Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T18:19:02.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Sensitivity of Several Plants to Dinoseb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. Schroeder  and
G. F. Warren
M. Schroeder
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Indiana 47907
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The I50 values obtained with preemergence applications of 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb) for shoot and root growth in soil, or root growth in a bioassay were determined for 68 plant varieties representing 66 species. The I50 values in soil indicate a difference of more than 240 fold between the most sensitive species, shepherdspurse (Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.) and the most tolerant species, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). The correlations among the I50 values for shoot and root growth in soil and the root bioassay were significant. The I50 values between susceptibility of plants to soil-applied dinoseb and their seed size are correlated significantly. Large-seeded plant species and larger seeds within varieties, in general, were more tolerant to dinoseb than small-seeded species and smaller seeds within a given variety. However, there appeared to be other factors involved in susceptibility. For example, there were differences in response among families; the Leguminosae were the most tolerant, while the Solanaceae and Cruciferae were particularly susceptible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 1971 , pp. 671 - 674
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. Barrons, K. C. 1951. Some physiological aspects of the herbicidal action of DNOSBP. Down to Earth 7:10–12.Google Scholar
2. Barrons, K. C. and Watson, A. J. 1969. Dinoseb (DNBP), a truly versatile herbicide. Down to Earth 25:1–5.Google Scholar
3. Blackman, G. E. and Roberts, H. A. 1950. Studies in selective weed control. I. The control of annual weeds in winter wheat. J. Agr. Sci. 40:62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Blackman, G. E. and Roberts, H. A. 1950. Studies in selective weed control. II. The control of annual weeds in spring cereals. J. Agr. Sci. 40:70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Blackman, G. E., Templeman, W. G., and Halliday, D. J. 1951. Herbicides and selective phytotoxicity. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 2:199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Brian, R. C. 1964. The classification of herbicides and types of toxicity. In Audus, L. J. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Acad. Press., London and New York. p. 555.Google Scholar
7. Crafts, A. S. 1945. A new herbicide, 2,4-dinitro-6-secondary butyl phenol. Science 101:417–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Crafts, A. S. 1946. Selectivity of herbicides. Plant Physiol. 21:345–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Davis, D. E. and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1958. Variability in susceptibility to injury by DNBP. Weeds 6:454–460.Google Scholar
10. Hollingsworth, E. B. 1954. Effect of soil pH on activity of DNOSBP. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 7:212–214.Google Scholar
11. Kittock, D. L. and Patterson, J. K. 1959. Measurement of relative root penetration of grass seedlings. Agron. J. 51:512.Google Scholar
12. Kneebone, W. R. and Cremer, C. L. 1955. The relationship of seed size to seedling vigor in some native grass species. Agron. J. 47:472–477.Google Scholar
13. Kneebone, W. R. 1956. Breeding for seedling vigor in sand blue stem (Andropogon hallii Hack.) and other native grasses. Agron. J. 48:37–40.Google Scholar
14. Meggitt, W. F., Aldrich, R. J., and Shaw, W. C. 1956. Factors affecting the herbicidal action of aqueous sprays of salts of 4,6-dinitro-o-sec-butylphenol. Weeds 4:131–138.Google Scholar
15. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Plummer, A. B. 1933. Germination in early seedling development of twelve range grasses. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 35:19–34.Google Scholar
17. Rogler, G. A. 1954. Seed size and vigor in crested wheatgrass. Agron. J. 46:216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Schreiber, M. M. 1967. A technique for studying weed competition in forage and legume establishment. Weeds 15:1–4.Google Scholar
19. Schroeder, M., Deli, J., Schall, E. D., and Warren, G. F. 1971. Composition of various crop and weed seeds. Weed Sci. 19: (In Press) Google Scholar
20. Sund, K. A. and Normura, N. 1963. Laboratory evaluation of several herbicides. Weed Res. 3:35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Warren, G. F. 1946. The value of several chemicals as selective herbicides for vegetable crops. (Preliminary report.). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47:415–420.Google Scholar
22. Warren, G. F. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1947. Weed control in cannery peas using dinitro sprays. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 49:347–350.Google Scholar
23. Wettasinghe, D. T. 1968. A preliminary investigation of the effect of two plant factors on simazine toxicity. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 9:645–649.Google Scholar
24. Wilcoxon, F. and Wilcox, R. A. 1964. Some rapid approximate statistical procedures. Lederle Laboratories, Pearl River, New York. 60 p.Google Scholar
25. Wojtaszek, T. 1966. Relationship between susceptibility of plants to DNBP and their capacity for ATP generation. Weeds 14:125–129.Google Scholar