Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T17:22:53.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Nutrient Culture Technique to Measure Lettuce, Lactuca sativa, Sensitivity to Thiobencarb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen Reiners  and
Stanley F. Gorski
Stephen Reiners
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Stanley F. Gorski
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A modified nutrient solution, used to study lettuce cultivar response to thiobencarb, provided an excellent medium for lettuce growth and is an alternative to other nutrient solutions. Leaf dry weight was inhibited 50% by 3- and 5-μM thiobencarb in ‘Dark Green Boston’ and ‘Great Lakes 366’, respectively, while ‘Bibb’, ‘Slobolt’ and ‘Valmaine’ responded intermediately. Growth inhibitions and herbicide injury symptoms, which included abnormal growth and stunted secondary leaves, were similar in both nutrient solution and soil assays. Due to its ease of preparation and elimination of the variability associated with soil assays, the nutrient solution may be considered a superior alternative to soil assays.

Keywords

Thiobencarb, S-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl] diethylcarbamothioate]lettuce, Lactuca sativa L.Hoagland's solutionmuck soil
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 291 - 293
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. Albrecht, H. R. 1947. Strain differences in tolerance to 2,4-D in creeping bentgrass. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 39:163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bewick, T. A., and Binning, L. K. 1986. Weed control in lettuce with thiobencarb. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:12.Google Scholar
3. Fuerst, E. P., Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Penner, D. 1986. Herbicide cross-resistance in triazine-resistant biotypes of four species. Weed Sci. 34:344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gorski, S. F., Ruizzo, M. A., and Hassell, R. H. 1985. Lettuce and endive cultivar tolerance to thiobencarb. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent. Res. Circ. 288, p. 2–4.Google Scholar
5. Hardcastle, W. S. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to metribuzin in nutrient solution culture. Weed Sci. 27:278–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hoagland, D. R., and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Circ. 347. Univ. Calif. Coll. Agric., Berkeley.Google Scholar
7. Machado, V. S., Nonecke, I. L., and Phatak, S. C. 1978. Bioassay to screen tomato seedlings for tolerance to metribuzin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Oliver, L. R., Prendville, G. N., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Species difference in site of root uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:534–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Steiner, A. A. 1961. A universal method of preparing nutrient solution of a certain desired composition. Plant Soil 15:134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Stephenson, G., McLeod, J., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Vetanovetz, R. P., and Peterson, J. C. 1983. A hydroponic technique requiring exacting accuracy. Greenhouse Manager 2:72–92.Google Scholar