Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:08:10.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrolytic Conductivity — a Rapid Measure of Herbicide Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D.E. Vanstone  and
E.H. Stobbe
D.E. Vanstone
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2
E.H. Stobbe
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of electrolytic conductivity as a measure of cell membrane disruption was tested on buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. cv. ‘Tokyo’) plants which had been sprayed with paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion) or oxyfluorfen [2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzene]. All treatments which resulted in tissue damage caused significant increases to the solutions where the discs were floated for measurement. The highest conductivity measurement (most membrane disruption) was obtained from paraquat. The highest concentration for each herbicide gave higher conductivity measurements than lower concentrations. A difference in the pattern of conductivity change induced by the two chemicals implies a different mode of action for each.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 352 - 354
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. Black, C.C. 1965. Reduction of trimethylene dipyridyl with illuminated chloroplasts. Science 149:62–63.Google Scholar
2. Blazich, F.A., Evert, D.R., and Bee, D.E. 1974. Comparison of three methods of measuring winter hardiness of internodal stem sections of Forsythia intermedia ‘Lynwood’. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 99:211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dexter, S.T. 1956. Evaluation of crop plants for winter hardiness. Adv. Agron. 8:203–209.Google Scholar
4. Hawton, D. and Stobbe, E.H. 1971. The fate of nitrofen in rape, redroot pigweed and green foxtail. Weed Sci. 19:555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hudson, M.A. 1961. The limitations of a cut leaf test for assessing the frost resistance of tuber-bearing Solanums. Euphytica 10:169–179.Google Scholar
6. Matsunaka, S. and Shimabukuro, R.S. 1974. Light-herbicide interaction: A new mode of action. Nat. Inst. Agric. Sci., Konosu, Saitama, Japan.Google Scholar
7. Mees, G.C. 1960. Experiments on the herbicidal action of 1,1′-ethylene-2,2′-dipirdylium dibromide. Ann. Appl. Biol. 48:601–612.Google Scholar
8. Sukumaran, N.P. and Weiser, C.J. 1972. An excised leaflet test for evaluating potato frost tolerance. Hortic. Sci. 7:467–468.Google Scholar
9. Wright, M. 1974. The effect on chilling of ethylene production, membrane permeability and water loss of leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris . Planta 120:63–69.Google Scholar