APPROACHES ON HERBICIDE - HERBICDE INTERACTION - A REVIEW

Article Id: ARCC2086 | Page : 32 - 39
Citation :- APPROACHES ON HERBICIDE - HERBICDE INTERACTION - A REVIEW.Agricultural Reviews.2009.(30):32 - 39
K. Kalaichelvi, A. Arul Swaminathan and K.Ramamoorthy
Address : Department of Agronomy Tamil Nadu Agricultural University - Coimbatore - 641 003, India

Abstract

Herbicide mixtures are commonly used in agriculture to broaden the spectrum of weed
control. The interactions or the combinations may be desirable or undesirable. Acetachlor at
150g/ha applied and ready mix application of anilofos and ethoxysulfuron at 780 g /ha provide
effective control of weeds with higher grain yield. Tank mix application of metribuzin with
isoproturon at 1.0 kg/ha, clodinofop (60g/ha) and fenoxyprop (120g/ha) applied at 3 leaf
stage marginally increase the mortality against the resistant biotypes and susceptible biotypes
of Phalaris minor with the corresponding increase in the dose of metribuzin. Tank mixing of
MON 12000, CGA 152005 with atrazine or bentazon reduces the weed control of these post
- emergence herbicides, in controlling velvetleaf. Chlorimuron is compatible with glyphosate,
but aciflurofen antogonise glyphosate activity. Thus the interaction effect of herbicide molecule
differed.

Keywords

References

  1. Angiras, N.N. and Attri, S.P. (2002). Indian J. Weed Sci., 34: 42-45.
  2. Brommer, L.C., et al. (2000). Weed Sci, 48: 181-187.
  3. Ellis, M.J. and Griffin, L.J. (2003). Weed Technol, 17: 21-27.
  4. Ferreira, L.K., et al. (1995). Weed Sci., 43: 184-191.
  5. Vol. 30, No. 1, 2009 39
  6. Gaul, O.S., et al. (1995). Weed Sci., 43: 358-364.
  7. Hart, E.S. (1997). Weed Sci., 45: 434-438.
  8. Hicks, V.T., et al. (1998). Weed Sci., 46: 284-288.
  9. Hoagland, E.R., et al. (2004). Weed Sci., 52: 475-486.
  10. Kathirvelan, P and Vaiyapuri, V. (2003). Indian J. Weed Sci., 35(3&4): 257-258.
  11. Kleifeld, G., et al. (1994). Weed Res., 34: 461-469.
  12. Moorthy, S.T.B., (2002). Indian J. Weed Sci., 34(344): 285-286
  13. Narwal, S., et al. (2002). Indian J. Weed Sci., 34(1&2): 28-31.
  14. Panwar, R.S., et al. (1995). Indian J. Weed Sci., 27 (1&2): 67-70.
  15. Raskar, B.S. and Bhoi., P.G. (2002). Indian J. Weed Sci., 34(1&2): 50-52.
  16. Singh, G and Singh, M. (2002). Indian. J. Weed Sci., 3(1&2): 9-12.
  17. Singh, G., et al. (2004). Indian. J. Weed Sci., 36(1&2): 64-67.
  18. Singh, S., et al. (2003). Indian. J. Weed Sci., 35(3&4): 190-193.
  19. Stake, J.R. and Oliver, R.L. (1998). Weed Sci., 46: 652-660.
  20. Thelen, D.K., et al. (1995). Weed Sci., 43: 337-341.
  21. Yadav, A., et al. (2004). Indian J. Weed Sci., 36(1&2): 1-4.

Global Footprints