Google Scholar