Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:29:10.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil Water Potential and Bromacil Uptake by Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. D. Schreiber ,
V. V. Volk  and
L. Boersma
J. D. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv. Sedimentation Lab., Oxford, MS
V. V. Volk
Affiliation:
Dep. of Soil Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
L. Boersma
Affiliation:
Dep. of Soil Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The uptake of 14C labeled bromacil [5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil] by wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Gaines’) grown in a Woodburn silt loam was studied at soil water potentials of −0.35 and −2.50 bars, and in solutions containing 2.0 and 4.5 μg/ml bromacil. Transpiration rate, shoot and root dry weight, and bromacil content were measured as a function of time. Bromacil uptake into the root and foliar portions of the wheat plants increased with time. At the low bromacil concentration, 70%, and at the high concentration, 42%, more bromacil was taken up by the plant at the higher soil water potential. Uptake of bromacil increased concurrently with increased transpiration of water. The bromacil concentration in the transpiration stream was greater at the −0.35 bar than at the −2.50 bar soil water potential at both bromacil application rates. Transpiration rates of the plants treated with bromacil were nearly the same after a 40-hr exposure at both soil water potentials. The rate of bromacil uptake and accumulation may be influenced by the effect of soil water potential on the apoplastic movement of water and solutes in the roots.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 127 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Babalola, O., Boersma, L., and Youngberg, C.T. 1968. Photosynthesis and transpiration of Monterey pine seedlings as a function of soil water suction and soil temperature. Plant Physiol. 43:515–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Brix, H. 1962. The effect of water stress on the rates of photosynthesis and respiration in tomato plants and loblolly pine seedlings. Physiol. Plant. 15:10–20.Google Scholar
3. Crafts, A.S. and Crisp, C.E. 1971. Phloem Transport in Plants. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA. 481 pp.Google Scholar
4. Dudek, C., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P.W. 1973. Adsorption and translocation of terbutryn and propazine. Weed Sci. 21:440–442.Google Scholar
5. Hacskaylo, J., Lindquist, D.A., Davich, J.B. and Morton, H.L. 1961. Accumulation of phorate by cotton plants from solution and sand culture. Bot. Gaz. 123:46–50.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E.W. and Young, D.W. 1952. Penetration and translocation of 2,4-D compounds. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 9:27–31.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E.W. 1955. Adsorption of 2,4-D dichlorophenoxy acetic acid by soybean and corn plants. Agron. J. 47:32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Mahin, D.T. and Lofberg, R.T. 1970. Determination of several isotopes in tissue by wet oxidation. Pages 212–221. in Bransome, E.D. Jr. ed. The current status of liquid scintillation counting. Grune and Stratton, NY and London.Google Scholar
9. Sedgley, R.H. and Boersma, L. 1969. Effect of soil water stress and soil temperature on translocation of diuron. Weed Sci. 17:304–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Sheets, T.J. 1961. Uptake and distribution of simazine by oat and cotton seedlings. Weeds 9:1–14.Google Scholar
11. Smith, A.E., Zukel, J.W., Stone, G.M., and Riddell, J.A. 1959. Factors affecting the performance of maleic hydrazide. J. Agr. Food Chem. 7:341–344.Google Scholar