Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:22:29.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Miserotoxin Metabolism in Timber Milkvetch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert Parker  and
M. C. Williams
Robert Parker
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Logan, UT 84322
M. C. Williams
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Logan, UT 84322
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three poisonous varieties of timber milkvetch (Astragalus miser Dougl. ex Hook.) were grown under different temperature regimes in growth chambers. Miserotoxin, the poisonous chemical in timber milkvetch, was in greater concentration in plants grown at higher day temperatures (32 C) than at 24 C. In the field, nitrogen fertilizers did not affect miserotoxin synthesis in any variety, but significantly increased plant nitrogen in two varieties. Excluding light from Yellowstone milkvetch [var. hylophilus (Rydb.) Barneby] for 2 weeks significantly lowered miserotoxin concentration. Miserotoxin level in timber milkvetch was reduced when photosynthesis (a) was blocked by subjecting plants to prolonged darkness; (b) was disrupted by treating plants with 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] or silvex [2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid]; (c) was reduced by lowered day temperature; (d) was terminated by senescence and bleaching.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , November 1974 , pp. 552 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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. Cooke, A.R. 1955. Effect of CMU on biochemical composition of several legumes. Res. Rep. N. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 12:181–182.Google Scholar
2. Cooke, A.R. 1955. The toxic constituent of Indigofera endecaphylla . Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 55:114–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. Water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
4. Mau, T.S. 1963. Quantitative microchemical analysis. In Welcher, F.J. (ed.) Standard methods of chemical analysis. 6th ed. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York. Vol. 2, Part A. 1353 pp.Google Scholar
5. Ries, S.K. and Gast, A. 1965. The effect of simazine on nitrogenous components of corn. Weeds. 13:272–274.Google Scholar
6. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar
7. Williams, M.C. 1970. Detoxication of timber milkvetch by 2,4,5-T and silvex. J. Range Mgt. 23:400–402.Google Scholar
8. Williams, M.C. and Norris, F.A. 1969. Distribution of miserotoxin in varieties of Astragalus miser Dougl. ex Hook. Weed Sci. 17:236–238.Google Scholar
9. Williams, M.C., Norris, F.A., and Van Kampen, K.R. 1970. Metabolism of miserotoxin to 3-nitro-1-propanol in bovine and ovine ruminal fluids. Amer. J. Vet. Res. 31:259–262.Google ScholarPubMed