Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T22:15:58.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Bioassay Techniques for Detecting Imazaquin in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Keith A. O'Bryan ,
Barry J. Brecke ,
Donn G. Shilling  and
Daniel L. Colvin
Keith A. O'Bryan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0311
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
Univ. Florida, Agric. Res. Ed. Cent., Jay, FL 32565
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three corn root bioassays were evaluated for detecting imazaquin in soil. Two techniques, one which utilized a cone-shaped tube as the growth container and another, a petri dish, were compared to a method that utilized a thin layer of soil between two 20 by 20 cm glass plates. Corn root growth responded logarithmically to imazaquin regardless of bioassay method. Corn was most sensitive to low imazaquin concentrations when grown using the glass plate apparatus. At a low concentration (0.5 ng/g) of imazaquin, corn root length was reduced 6% using the cone-tube, 2% using the petri dish, and 24% using the glass plate method. In contrast, the cone-tube method provided a better measure of high imazaquin concentration (200 ng/g) than the other methods.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidcorn, Zea mays L.Bioassayimidazolinonecorn root length
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 203 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Anonymous. 1987. Scepter product label. American Cyanamid Co., Wayne NJ 07470.Google Scholar
2. Bashm, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr absorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
7. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Response of corn (Zea mays) cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36:625–628.Google Scholar
8. Sander, K. W. and Barrett, M. 1989. Differential imazaquin tolerance and behavior in selected corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 37:290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones: Potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Shaner, D. L. 1989. Factors affecting soil and foliar bioavailability of the imidazolinone herbicides. American Cyanamid Company, Princeton NJ 08540.Google Scholar
11. Sunderland, S., Santelmann, P. W., and Baughman, T. 1992. A rapid, sensitive, soil bioassay for sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar