Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:18:18.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of the Shoot of Giant Foxtail for Uptake of Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ellery L. Knake  and
Loyd M. Wax
Ellery L. Knake
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides were mixed with Drummer silty clay loam soil in 1-inch layers in the shoot, root, shoot and root, or seed zones for giant foxtail (Setaria faberii Herrm.). After 2 weeks in the greenhouse, foxtail tops were harvested and dry weights used as the measure of herbicidal effectiveness. All of the 11 herbicides evaluated caused a reduction in dry weight when placed in the shoot zone. When placed in the root zone, only 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (amiben) caused a reduction in dry weight. Most herbicides were just as effective, or more so, in the shoot zone as in the seed zone. Only amiben and N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) were more effective in the seed zone than in the shoot zone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 393 - 395
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Appleby, A. P., Furtick, W. R., and Fang, S. C. 1965. Soil placement studies with EPTC and other carbamate herbicides on Avena sativa . Weed Res. 5:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Dunster, K. 1961. The herbicidal effect of EPTC, CDEC, and CDAA on Echinochloa crusgalli with various depths of soil incorporation. Weeds 9:312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Baker, J. B. 1960. An explanation for the selective control of barnyardgrass in rice with CIPC. Weeds 8:39–47.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Friesen, H. A., Banting, J. D., and Walker, D. R. 1962. The effect of placement and concentration of 2,3-DCDT on the selective control of wild oats in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 42:91–104.Google Scholar
6. Funderburk, H. H. Jr. and Lawrence, J. M. 1963. Absorption and translocation of radioactive herbicides in submersed and emersed aquatic weeds. Weed Res. 3:304–311.Google Scholar
7. Knake, E. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.Google Scholar
8. Lindquist, D. A., Hacskaylo, J., and Davich, J. B. 1961. Absorption and translocation of phorate and phosphorus by cotton seedlings. Bot. Gaz. 123:137–140.Google Scholar
9. Parker, C. 1963. Factors affecting selectivity of 2,3-dichloroallyl N,N-diisopropylthiolcarbamate (diallate) against Avena spp. in wheat and barley. Weed Res. 3:259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar