Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:46:57.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Stimulation of Ethylene Evolution and Bud Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Page W. Morgan ,
Robert E. Meyer  and
Morris G. Merkle
Page W. Morgan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Crops Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Morris G. Merkle
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A formulation containing 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid, its ethyl ester and anhydride (hereafter referred to as 66-329), caused defoliation and, subsequently, growth of inactive basal buds of honey mesquite [Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell]. With huisache [Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.], the same treatments increased the number of branches and leaves per node; however, apical buds often were killed. Application of 66-329 to mesquite increased the release of ethylene to levels in the experimental system which were physiologically active. Bud release by 66-329 appeared to be mediated by ethylene. Treatments that induce growth of basal and lateral buds of woody plants may allow the killing of more plants by subsequent herbicide application.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 1969 , pp. 353 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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. Cook, A. R. and Randall, D. I. 1968. 2-Haloethanephosphonic acids as ethylene releasing agents for the induction of flowering in pineapples. Nature 218:274.Google Scholar
2. Hall, W. C., Truchelut, G. B., Leinweber, C. L. and Herrero, F. A. 1957. Ethylene production by the cotton plant and its effect under experimental and field conditions. Physiol. Plant. 10:306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Heck, W. W. and Pires, E. G. 1962. Effect of ethylene on horticultural and agronomic plants. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc. Publ. 613. 12 p.Google Scholar
4. Heck, W. W., Pires, E. G. and Hall, W. C. 1961. The effects of a low ethylene concentration on the growth of cotton. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 11:549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Morgan, P. W. 1968. Effect of Amchem 66-329 on defoliation and ethylene production by cotton. Proc. 1968 Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 72–78. (National Cotton Council, Memphis, Tenn.). (see also Plant Physiol. 44:337-341.) Google Scholar
6. Young, R. E., Pratt, H. K. and Biale, J. B. 1952. Manometric determination of low concentrations of ethylene. Anal. Chem. 24:551–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar