Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:49:17.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Action of CIPC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Y. Eshel and
G. F. Warren
Y. Eshel
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
Get access

Abstract

Postemergence application of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC) killed small seedlings or redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis L.), and pale smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium L.). However, the apparent mode of action in redroot pigweed and large crabgrass was different from that in pale smartweed. The first two species showed injury symptoms 1 to 2 days after spraying, while the effect of the herbicide on pale smartweed was slow and no growth inhibition was observed until about 2 weeks after application. Injury symptoms of smartweed were different from those of the other two species. Tolerance of redroot pigweed and large crabgrass to CIPC increased rapidly with age.

Studies on respiration, C14O2 fixation, and chlorophyll content showed that the fast action in redroot pigweed and large crabgrass was accompanied by a reduction in photosynthesis, decrease in chlorophyll content, and increase in respiration. In pale smartweed, where slow action of CIPC took place, there was no change in carbon dioxide fixation, chlorophyll content, or oxygen uptake until about 2 weeks after spraying, when symptoms of this type of action were first observed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1967, pp. 237 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 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. Aberg, E. 1964. Susceptibility: factors in the plant modifying the response of a given species to treatment, p. 401–422. In Audus, L. J. (ed.). The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicides. Acad. Press., London and New York. 555 p. Google Scholar
2. Arnon, D. I. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris . Plant Physiol. 2:1–15.Google Scholar
3. Ennis, W. B. Jr. 1949. Histological and cytological responses of certain plants to some aryl carbamic esters. Amer. J. Bot. 36:823.Google Scholar
4. Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. A simplified method for determining phytotoxicity, leaching, and adsorption of herbicides in soils. Weeds 15: (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Freed, V. H. 1953. Mode of action other than aryl oxyalkyl acids. J. Agr. Food Chem. 1:47–51.Google Scholar
6. Hilton, J. L., Jansen, L. L., and Hull, H. M. 1963. Mechanism of herbicide action. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 14:353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lipps, S. H. and Biale, J. B. 1966. Stimulation of oxygen uptake by electron transfer inhibitors. Plant Physiol. 41:797–802.Google Scholar
8. Mann, J. D., Jordan, L. S., and Day, B. E. 1965. The effect of carbamate herbicides on polymer synthesis. Weeds 13:63–66.Google Scholar
9. Moreland, D. E. and Hill, K. L. 1959. Herbicide structure and activity. The action of alkyl N-phenylcarbamates on the photolytic activity of isolated chloroplasts. J. Agr. Food Chem. 7:832–837.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, H. A. 1965. Comparative tolerance of some dicotyledons to chloropropham. Weed Res. 5:61–67.Google Scholar
11. Scott, M. A. and Struckmeyer, B. E. 1955. Morphology and root anatomy of squash and cucumber seedlings treated with isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate (CIPC). Bot. Gaz. 117:37–45.Google Scholar
12. Smith, R. J. Jr. and Shaw, W. C. 1966. Weeds and their control in rice production. U.S.D.A. Agr. Handbook No. 292. 64 pp.Google Scholar
13. Swanson, C. R., Shaw, W. C., and Hughes, J. H. 1953. Some effects of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate and an alkanolamine salt of dinitro ortho secondary butyl phenol on germinating cotton seeds. Weeds 2:178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Warren, G. F. 1954. Weed control in onions with CIPC. Proc. NCWCC 11:71.Google Scholar
15. Wessels, J. S. C. and van der Veen, R. 1956. The action of some derivatives of phenylurethan and of 3-phenyl-1,1-dimethylurea on the Hill reaction. Biochem. Biophys. Acta 19:548–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wiese, A. F. and Dunham, R. S. 1954. Pre-planting applications of IPC and CIPC for selective control of wild oats (Avena fatua). Weeds 3:321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wojtaszek, T., Cherry, J. H., and Warren, G. F. 1966. Effect of 4,6-dinitro-o-sec-butylphenol on phosphorus accumulation and incorporation in tomato leaf disks. Plant Physiol. 41:34–38.Google Scholar