Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T21:14:39.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species Differences in Site of Root Uptake and Tolerance to EPTC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. R. Oliver ,
G. N. Prendeville  and
M. M. Schreiber
L. R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
G. N. Prendeville
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University
M. M. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Lafayette, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the uptake of ethyl N,N-dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) by barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), oats (Avena sativa L.), sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.), and giant foxtail (Setaria faberii Herrm.) using a double plastic pot technique that allowed separate exposure of the shoot and root zones to treated soil. Barley was more tolerant than wheat, whereas oats, sorghum, and giant foxtail were the most susceptible to EPTC at 1/4 to 1 1/2 lb/A-inch. The roots were the major site of uptake in barley, but injury to the other species from root exposure was equal to or slightly less than that from shoot exposure. The seed, or first 2 to 4 mm of shoot or both, were more sensitive in wheat than in barley. Such differential sensitivity was not evident in the shoot zone of the other species. These experiments, coupled with 14C-EPTC studies, indicated that differences in tolerance can be associated with the sites of uptake.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 534 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Appleby, A. P., Furtick, W. R., and Fang, S. C. 1965. Soil placement studies with EPTC and other carbamate herbicides on Avena sativa . Weed Res. 5:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, Shogo. 1964. The Autoradiography of Plant Materials. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Manual 35. 143 p.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–67.Google Scholar
4. Eshel, Y. and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root vs. shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.Google Scholar
5. McCall, M. A. 1943. Developmental anatomy and homolgies in wheat. J. Agr. Res. 48:283–321.Google Scholar
6. Murray, J. S., Schreiber, M. M., and Guard, A. T. 1967. Anatomy of the first internode of giant foxtail. Weeds 15:347–351.Google Scholar
7. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.Google Scholar
8. Prendeville, G. N., Eshel, Y., Schreiber, M. M., and Warren, G. F. 1967. Site of uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:316–322.Google Scholar
9. Yamaguchi, Shogo. 1961. Absorption and distribution of EPTC-S35 . Weed Res. 9:374–380.Google Scholar