Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T16:14:10.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Wind on Performance of Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert M. Menges
Robert M. Menges*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Weslaco, Texas
Get access

Abstract

Soil-surface applications of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate (CIPC), 2-chloroallyl diethyldithiocarbamate (CDEC), ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbamate (EPTC), sodium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyethyl sulfate (sesone), and N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) were made on a Willacy fine sandy loam just before and after a 24-to-32 mph windstorm, which moved significant amounts of treated soil. All treatments were overhead-irrigated after the storm. All herbicides performed less efficiently after the wind. CIPC was found below the surface of soil only when applications were undisturbed by the wind.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 1964 , pp. 236 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 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. Chepil, W. S. 1951. Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: III. Effect of apparent density on erodibility. Soil Sci. 71:141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chepil, W. S. 1955. Factors that influence clod structure and erodibility of soil by wind. IV. Sand, silt, and clay. Soil Sci. 80:155–162.Google Scholar
3. Menges, R. M. 1963. Effect of overhead and furrow irrigation on performance of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 11:72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Zingg, A. W. and Woodruff, N. P. 1951. Calibration of a portable wind tunnel for the simple determination of roughness and drag on field surfaces. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 43:191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar