Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T17:23:24.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhizome Bud Viability of Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Treated with Glyphosate and Quizalofop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

François J. Tardif  and
Gilles D. Leroux
François J. Tardif
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Laval Univ., Cité Universitaire, Qc, Canada G1K 7P4
Gilles D. Leroux
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Laval Univ., Cité Universitaire, Qc, Canada G1K 7P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate and the ethyl ester of quizalofop on the rhizome bud viability of five quackgrass biotypes was tested. Two bioassays used were: direct measure of the growth of the bud on an agar medium and determination of the respiratory activity with tetrazolium chloride. The response to herbicide treatments differed among biotypes. The growth bioassay showed lower viability than the tetrazolium bioassay. Quizalofop reduced viability more than glyphosate. Viability of untreated buds increased with increasing distance from the base of the rhizome. The viability of herbicide-treated buds was more or less equal regardless of the position. It appeared that both herbicides were translocated to all the rhizome buds.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinequizalofop, (±)-2-[4-(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acidquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski, ♯3 AGRREViability testssystemic herbicidesDPX-Y6202tetrazoliumbiotypesAgropyron repensAGRRE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 529 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Allen, O. B. 1983. A guide to the analysis of growth curve data with special reference to SAS. Computers Biomed. Res. 16:101–115.Google Scholar
2. Allen, O. B., Burton, J. H., and Holt, J. D. 1983. Analysis of repeated measurements from animal experiments using polynomial regression. J. Anim. Sci. 57:765–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Alcantara, E. N., Wyse, D. L., and Spitzmueller, J. M. 1989. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes response to sethoxydim and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 37:107–111.Google Scholar
4. Ashton, F. M., and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
5. Buchholtz, K. P. 1958. Variations in the sensitivity of clones of quackgrass to dalapon. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 15:18–19.Google Scholar
6. Claus, J. S., and Behrens, R. 1976. Glyphosate translocation and quackgrass rhizome bud kill. Weed Sci. 24:149–152.Google Scholar
7. Dekker, J. H., and Chandler, K. 1985. Herbicide effect on the viability of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) rhizome buds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:1057–1064.Google Scholar
8. Haddad, S. Y., and Sagar, G. R. 1968. A study of the response of four clones of quackgrass to root and shoot application of aminotriazole and dalapon. Proc. 9th Br. Weed Control Conf. 9:142–148.Google Scholar
9. Holly, K., and Chancellor, R. J. 1960. The response of Agropyron repens to aminotriazole. Proc. 4th Br. Weed Control Conf. 4:301–309.Google Scholar
10. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Univ. Press Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
11. Johnson, B. G., and Buchholtz, K. P. 1961. An in vitro method of evaluating the activity of buds on the rhizomes of quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weeds 9:600–606.Google Scholar
12. Keeley, P. D., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1985. Influence of glyphosate on resprouting of parent tubers of Cyperus esculentus . Weed Sci 34:25–29.Google Scholar
13. McIntyre, O. I. 1972. Studies on bud development in the rhizome of Agropyron repens. II. The effect of nitrogen supply. Can. J. Bot. 50:393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Neuteboom, J. H. 1975. Variability of Elytrigia repens (L.)Desv. (syn. Agropyron repens (L.)Beauv.) on Dutch agricultural soils. Meded. Landbou. Wageningen 7:1–29.Google Scholar
15. Nigam, J. N., and McIntyre, G. I. 1977. Apical dominance in the rhizome of Agropyron repens. The relation of amino acid composition to bud activity. Can. J. Bot. 55:2001–2010.Google Scholar
16. Rioux, R., Bandeen, J. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1974. Effects of growth stage on translocation of glyphosate in quackgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci 54:397–401.Google Scholar
17. Sampson, M. G. 1987. Quackgrass biotypes. In Technical Proc. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can. Google Scholar
18. Smith, F. E. 1951. Tetrazolium salt. Science 113:751–754.Google Scholar
19. Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 23:235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Werner, P. A., and Rioux, R. 1977. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 23. Agropyron repens (L.)Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 57:905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Westra, P., and Wyse, D. L. 1981. Growth and development of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes. Weed Sci. 29:44–52.Google Scholar
22. Wilhm, J. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1986. Effect of acifluorfen and bentazon on absorption and translocation of haloxyfop and DPX-Y6202 in quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci 34:333–337.Google Scholar
23. Williams, E. D. 1973. Variation in growth of seedlings and clones of Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 13:24–41.Google Scholar