Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:39:31.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of picloram on resistant and susceptible yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis): the role of ethylene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert P. Sabba ,
Tracy M. Sterling  and
Norm K. Lownds
Robert P. Sabba
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, USDA/ARS, Stoneville, Mississippi 38776; [email protected]
Norm K. Lownds
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The noxious weed yellow starthistle is commonly controlled by the auxinic herbicide picloram. Induction of ethylene synthesis, epinasty, and reduction in shoot growth are typical symptoms of picloram treatment. Picloram did not induce ethylene evolution in the resistant accession RDW-1, though it caused a 250% increase in ethylene evolution in the susceptible wildtype SCI-1. The ethylene synthesis inhibitor aminoethoxyvinylglycine reduced the amount of ethylene induced by picloram in SCI-1 to control levels, but only reduced epinasty by 20% after 6 d. Aminoethoxyvinylglycine did not affect the reduction in shoot weight caused by picloram. The ethylene-releasing compound ethephon induced only a small amount of epinasty and had little effect on shoot weight in either accession. These results suggest that ethylene induced by picloram in wildrype plants plays only a minor role in the herbicidal effects of picloram. Furthermore, the resistance of the RDW-1 accession is not due to the lack of ethylene biosynthesis following picloram application to this accession.

Keywords

Picloramyellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. CENSOAminoethoxyvinylglycineauxinauxinic herbicideepinastyCENSO
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , June 1998 , pp. 297 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Barnwell, P. and Cobb, H. 1989. Physiological studies of mecoprop-resistance in chickweed (Stellaria media L.). Weed Res. 29: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Schirman, R. W., and Northam, F. E. 1990. Picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 30: 31.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. 1994. Resistance to the auxin analog herbicides. Pages 171–214 in Powles, S. and Holtum, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. and Jackson, M. B. 1991. Effects of mecoprop (an auxin analogue) on ethylene evolution and epinasty in two biotypes of Stellaria media . Ann. Bot. 68: 167–172.Google Scholar
Edgerton, L. J. and Blanpied, G. D. 1968. Regulation of growth and fruit maturation with 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid. Nature 219: 1064–1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, K. R., Reid, D. M., and Pharis, R. P. 1992. Ethylene biosynthesis and ethephon metabolism and transport in barley. Crop Sci. 32: 1345–1352.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Sterling, T. M., Norman, M. A., Prather, T. S., Irzyk, G. P., Wu, Y., Lownds, N. K., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Physiological characterization of picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 56: 149–161.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. and Schmülling, T. 1995. The effects of the herbicide quinclorac on shoot growth on tomato is alleviated by inhibitors of ethylene biosynthesis and by the presence of an antisense construct to the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) synthase gene in transgenic plants. Plant Growth Regul. 16: 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. C., Alam, S. M., and Murr, D. P. 1993. Ethylene biosynthesis following foliar application of picloram to biotypes of wild mustard (Sinapis arrensis L.) susceptible or resistant to auxinic herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 47: 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. C., Bassi, P. K., Spencer, M. S., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1985. An evaluation of the role of ethylene in herbicidal injury induced by picloram or clopyralid in rapeseed and sunflower plants. Plant Physiol. 79: 18–23.Google Scholar
Holm, R. E. and Abeles, F. B. 1968. The role of ethylene in 2,4-D-induced growth inhibition. Planta 78: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, C. P. and Van Volkenburgh, E. 1997. Auxin-induced epinasty of tobacco leaf tissues. Plant Physiol. 113: 603–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lownds, N. K. and Bukovac, M. J. 1989. Surfactant-induced ethylene production by leaf tissue. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 114: 449–452.Google Scholar
Morgan, P. W. and Baur, J. R. 1970. Involvement of ethylene in picloram-induced leaf movement response. Plant Physiol. 46: 655–659.Google Scholar
Peniuk, M. G., Romano, M. L., and Hall, J. C. 1993. Physiological investigations into the resistance of a wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) biotype to auxinic herbicides. Weed Res. 33: 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, M. S. 1995. Ethylene in plant growth, development, and senescence. Pages 486–508 in Davies, P. J., cd. Plant Hormones, Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stacewicz-Sapuncakis, M., Marsh, H. V., Vengris, J., Jennings, P. H., and Robinson, T. 1973. Participation of ethylene in common purslane response to dicamba. Plant Physiol. 52: 466–471.Google Scholar
Sterling, T. M. and Hall, J. C. 1997. Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111–114 in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kühr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, L.M.L. and Cobb, A. H. 1987. The selectivity of clopyralid in sugar beet; studies on ethylene evolution. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 3: 1097–1104.Google Scholar
Warner, H. L. and Leopold, A. C. 1969. Ethylene evolution from 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid. Plant Physiol. 44: 156–158.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, M., Chu, C. W., and Yang, S. F. 1971. The fate of 14C(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid in summer squash, cucumber, and tomato. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 96: 606–609.Google Scholar
Yu, Y.-B. and Yang, S. F. 1979. Auxin-induced ethylene production and its inhibition by aminoethoxyvinylglycine and cobalt ion. Plant Physiol. 64: 1074–1077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed