Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:30:00.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Desmedipham Phytotoxicity to Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) Under Constant Versus Variable Light, Temperature, and Moisture Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. Bethlenfalvay  and
R.F. Norris
G. Bethlenfalvay
Affiliation:
Dep of Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
R.F. Norris
Affiliation:
Dep of Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The type of growth chamber environmental regime used altered the response of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘USH-9′) to desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate(ester)]. No difference occurred in growth retardation following treatment at different times of day when standard growth chamber constant day/night temperature and light cycles were used. When temperatures were programmed and light intensity varied during the day/night cycles, approximating out-of-doors daily cyclic conditions, the herbicide caused greater injury following morning treatments and less injury following late afternoon treatments. Data obtained in the growth chamber under the typical constant day/night pattern did not agree with field derived information; data obtained using the programmed temperature and varying light regime agreed well with field data and with known action of desmedipham. Plants stressed for moisture after treatment were less retarded than plants turgid at treatment; but both showed relationships to time of day at treatment similar to those noted above. Moisture stress prior to treatment diminished growth retardation by desmedipham, and reversed the treatment time of day effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , September 1977 , pp. 407 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Alberte, R.S., Fiscus, E.I., and Naylor, A.W. 1975. Effects of water stress on the development of the photosynthetic apparatus of greening leaves. Plant Physiol. 55:317–321.Google Scholar
2. Bethlenfalvay, G. and Norris, R.F. 1975. Phytotoxic action of desmedipham: Influence of temperature and light intensity. Weed Sci. 23:499–503.Google Scholar
3. Bethlenfalvay, G. 1976. Studies on the effect of the Hill reaction inhibitors, DCMU and desmedipham, on energy conservation phenomena in thylakoid suspensions. Diss. Abstr. Int. B. 3716, publication 76–28, 956.Google Scholar
4. Bischof, F., Koch, W., Majumdar, J.C., and Schwerdtle, F. 1970. Retention, Penetration and Verlust von Phenmedipham in Abhängigkeit von einigen Faktoren. A. Pflanzenkr. V: Sonder. pp. 95–102.Google Scholar
5. Downs, R.J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Environment and the experimental control of plant growth. Academic Press, New York. 145 pp.Google Scholar
6. Freed, V.H. and Morris, R.D., eds. 1967. Environmental and other factors in the response of plants to herbicides. Oreg. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull 100, 128 pp.Google Scholar
7. Fry, K.E. 1972. Inhibition of ferricyanide reduction in chloroplasts prepared from water-stressed cotton leaves. Crop Sci. 12:698–701.Google Scholar
8. Hammerton, J.L. 1967. Environmental factors and susceptibility to herbicides. Weeds 15:330–336.Google Scholar
9. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn., Circ. 347, 32 pp.Google Scholar
10. Norris, R.F. and Lardelli, R.A. 1976. Influence of time of day at spraying on activity of phenmedipham and desmedipham. Res. Prog. Rep., West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 143–146.Google Scholar
11. Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T., Bradstreet, E.D., and Hemmingsen, E.A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Stanger, C.E. and Appleby, A.P. 1972. A proposed mechanism for diuron-induced phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 20:357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Virgin, H.I. 1965. Chlorophyll formation and water deficit. Physiol. Plant. 18:994–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Weaver, M.L. and Nylund, R.E. 1963. Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weeds 11:142–148.Google Scholar