Abstract
Early postemergence application of atrazine [2-chloro-4- (ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)- s -triazine] at 0.28 kg/ha in combination with alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl- N -(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] at 0.42 kg/ha plus a non-toxic oil-surfactant blend gave season-long weed control in sweet corn ( Zea mays L. var. rugosa ‘Seneca Chief’). Bioassay with oats ( Avena sativa L.) showed no detectable atrazine residue in the soil 3 months after herbicide application. In greenhouse studies, the response of Japanese millet ( Echinochloa crus-galli L. Beauv. var. frumentacea ) to early postemergence application of atrazine and alachlor combinations plus an oil-surfactant blend was synergistic. Soil uptake played a major role in the activity of the herbicides. Formulants used in commercial alachlor when added to atrazine spray, enhanced atrazine activity in a way similar to that of the non-toxic oil-surfactant.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Low-rate atrazine and alachlor with oil-surfactant gave season-long weed control in sweet corn.
- Taxon
- sweet corne0
- Material
- Seneca Chiefe0
- Treatment
- atrazinee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- season-longe0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Early postemergence application of atrazine [2-chloro-4- (ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)- s -triazine] at 0.28 kg/ha in combination with alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl- N -(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] at 0.42 kg/ha plus a non-toxic oil-surfactant blend gave season-long weed control in sweet corn ( Zea mays L. var. rugosa ‘Seneca Chief’).”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat bioassay detected no soil atrazine residue after three months.
- Taxon
- oats
Avena sativae0 - Outcome
- no detectable atrazine residue in the soile0
- Direction
- no detectablee0
- Qualifier
- 3 months after herbicide applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bioassay with oats ( Avena sativa L.) showed no detectable atrazine residue in the soil 3 months after herbicide application.”
Claim · model-written summary
Japanese millet responded synergistically to the atrazine and alachlor mixture with oil-surfactant.
- Taxon
- Japanese millet
Echinochloa frumentaceae0 - Treatment
- atrazine and alachlor combinations plus an oil-surfactant blende0
- Outcome
- responsee0
Not reportedInteractorComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the response of Japanese millet ( Echinochloa crus-galli L. Beauv. var. frumentacea ) to early postemergence application of atrazine and alachlor combinations plus an oil-surfactant blend was synergistic”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil uptake contributed substantially to herbicide activity.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Soil uptake played a major role in the activity of the herbicides.”
t0“Weed Response to Atrazine and Alachlor Combinations at Low Rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Commercial alachlor formulants enhanced atrazine activity similarly to the oil-surfactant blend.
- Treatment
- Formulants used in commercial alachlore0
- Outcome
- atrazine activitye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- non-toxic oil-surfactante0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Formulants used in commercial alachlor when added to atrazine spray, enhanced atrazine activity in a way similar to that of the non-toxic oil-surfactant.”
t0“Weed Response to Atrazine and Alachlor Combinations at Low Rates”
The same questions in other papers
atrazine · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
196 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
198 papers more in this group
See all 202 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.