Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T02:03:46.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Several Pesticides and Adjuvants on Chondrostereum purpureum—A Bioherbicide Agent for Control of Forest Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Raj Prasad
Raj Prasad*
Affiliation:
Pacific Forestry Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Victoria, B.C. V8Z 1M5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basidiomycete fungus, Chondrostereum purpureum Fr. Pouzar, has been found to be a good potential bioherbicide candidate for control of hardwood vegetation in forests. However, its interaction with some agrochemicals that are normally employed in forest protection was not known. Employing two concentrations (0.01% v/v and 0.1% v/v) of several agrochemicals, a laboratory study was conducted to assess their impacts on the infective mycelia. Except for Bond, and Suntan gel-2, most adjuvants, sunscreen agents, and pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) were fungitoxic at 0.1%. Fungitoxicity was concentration dependent and the results indicate that the possibility of tank-mixing the basidiomycete with agrochemicals appears limited and the possibility of agrochemical residue effects on survival of the basidiomycete is implied.

Keywords

Bond, aliphatic oxyalkylated alcohol + synthetic latexSuntan gel-2, ethyl-hexyl-p-methoxycinnamateAgrochemicalsbiological controlbioherbicidesforest weedsformulationsmycoherbicidesALURBBETPYPOPTM
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 445 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effects of herbicides on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
3. deJong, M. D., Scheepens, P. C., and Zadoks, J. C. 1990. Risk analysis for biological control: A Dutch case study in biocontrol of Primus serotina by the fungus Chondrostereum purpureum . Plant Dis. 74:189–194.Google Scholar
4. Grant, N. G., Prusinkiewicz, E., Makowski, R. M., Holmstrom-Ruddick, B., and Mortensen, K. 1990. Effect of selected pesticides on survival of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides malvae—a bioherbicide for round-leaved mallow (Malva pusila). Weed Technol. 4:701–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Grant, N. G., Prusinkiewicz, E., Mortensen, K., and Makowski, R. M. 1990. Herbicide interaction with Colletotrichum gloeosporioides malvae—a bioherbicide for round-leaved mallow (Malva pusila) control. Weed Technol. 4:716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hodgson, R. H., Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., Snyder, R. H., and Collette, A. 1988. Efficacy of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2:473–480.Google Scholar
7. Hull, H. M., Morton, H. L., and Wharrie, J. R. 1975. Environmental influences on cuticle development and resultant foliar penetration. Bot. Rev. 41:421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Katan, J. and Eshel, Y. 1973. Interaction between herbicides and plant pathogens. Residue Rev. 45:145–177.Google Scholar
9. Khodayari, K. and Smith, R. Y. Jr. 1988. A mycoherbicide integrated with fungicides in rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol. 2:282–285.Google Scholar
10. Kirkwood, R. C. 1987. Uptake and movement of herbicides from plant surfaces and the effects of formulation and environment on them. Crit. Rep. Appl. Chem. 18:1–25.Google Scholar
11. Morris, O. N. 1983. Protection of Bacillus thuringiensis from inactivation by sunlight. Can. Entomol. 115:1215–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nash, R. G. and Jensen, L. L. 1973. Determining phytotoxic pesticides interactions in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2:503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Prasad, R. 1992. Some aspects of biological control of weeds in forestry. Proc. 1st Int. Congr. Weed Control 2:398–402.Google Scholar
14. Prasad, R. 1993. Role of adjuvants in modifying the efficacy of bioherbicides on forest species: Compatibility studies under laboratory conditions. Pestic. Sci. 38:273–275.Google Scholar
15. Shapiro, M. 1985. Effectiveness of B vitamins as UV screens for gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus. Environ. Entomol. 14:705–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Shapiro, M. and Robertson, J. 1990. Laboratory evaluation of dyes as ultraviolet screens for the gypsy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wall, R. E. 1990. The fungus Chondrostereum purpureum as a silvicide to control stump sprouting in hardwoods. North. J. Appl. For. 7:17–19.Google Scholar
18. Wallstad, J. and Kuch, P. 1987. Forest Vegetation Management for Conifer Production. John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 3–18.Google Scholar
19. Watson, A. K. 1989. Current advances in bioherbicide research. Proc. Brighton Crop Protec. Conf. Weeds, p. 987–996.Google Scholar
20. Wymore, L. A. and Watson, A. K. 1986. An adjuvant increases survival and efficacy of Colletotrichum coccodes: a mycoherbicide for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Phytopathology 76:1115–1116.Google Scholar
21. Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1987. Interaction between Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:377–83.Google Scholar