Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T00:16:02.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environment and Bromoxynil Phytotoxicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John D. Nalewaja  and
Grzegorz Skrzypczak
John D. Nalewaja
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Grzegorz Skrzypczak
Affiliation:
Akademia Rolnicza, ul. Mazowiecka 45/46, 60-623 Poznan 31, Poland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments in controlled-environment chambers indicated that high temperature, 30 C, increased the phytotoxicity of bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile) to wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L. # SINAR) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMARE) compared to low temperature, 10 C, during and after treatment. Bromoxynil phytotoxicity generally was higher at relative humidities of 90 to 95% compared to 40 to 60%, but relative humidity had less influence on bromoxynil phytotoxicity than did temperature. A simulated rain immediately after bromoxynil treatment reduced control of both species, but the reduction was of no practical importance for wild mustard. The data indicate that wild mustard and redroot pigweed control would be reduced by bromoxynil application during a period of low temperatures or to plants in advanced growth stages.

Keywords

Simulated rainfallrelative humiditytemperatureSinapis arvensis L.Amaranthus retroflexus L.SINARAMARE
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 101 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Behrens, R. 1967. The influence of environment on the response of wild buckwheat to dicamba. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 21:42.Google Scholar
2. Behrens, R. and Elakkad, M. A. 1975. Weed control in oats and wheat in 1975. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:89.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R. and Elakkad, M. A. 1981. Influence of rainfall on the phytotoxicity of foliarly applied 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 29:349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bethlenfalvay, G. and Norris, R. F. 1977. Desmedipham phytotoxicity to sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) under constant versus variable light, temperature, and moisture conditions. Weed Sci. 25:407–411.Google Scholar
5. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., Dobrzanski, A., and Pudelko, J. 1978. Temperature effect on barban phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:132–134.Google Scholar
6. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., and Dobrzanski, A. 1984. Temperature effect on difenzoquat phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 30:150–153.Google Scholar
7. Nalewaja, J. D., Pudelko, J., and Adamczewski, K. A. 1975. Influence of climate and additives on bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:504–507.Google Scholar
8. Olson, W. A. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1981. Antagonistic effects of MCPA on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with diclofop. Weed Sci. 29:566–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1981. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 29:480–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar