Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:11:29.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Method of Evaluating Herbicide Combinations and Determining Herbicide Synergism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

I. O. Akobundu ,
R. D. Sweet  and
W. B. Duke
I. O. Akobundu
Affiliation:
Dep. of Veg. Crops, Cornell Univ.
R. D. Sweet
Affiliation:
Dep. of Veg. Crops, Cornell Univ.
W. B. Duke
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14580
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several methods of evaluating plant responses to combinations of herbicides are discussed. They include: a direct-plot of percent response vs toxic units; determining ID50 (dosage that causes a 50% reduction in growth of the treated plant) for each herbicide and for each combination; percent response vs log-dosage; double reciprocal procedures; probit analysis, and calculation of expected values. A simplified version of the isobole method of Tammes (23) is presented as a method which can be readily applied by weed scientists to determine the validity of data on plant responses to herbicide combinations. Definitions are proposed which classify plant responses to herbicide interactions as additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or enhancement. Four points are listed that will improve the quality of data obtained from experiments on combinations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Anonymous. 1964. Report of the terminology committee. Weeds 12:331–332.Google Scholar
2. Bliss, C.I. 1934. The method of probit. Science 79:38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Chase, R.W., Ilnicki, R.D., and Sprague, M.A. 1963. A technique for evaluation of mixtures of dalapon and cacodylic acid. Weeds 11:290–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Colby, S.R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Colby, S.R. and Feeny, R.W. 1967. Herbicidal interactions of potassium azide and calcium cyanamid. Weeds 15:163–167.Google Scholar
6. Colby, S.R., Wojtaszek, T., and Warren, G.F. 1965. Synergistic and antagonistic combinations for broadening herbicide selectivity. Weeds 13:87–91.Google Scholar
7. Crafts, A.S. 1961. The chemistry and mode of action of herbicides. Chapter 18. Interscience Publishers, Inc. 269 pp.Google Scholar
8. Crafts, A.S. and Cleary, C.W. 1936. Toxicity of arsenic, borax, chlorate and their combinations in three California soils. Hilgardia 10:401–414.Google Scholar
9. Crafts, A.S. and Raynor, R.N. 1936. The herbicidal properties of boron compounds. Hilgardia 10:343–374.Google Scholar
10. Dickerson, C.T. Jr. and Sweet, R.D. 1968. Atrazine, oil and 2,4-D for postemergence weed control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 22:64–75.Google Scholar
11. Finney, D.J. 1947. Probit analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press. 256 pp.Google Scholar
12. Frans, R.E., Lind, E.E., and Loomis, W.E. 1957. Kinetics of growth inhibition by herbicides. Plant Physiol. 32:301–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Gowing, D.P. 1959. A method of comparing herbicides and assessing herbicide mixtures at the screening level. Weeds 7:66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gowing, D.P. 1960. Comments on tests of herbicide mixtures. Weeds 8:379–391.Google Scholar
15. Gruzdev, G.S. and Kalinin, V.A. 1967. The effect of mixtures of 2,4-D with atrazine on weeds in maize. Khimiya sel'KhoZ 5:31–35. In Weeds Abstr. 17:3532 (1968).Google Scholar
16. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water-culture method of growing plants without soil. Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ. 347. Revised by D.I. Arnon.Google Scholar
17. Lynch, M.R., Sweet, R.D., and Dickerson, C.T. Jr. 1970. Synergistic responses to atrazine in combination with other herbicides – A preliminary report. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 24:33–38.Google Scholar
18. Metcalf, R.L. 1967. Mode of action of insecticide synergists. Ann Rev. Entomol. 12:229–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Nash, R.G. 1968. Synergistic phytotoxicities of herbicide-insecticide combinations in soil. Weed Sci. 16:74–77.Google Scholar
20. Sheets, T.J. and Leonard, O.A. 1958. An evaluation of the herbicidal efficiency of combinations of ATA with dalapon, monuron, and several other chemicals. Weeds 6:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Stone, J.D. and Stahler, L.M., 1954. An evaluation of borate and chlorate herbicides. Agr. Chem. 9:50–53.Google Scholar
22. Sullivan, E.F. and Bush, H.L. 1966. Probability analysis of herbicide response. Amer. Soc. Sugarbeet Technol. 13:721–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Tammes, P.M.L. 1964. Isoboles, a graphic representation of synergism in pesticides. Neth. J. Plant Pathol. 70:73–80.Google Scholar