Abstract
Abstract Five experiments were conducted to determine the effects of herbicides on seedling injury and on weed control in the establishment of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), ladino clover ( Trifolium repens L.), and crownvetch ( Coronilla varia L.) in North Carolina. Six treatments with commercial herbicides were included in the series of tests, and a number of other commercial and experimental herbicides were included in one or more of the tests. Two of the five tests were spring seeded to determine the feasibility of using herbicides for successful spring seeding in the area as opposed to the standard practice of fall seeding. Each herbicide was tested in either a preplant incorporated, preemergence, or postemergence application. Herbicide effects were measured in terms of legume stands, vigor, and injury ratings. All the herbicides caused some injury but certain herbicides were only slightly injurious while giving excellent weed control. In prepllant incorporated applications, S‐propyl dipropylthiocarbamate (vernolate) and S‐ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) provided excellent weed control and insignificant injury to all legumes. The higher of two rates of vernolate and EPTC were only slightly more injurious to the legumes than the lower rates. Preplant incorporated treatments of N ‐butyl‐ N ‐ethyl‐ a,a,a ‐triflouro‐2,6‐dinitro‐ p ‐toluidine (benefin), 4‐(methylsulfonyl)‐2,6‐dinitro‐ N,N ‐ dipropylaniline (nitralin), and a,a,a ‐triflouro‐2,6‐dinitro‐ N,N ‐dipropyl‐p‐toluidine (trifluralin) generally gave low injury, but effects were variable for tests and legume species, especially at the higher rate. Postemergence treatment with 2‐sec‐butyl‐4,6‐dinitrophenol (dinoseb) caused little injury in certain tests but resulted in severe defoliation in others, with the least injury to alfalfa and the most to crownvetch. None of the herbicides used in preemergence applications gave good weed control without severe legume injury. There were no readily apparent differences between fall and spring effects of the herbicides. Injury to legumes in one test on sandy soil was generally greater than in the four tests on clay soil.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
All tested herbicides caused some legume injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- herbicidese0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- caused somee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the herbicides caused some injury”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Vernolate gave excellent weed control with insignificant legume injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- vernolatee0
- Outcome
- excellent weed control and insignificant injurye0
- Setting
- North Carolinat1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S‐propyl dipropylthiocarbamate (vernolate) and S‐ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) provided excellent weed control and insignificant injury to all legumes”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
t1“North Carolina”
Claim · model-written summary
EPTC gave excellent weed control with insignificant legume injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- EPTCe0
- Outcome
- excellent weed control and insignificant injurye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S‐propyl dipropylthiocarbamate (vernolate) and S‐ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) provided excellent weed control and insignificant injury to all legumes”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher vernolate and EPTC rates caused slightly more injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- higher of two rates of vernolate and EPTCe0
- Outcome
- injurious to the legumese0
- Direction
- slightly moree0
- Comparator
- lower ratese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher of two rates of vernolate and EPTC were only slightly more injurious to the legumes than the lower rates”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Benefin, nitralin and trifluralin generally produced low but variable injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- benefine0
- Outcome
- low injurye0
- Direction
- lowe0
- Qualifier
- effects were variable for tests and legume speciese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Preplant incorporated treatments of N ‐butyl‐ N ‐ethyl‐ a,a,a ‐triflouro‐2,6‐dinitro‐ p ‐toluidine (benefin), 4‐(methylsulfonyl)‐2,6‐dinitro‐ N,N ‐ dipropylaniline (nitralin), and a,a,a ‐triflouro‐2,6‐dinitro‐ N,N ‐dipropyl‐p‐toluidine (trifluralin) generally gave low injury, but effects were variable for tests and legume species, especially at the higher rate”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Dinoseb caused variable injury, from little to severe defoliation.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- dinosebe0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Qualifier
- severe defoliation in otherse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Postemergence treatment with 2‐sec‐butyl‐4,6‐dinitrophenol (dinoseb) caused little injury in certain tests but resulted in severe defoliation in others”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Dinoseb injured alfalfa least and crownvetch most.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- least injurye0
- Direction
- leaste0
- Comparator
- crownvetche0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with the least injury to alfalfa and the most to crownvetch”
Claim · model-written summary
No preemergence herbicide provided good weed control without severe legume injury.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- herbicides used in preemergence applicationse0
- Outcome
- good weed control without severe legume injurye0
- Direction
- Nonee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“None of the herbicides used in preemergence applications gave good weed control without severe legume injury”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide effects did not clearly differ between fall and spring.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- fall and spring effects of the herbicidese0
- Direction
- no readily apparent differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no readily apparent differences between fall and spring effects of the herbicides”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume injury was generally greater on sandy than clay soil.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- Injury to legumese0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Comparator
- clay soile0
- Setting
- sandy soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Injury to legumes in one test on sandy soil was generally greater than in the four tests on clay soil”
t0“Alfalfa, Ladino White Clover, and Crownvetch1”
The same questions in other papers
EPTC · crop injury · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
herbicide · crop injury · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.