Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:46:40.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicidal activity of eight isothiocyanates on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John T. Meehan IV
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634

Abstract

A greenhouse experiment was conducted to evaluate the herbicidal activity of five aliphatic (ethyl, propyl, butyl, allyl, and 3-methylthiopropyl) and three aromatic (phenyl, benzyl, 2-phenylethyl) isothiocyanates on Texas panicum, large crabgrass, and sicklepod. All isothiocyanates were applied to soil at 0, 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 nmol g−1 of soil and incorporated. Weed emergence was generally stimulated at the lower isothiocyanate concentrations, but all isothiocyanates provided 37% or more suppression of each species at the highest concentration. Propyl and allyl isothiocyanate were most effective in suppressing Texas panicum, with 50% effective dose (ED50) values of 345 and 409 nmol g−1 of soil. All aliphatic isothiocyanates reduced Texas panicum density by at least 98%. Allyl and 3-methylthiopropyl isothiocyanate were the most effective aliphatics on large crabgrass, with density reductions of 98 and 100%, respectively. All aromatic isothiocyanates reduced large crabgrass density by 86 to 96%. Sicklepod was generally the most tolerant of the three species evaluated, with ED50 values for ethyl, propyl, and butyl isothiocyanate being greater than the evaluated concentrations. Maximum reduction in sicklepod density was 72, 68, 65, and 62%, which was achieved with allyl, benzyl, 3-methylthiopropyl, and phenyl isothiocyanate, respectively. This research shows that soil-applied and incorporated isothiocyanates are effective in suppressing some important weeds of the southeastern United States, but effectiveness of each isothiocyanate varies among species. Application techniques that minimize loss of volatile isothiocyanates may further improve their potential as an effective means of controlling these and other troublesome weeds.

Type
Weed Management
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

Adkins, S. W., Bellairs, S. M., and Loch, D. S. 2002. Seed dormancy mechanisms in warm season grass species. Euphytica 126:1320.Google Scholar
Adkins, S. W., Simpson, G. M., and Naylor, J. M. 1984. The physiological basis of seed dormancy in Avena fatua III. Action of nitrogenous compounds. Physiol. Plant 60:227233.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Libbey, C., and Boydston, R. 1997. Weed suppression with Brassica green manure crops in green pea. Weed Sci 45:439445.Google Scholar
Bialy, Z., Oleszek, W., Lewis, J., and Fenwick, G. R. 1990. Allelopathic potential ofglucosinolates (mustard oil glycosides) and their degradation products against wheat. Plant Soil 129:277281.Google Scholar
Borek, V., Elberson, L. R., McCaffrey, J. P., and Morra, M. J. 1998. Toxicity of isothiocyanates produced by glucosinolates in Brassicaceae species to black vine weevil eggs. J. Agri. Food Chem 46:53185323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borek, V., Morra, M. J., Brown, P. D., and McCaffrey, J. P. 1995. Transformation of the glucosinolate-derived allelochemicals allyl isothiocyanate and allyl nitrile in soil. J. Agri. Food Chem 43:19351940.Google Scholar
Bozsa, R. C., Oliver, L. R., and Driver, T. L. 1989. Intraspecific and interspecific sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference. Weed Sci 37:670673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. D. and Morra, M. J. 1996. Hydrolysis products of glucosinolates in Brassica napus tissues as inhibitors of seed germination. Plant Soil 181:307316.Google Scholar
Buehring, N. W., Nice, G. R. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control and soybean (Glycine max) response to soybean row spacing and population in three weed management systems. Weed Technol 16:131141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Growth characteristics and herbicide susceptibility of Texas panicum. Weed Sci 17:9193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, F. S. 1988. Biological effects of glucosinolates. Pages 155181 in Cutler, H. G. ed. Biologically Active Natural Products: Potential Use in Agriculture. ACS Symposium Ser. 380. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci 16:396400.Google Scholar
Drobinca, L., Kristian, P., and Augustin, J. 1977. The chemistry of the – NCS group. Pages 10031197 in Patai, S. ed. The chemistry of cyanates and their derivates. Part 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Protection of stratospheric ozone: process for exempting critical uses from the phaseout of methyl bromide. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/CUE_NPRM_080904.pdf.Google Scholar
Fenwick, G. R., Heaney, R. K., and Mullin, W. J. 1983. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products in food and food plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 18:123301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goedert, C. O. and Roberts, E. H. 1986. Characterization of alternating-temperature regimes that remove seed dormancy in seeds of Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle Schweickerdt). Plant Cell Environ 9:521525.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley. Pp. 783.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, J. A., Wong, P. T. W., and Desmarchelier, J. M. 1996. In vitro suppression of fungal pathogens of cereals by Brassica tissues. Plant Pathol 45:593603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lear, B. 1956. Results of laboratory experiments with Vapam for control of nematodes. Plant Dis. Rep 40:847852.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Schultheis, J. R. 1998. Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Critrullus lanatus). Weed Sci 46:530532.Google Scholar
Ott, R. L. and Longnecker, M. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Pp. 646657.Google Scholar
Petersen, J., Belz, R., Walker, F., and Hurle, K. 2001. Weed suppression by release of isothiocyanates from turnip-rape mulch. Agron. J 93:3743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. M. 1990. Seed Dormancy in Grasses. Cambridge, Great: Britain: Cambridge University Press. P. 34.Google Scholar
Smolinska, U., Knudsen, G. R., Morra, M. J., and Borek, V. 1997. Inhibition of Aphanomyces euteiches f. sp. pisi by volatile allelochemicals form Brassica napus seed meal. Plant Dis 81:288292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, B. B. and Hudson, V. W. 1969. Growth promotion in pea stem sections. III. By alkyl nitriles, alkyl acetylenes and insect juvenile hormones. Plant Physiol 44:10511057.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. 1988. Herbicide bioassay. Weed Res 28:479484.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Taylorson, R. B. 1986. Weed seed response to methyl isothiocyanate and metham. Weed Sci 34:520524.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. Vegetable chemical usage. http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/chem/vegch99.htm.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. F. and Boydston, R. A. 1997. Volatile allelochemicals released by crucifer green manures. J. Chem Ecol 23:21072116.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2002. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:237254.Google Scholar
Williams, L. III, Morra, M., Brown, P., and McCaffrey, J. 1993. Toxicity of allyl isothiocyanate-amended soil to Limonius californicas (Mann.) (Coleoptera:Elateridae) wireworms. J. Chem. Ecol 19:10331046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar