Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:56:29.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Butylate Injury to Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

T. H. Wright and
C. E. Rieck
T. H. Wright
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Soils, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC. 29631Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
C. E. Rieck
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Soils, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC. 29631Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Injury to corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids from butylate (S-ethyl diisobutylthiocarbamate) was investigated as a function of planting depth, soil pH, and temperature. Field and growth chamber studies indicated that the potential for butylate injury increased with increasing planting depth regardless of hybrid. Greenhouse and growth chamber experiments suggested that as soil pH decreased butylate injury increased, depending upon the hybrid. Butylate injury was also a differential response among hybrids, depending on temperature. Certain hybrids may be injured more at higher temperatures and other hybrids more at lower temperatures. Butylate injury to corn, therefore, appears to be due to a three-way interaction, stress x hybrid X butylate.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1974, pp. 83 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Antognini, J. 1958. Activity of EPTC as affected by soil moisture at time of application. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 12:398.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F.M. and Dunster, K. 1961. The herbicidal effect of EPTC, CDEC, and CDAA on Echinochloa crusgalli with various depths of soil incorporation. Weeds 9:312–317.Google Scholar
3. Corbin, F.T. and Upchurch, R.P. 1967. Influence of pH on detoxification of herbidides in soil. Weeds 15:370–377.Google Scholar
4. Corbin, F.T., Upchurch, R.P., and Selman, F.L. 1971. Influence of pH on the phytotoxicity of herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 19:233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Fang, S.C., Theisen, P., and Freed, V.H. 1961. Effects of water evaporation, temperature and rates of application on the retention of ethyl-N,N-di-n-propylthiocarbamate in various soils. Weeds 9:569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gray, R.A. 1965. A vapor trapping apparatus for determining the loss of EPTC and other herbicides from soils. Weeds 13:138–141.Google Scholar
7. Gray, R.A. and Weierich, A.J. 1965. Factors affecting the vapor loss of EPTC from soils. Weeds 13:141–147.Google Scholar
8. Gray, R.A. and Weierich, A.J. 1969. Importance of root, shoot, and seed exposure on the herbicidal activity of EPTC. Weed Sci. 17:223–226.Google Scholar
9. Hauser, E.W. 1965. Preemergence activity of three thiocarbamate herbicides in relation to depth of placement in the soil. Weeds 13:255–257.Google Scholar
10. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
11. Vernetti, J. and Freed, V.H. 1961. Vapor losses of EPTC from soil. Res. Prog. Rep., West. Weed Contr. Conf. p. 88–89.Google Scholar
12. Waldrep, T.W. and Freeman, J.F. 1964. EPTC injury to corn as affected by depth of incorporation in the soil. Weeds 12:315–317.Google Scholar
13. Wright, T.H. and Rieck, C.E. 1973. Differential butylate injury to corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 21:194–196.Google Scholar