Paper · 1975 · Weed Research

Yield losses in weed‐free wheat and barley due to post‐emergence herbicides

B. R. ELLIOTT; J. M. LUMB; T. G. REEVES; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
13
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary: Résumé: Zusammenfassung The tolerance of weed‐free wheat and barley to a range of herbicides (bromoxynil, methabenzthiazuron, MCPA, bromoxynil + MCPA. linuron, prometryne, diuron, 2,4‐D ester and 2,4‐D amine) when applied at the crop three‐leaf stage, was examined over the 5‐year period 1968–72. All chemicals lowered grain yields to some extent, but the variation between chemicals was greater for wheat than for barley. In both crops, methabenzthiazuron was the safest chemical causing only small (<2·0%,) yield losses at rates up to 2·25 kg a.i./ha. At this rate of application yield losses of up to 36% were recorded for the substituted urea derivatives. Both crops had a low tolerance to 2,4‐D ester and amine. Yield losses from bromoxynil, bromoxynil + MCPA and MCPA were similar, varying from 4 to 8% al 0·5 kg a.i./ha to 9–24% at 2·25 kg a.i./ha. Pertes de rendement dans le blé et l'orge provoquées, en l'absence de mauvaises herbes, par des herbicides de postlevée Pendant une période de 5 années (1968–1972) les auteurs ont examiné la résistance du béet de l'orge. Traités, en l'absence de mauvaises herbes, au stade 3 feuilles, avec une série d'herbicidcs (bromoxynil, méthabenzthiazuron, MCPA, bromoxynil‐i‐MCPA, linuron, prométrync. ditiron, 2,4‐D ester et 2,4‐D a mine). Tous ces produits ont diminué les rendements en grains dans des proportions variées, mais la variation entre produits a été plus grande pour le blé que pour l'orge. Pour les deux céréales, le méthabenzlhiazuron a été le produit le moins toxique, provotjuant seulement de faibles penes de rendement inférieurcs à 2,0%, à des doses allant jusquà 2,25 kg/m.a/ha. A cette dose d'application, des pertes de rendement allant jusquà 36% ont élé enregistrées avec des urées substituées. Les deux éréles ont manifesté uoe faible resistance au 2,4‐D estr et amine. Les pertes de rendement provoquées par le bromoxynil, le bromoxynil + MCPA, et le MCPA ont été analogues, variant de 4 à 8% pour 0,5 kg/m.a./ha, jusqu’à 9 à 24% pour 2,5 kg/m.a./ha. Ertragsverluste durch Nachaufiatifherbizide in unkrautfreiem Weizen und Gerste In unkrautfreien Weizen‐ und Gerstebestánden wurde in fünfjáhrigen Versuthcn (1968–72) die Toleranz der beiden Arten gegenüber folgenden Herbiziden untersucht: Bromoxynil, Methabenzthiazuron, MCPA, Bromoxynil + MCPA. Linuron, Prometryn, Diuron, 2,4‐D‐Eister und 2,4‐D‐Amin‐ salz. Die Behandlung erfolgte jeweils im 3‐Blattstadium. Alle Verbindungen erniedrigten zu einem gewissen Grad den kornertrag. Beim Weizen waren aber die Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen Herbiziden grösser als bei der Gerste. Methabenzthiazuron war bei Aufwandmengen bis zu 2.25 kg A.S./ha in beiden Getreidearten das sicherste Herbizid und verursachte nur geringe Ertragsdepressionen (<2%). Bei dieser Aufwandmenge wurden bei den Harn‐stoffherbiziden bis zu 36% Ertragsverlust festgestellt. Gegen 2,4‐D‐Ester und 2,4‐D‐Aminsalz waren Weizen und Gerste wenig tolerant. Die Ertragsverluste durch Bromoxynil, Bromoxynil + MCPA und MCPA waren etwa gleich und betrugen 4–8% bei 0.5 kg A.S./ha bis 9–24% bei 2,25 kg A.S./ha.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicides lowered grain yields in wheat and barley.

Treatment
chemicalse0
Outcome
grain yieldse0
Direction
lowerede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“All chemicals lowered grain yields to some extent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–355 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield variation among chemicals was greater for wheat than barley.

Outcome
variation between chemicalse0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
barleye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“the variation between chemicals was greater for wheat than for barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–430 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Methabenzthiazuron caused less than 2.0% yield loss at rates up to 2.25 kg active ingredient per hectare in both crops.

Treatment
methabenzthiazurone0
Outcome
yield lossese0
Direction
smalle0
Value
<2·0%,e0
Qualifier
up to 2·25 kg a.i./hae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“In both crops, methabenzthiazuron was the safest chemical causing only small (<2·0%,) yield losses at rates up to 2·25 kg a.i./ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–561 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Substituted urea derivatives caused yield losses up to 36% at that application rate.

Treatment
substituted urea derivativese0
Outcome
yield lossese0
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
up to 36%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“At this rate of application yield losses of up to 36% were recorded for the substituted urea derivatives”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 563–667 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both crops had low tolerance to 2,4-D ester and amine.

Treatment
2,4‐D ester and aminee0
Outcome
low tolerancee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Both crops had a low tolerance to 2,4‐D ester and amine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bromoxynil caused yield losses of 4 to 8% at 0.5 kg active ingredient per hectare and 9 to 24% at 2.25 kg.

Treatment
bromoxynile0
Outcome
Yield lossese0
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
4 to 8%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Yield losses from bromoxynil, bromoxynil + MCPA and MCPA were similar, varying from 4 to 8% al 0·5 kg a.i./ha to 9–24% at 2·25 kg a.i./ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 726–863 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bromoxynil plus MCPA had similar yield losses to bromoxynil and MCPA.

Treatment
bromoxynil + MCPAe0
Outcome
Yield lossese0
Direction
similare0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Yield losses from bromoxynil, bromoxynil + MCPA and MCPA were similar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 726–795 · show in text ↑

Methabenzthiazuron · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 10 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

Methabenzthiazuron · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.