Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:32:35.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Picloram and 2,4,5-T Influence on Honey Mesquite Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. E. Meyer
R. E. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., College Station, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seeds of honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockerell) were germinated and grown in aqueous solutions of the sodium salt of (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4,5-T) or the potassium salt of 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram). Elongation of germinating seedling hypocotyls and roots was progressively inhibited by increasing concn of each herbicide up to about 1 or 2 mg/L the first 2 days. After 5 and 10 days, progressively more inhibition occurred at 5 to 10 mg/L of 2,4,5-T and 1 to 2 mg/L of picloram. Four-month-old honey mesquite seedlings were treated with foliar sprays of the 2-ethylhexyl ester of 2,4,5-T or the potassium salt of picloram. Both herbicides caused curling of the stem tip, death of the growing point, cracking below the leaf, and increased numbers of lateral roots. Both herbicides caused phellem cells to enlarge radially, inner cortext and phloem parenchyma to proliferate, and xylem vessels to lignify without enlarging. Starch granules disappeared from treated plants within 8 days and re-occurred in treated plants only 53 days after spraying. Picloram was slightly more toxic to honey mesquite seedlings than 2,4,5-T.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , July 1970 , pp. 525 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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. Behrens, Richard and Morton, H. L. 1960. Mesquite root inhibition tests to study inhibitory activity, absorption and translocation of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Weeds 8:427–435.Google Scholar
2. Blair, B. O. 1951. Mesquite seed and seedling response to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Bot. Gaz. 112:518–521.Google Scholar
3. Fisher, D. A., Bayer, D. E., and Weier, T. E. 1968. Morphological and anatomical effects of picloram on Phaseolus vulgaris . Bot. Gaz. 129:67–70.Google Scholar
4. Flynt, T. O. and Morton, H. L. 1969. A device for threshing mesquite seed. Weed Sci. 17:302–303.Google Scholar
5. Kreps, L. B. and Alley, H. P. 1967. Histological abnormalities induced by picloram on Canada thistle roots. Weeds 15:56–59.Google Scholar
6. Sass, J. E. 1958. Botanical Microtechnique, 3rd ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 228 p.Google Scholar
7. Sawamura, Shogo. 1964. Cytological studies on the effect of herbicides on plant cells in vivo 1. Hormonic herbicides. Cytologia 29:86–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Scifres, C. J. and McCarty, M. K. 1968. Reaction of western ironweed leaf tissue to picloram. Weed Sci. 16:347–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Swanson, C. P. 1946. Histological responses of the kidney bean to aqueous sprays of (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid. Bot. Gaz. 107:522–531.Google Scholar