Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:01:03.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of EPTC on External Foliage Wax Deposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. A. Gentner
W. A. Gentner*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Get access

Abstract

Ethyl N,N-dipropylthiolcarbamate [EPTC] inhibited the deposition of external foliage wax of cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata, L.). Wax inhibition was correlated directly with the rate of application of EPTC. Differential inhibition of wax deposition showed that foliage waxes were important in inhibiting the penetration and absorption of the alkanolamine salts of 4,6-dinitro-o-sec-butylphenol [DNBP]. Several other thiolcarbamates also altered the susceptibility of treated plants to subsequently applied herbicides. When EPTC was applied as a spray, only leaves then in the bud were affected. Leaf primordia developed later were not affected. Granular applications of EPTC extended the period during which the formation of foliage wax was inhibited. The reduction of foliage wax resulted in increased spray retention and decreased contact angle of spray droplets. EPTC increased the transpiration rate proportionally to its rate of application.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1966 , pp. 27 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 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. DeBary, A. 1871. Ueber die Wachsubersuge der Epidermis. Bot. Zeit. 29:129–139, 145–155, 161–176, 566–571, 573–585, 605–619.Google Scholar
2. Dewey, O. R., Gregory, P., and Pfieffer, R. K. 1956. Factors affecting the susceptibility of peas to selective dinitroherbicides. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 1:313–327.Google Scholar
3. Eberling, W. 1939. The role of surface tension and contact angle in the performance of spray liquids. Hilgardia 12:665–698.Google Scholar
4. Ennis, W. B. Jr., Williamson, R. E., and Dorschner, K. P. 1952. Studies on spray retention by leaves of different plants. Weeds 1:274–286.Google Scholar
5. Hall, D. M. and Jones, R. L. 1961. Physiological significance of surface wax on leaves. Nature (London) 191 (4783):95–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hull, H. M. 1958. The effect of day and night temperature on growth, foliar wax content, and cuticle development of velvet mesquite. Weeds 6:133–142.Google Scholar
7. Juniper, B. E. 1960. Growth development and effect of environment on the ultra-structure of plant surfaces. J. Linn. Soc. 56:413–419.Google Scholar
8. Juniper, B. E. 1959. The effect of pre-emergent treatment of peas with trichloroacetic acid on the sub-microscopic structure of the leaf surface. The New Phytologist 58:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Juniper, B. E. 1960. Leaf surfaces under the electron microscope. Proc. Fourth Intern. Conf. Electron Microscopy. p. 489–490.Google Scholar
10. Kreger, D. R. 1948. An x-ray study of waxy coatings from plants. Rec. Tran. Bot. Neer. 41:603–736.Google Scholar
11. Kurtz, E. B. Jr. 1950. The relation of the characteristics and yield of wax to plant age. Plant Physiol. 25:269–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Mueller, L. E., Carr, P. H., and Loomis, W. E. 1954. The sub-microscopic structure of plant surfaces. Amer. J. Bot. 41:593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Pfeiffer, R. K., Dewey, O. R. and Brunskill, R. T. 1957. Further investigation of the effect of pre-emergence treatment with trichloroacetic acid and dichloropropionic acids on the subsequent reaction of plants to other herbicidal sprays. Fourth Int. Cong. Crop Prot. 1:523–525.Google Scholar
14. Schieferstein, R. M. and Loomis, W. E. 1959. Development of the cuticular layers in angiosperm leaves. Amer J. Bot. 46:625–635.Google Scholar