Fluazifop-butyl {(±) butyl 2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl] oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acid}, haloxyfop-methyl {methyl-2-[4-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl-2-pyridinyl] oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acid}, and sethoxydim {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)-butyl]-5-[2-ethylthio)propyl-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one}exhibited soil herbicidal activity to annual grass species in greenhouse and field experiments. Control of forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor(L.) Moench. ‘Rox Orange’] with all three herbicides was greater when seeds were planted at or near the soil surface than when planted 2, 4, or 6 cm deep. Imbibition of the herbicides by forage sorghum and soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] seeds did not reduce germination at concentrations of 10-3M or lower, but forage sorghum seedling survival and vigor were reduced by herbicide concentrations as low as 10-7M. Fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim were more phytotoxic when applied to the root zone than the shoot zone. Haloxyfop-methyl exhibited the longest soil residual control in the field followed by fluazifop-butyl and sethoxydim. Haloxyfop-methyl and fluazifop-butyl controlled simulated shattercane [Sorghum bicolor(L.) Moench. ♯3SORVU] in soybeans with preemergence and early postemergence applications, whereas control from similar applications of sethoxydim was limited and variable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buhler et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: