The Botanical Review

, Volume 15, Issue 9, pp 629–643 | Cite as

The nature of the fungicidal action of copper and sulfur

  • S. E. A. McCallan


In summarizing available information on the mechanism of the fungicidal action of copper it appears most likely that exudates, such as hydroxy and amino acids, produced from fungus spores react with the “insoluble” copper fungicides to form soluble toxic copper complexes. These copper complexes exert the direct fungicidal action and vary in composition, depending on the original fungicide and probably also the fungus. While this is the primary fungicidal action, it is supplemented by the copper brought into solution by atmospheric agencies and host plant exudates. These two agencies, however, likely play the most important role in phytotoxicity or host plant injury. Finally cumulative action is also a supplementary factor, though perhaps indistinguishable from and a part of the action by spore secretions or exudates.

In the case of the sulfur fungicides the various theories of mechanism of action are more or less mutually exclusive. The evidence favors action at a distance by means of the vapor, and that the vapor can react with the spore or other plant tissue to produce hydrogen sulfide, the active toxic agent. Hydrogen sulfide produced by action of the plant is probably of importance only in phytotoxicity.

The dosage-response curve is a valuable tool in the interpretation of the nature of fungicidal action and should aid in a better understanding of this intricate mechanism.


Botanical Review Hydrogen Sulfide Fungicidal Action Copper Sulfate Bordeaux Mixture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Barker, B. T. P. Investigations on the fungicidal action of sulphur. IV. Third progress report. Long Ashton Agr. & Hort. Res. Sta., Ann. Rep.1929: 130–148. 1929.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    —, andC. T. Gimingham. The fungicidal action of Bordeaux mixture. Jour. Agr. Sci.4: 76–94. 1911.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    et al. Sulphur as a fungicide. Long Ashton Agr. & Hort. Res. Sta., Ann. Rep.1919: 57–75. 1919.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barratt, R. W., andJ. G. Horsfall. Fungicidal action of metallic alkyl bisdithiocarbamates. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 508. 1947.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bedford, Duke of, andS. U. Pickering. Woburn Exp. Fruit Farm Rep.11: 1–190. 1910.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bliss, C. T. The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve. Ann. App. Biol.22: 134–167. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    —. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Ann. App. Biol.26: 585–615. 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis, L. C. The influence of guttation fluid on pesticides. Phytopath.34: 196–205. 1944.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimond, A. E. et al. Role of the dosage-response curve in the evaluation of fungicides. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull.451: 635–667. 1941.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doran, W. L. Laboratory studies of the toxicity of some sulphur fungicides. N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bull. 19. 1922.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster, A. A. Acceleration and retardation of germination of some vegetable seeds resulting from treatment with copper fungicides. Phytopath.37: 390–398. 1947.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frear, D. E. H. Chemistry of insecticides and fungicides. 300 pp. 1942.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaddum, J. H. Reports on biological standards. III. Methods of biological assay depending on a quantal response. Privy Coun. Med. Res. Coun. Spec. Rept. Ser.183: 1–46. 1933.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gimincham, C. T. The action of carbon dioxide on Bordeaux mixture. Jour. Agr. Sci.4: 69–75. 1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldsworthy, M. C., andE. L. Green. Availability of the copper of Bordeaux mixture residues and its absorption by the conidia ofSclerotinia fructicola. Jour. Agr. Res.52: 517–533. 1936.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    —. Effect of low concentrations of copper on germination and growth of conidia ofSclerotinia fructicola andGlomerella cingulata. Jour. Agr. Res.56: 489–505. 1938.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    et al. Fungicidal and phytocidal properties of some metal dialkyl dithiocarbamates. Jour. Agr. Res:66: 277–291. 1943.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodwin, W., andH. Martin. The action of sulphur as a fungicide and as an acaricide. Part I. Ann. App. Biol.15: 623–638. 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    —. The action of sulphur as a fungicide and as an acaricide. Part II. Ann. App. Biol.16: 93–103. 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horsfall, J. G. Fungicides and their action. 239 pp. 1945.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liming, O. N. The relation of pentathionic acid and its component constituents to the toxicity of sulphur fungicides. Phytopath.22: 143–164. 1932.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    —. The preparation and properties of pentathionic acid and its salts; its toxicity to fungi, bacteria and insects. Phytopath.23: 155–174. 1933.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    —, andH. C. Young. Toxicity of sulphur to spores ofSclerotinia cinerea as affected by the presence of pentathionic and other sulphur acids. Jour. Agr. Res.40: 951–962. 1930.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin, C. K. Germination of the conidia ofSclerotinia fructicola, with special reference to the toxicity of copper. N. Y. [Cornell] Agr. Exp. Sta., Mem.233: 1–33. 1940.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCallan, S. E. A. Studies on fungicides. III. The solvent action of spore excretions and other agencies on protective copper fungicides. N. Y. [Cornell] Agr. Exp. Sta., Mem.128: 25–79. 1930.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    —. Characteristic curve for action of copper sulfate on the germination of spores ofSclerotinia fructicola andAlternaria oleracea. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst.15: 77–90. 1948.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    —, andF. R. Weeeon. Toxicity of ammonia, chlorine, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulphide, and sulphur dioxide gases. II. Fungi and bacteria. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst.11: 331–342. 1940.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    et al. An analysis of factors causing variation in spore germination tests of fungicides. III. Slope of toxicity curves, replicate tests, and fungi. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst.12: 49–78. 1941.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    —, andF. Wilcoxon. The fungicidal action of sulphur. II. The production of hydrogen sulphide by sulphured leaves and spores and its toxicity to spores. Cont. Boyce Thompson Inst.3: 13–38. 1931.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marsh, P. B. Salts as antidotes to copper in its toxicity to the conidia ofSclerotinia fructicola. Phytopath.35: 54–61. 1945.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marsh, R. W. Investigations on the fungicidal action of sulphur. III. Studies on the toxicity of mlphuretted hydrogen and on the interaction of sulphur with fungi. Jour. Pom. & Hort. Sci.7: 237–250. 1929.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, H. Studies upon the copper fungicides. I. The interaction of copper sulphate with calcium hydroxide. Ann. App. Biol.19: 98–120. 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    -. The scientific principles of plant protection. 3rd ed. 385 pp. 1940.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    —, andE. S. Salmon. The fungicidal properties of certain spray-fluids. IX. The fungicidal properties of the products of hydrolysis of sulphur. Jour. Agr. Sci.22: 595–616. 1932.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    et al. Studies upon the copper fungicides. V. A critical examination of the fungicidal value of copper compounds. Ann. App. Biol.29: 412–438. 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Millardet, A., etU. Gayon. Recherches nouvelles sur l’action que les preparations cuivrenses exercent sur le Peronospora de la vigne. Jour. d’Agr. Prat.51: 123–139, 156–161. 1887.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Montgomery, H. B. S., andH. Shaw. Behaviour of thiuram sulphides, etc., in spore germination tests. Nature151: 333. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parker-Rhodes, A. F. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. I. Preliminary investigation of nickel, copper, zinc, silver, and mercury. Ann. App. Biol.28: 389–405. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    —. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. II. Elements of the theory of variability. Ann. App. Biol.29: 126–135. 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    —. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. III. Sulphur. Ann. App. Biol.29: 136–143. 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    —. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. IV. Mercury. Ann. App. Biol.29: 404–411. 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    —. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. V. Non metallic and sodium dithiocarbamic acid derivatives. Ann. App. Biol.30: 170–179. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    —. Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action. VI. Water. Ann. App. Biol.30: 372–379. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roach, W. A., andM. D. Glvnne. The toxicity of certain sulphur compounds toSynchytrium endobioticum, the fungus causing wart disease of potatoes. Ann. App. Biol.15: 168–190. 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sempio, C. Sulla interpretazione del meccanismo intimo di azione dello solfo come anticrittogamico. Mem. della Reale Accad. d’Italia 3. Biol. No.2: 1–30. 1932.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Swingle, W. T. Bordeaux mixture:its chemistry, physical properties, and toxic effects on fungi and algae. U. S. Dept. Agr., Div. Veg. Phys. Path. Bull.9: 1–37. 1896.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thatcher, R. W., andL. R. Streeter. The adherence to foliage of sulfur in fungicidal dusts and sprays. N. Y. [Geneva] Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bull.116: 1–18. 1925.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wain, R. L., andE. H. Wilkinson. Studies upon the copper fungicides. VI. The solution of copper from Bordeaux and Burgundy mixtures. Ann. App. Biol.30: 379–391. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    —. Studies upon the copper fungicides. VII. The solution of copper from dressings on pea seeds. Ann. App. Biol.32: 240–243. 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    —. Studies upon the copper fungicides. VIII. The penetration of copper into germinating peas. Ann. App. Biol.32: 243–247. 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    —. Studies upon the copper fungicides. IX. Investigations with exudates from fungus spores. Ann. App. Biol.33: 401–405. 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wilcoxon, F., andS. E. A. McCallan. The fungicidal action of sulphur. I. The alleged rôle of pentathionic acid. Phytopath.20: 391–417. 1930. (Also in Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst.2: 389–415. 1930.)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    —. The fungicidal action of sulphur. III. Physical factors affecting the efficiency of dusts. Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst.3: 509–528. 1931.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    —. The fungicidal action of sulphur. IV. Comparative toxicity of sulphur, selenium, and tellurium. Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst.4: 415–424. 1932.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    —. The weathering of Bordeaux mixture. Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst.9: 149–159. 1938.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    —. Theoretical principles underlying laboratory toxicity tests of fungicides. Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst.10: 329–338. 1939.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Williams, R. C., andH. C. Young. The toxic property of sulfur, chemistry in relation to toxic factors. Ind. & Eng. Chem.21: 359–362. 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Young, H. C. The toxic property of sulphur. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.9: 403–435. 1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    —, andR. C. Williams. Pentathionic acid, the fungicidal factor of sulphur. Science67: 19–20. 1928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1949

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. E. A. McCallan
    • 1
  1. 1.Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc.N. Y.

Personalised recommendations