Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:52:02.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Response of Ajuga (Ajuga reptans), Wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), and Dwarf Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus ‘Compacta’) to Root- and Shoot-Applied Isoxaben

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sydha Salihu ,
Jeffrey F. Derr  and
Kriton K. Hatzios
Sydha Salihu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Kriton K. Hatzios
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jderr@vt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hydroponics and sand culture studies evaluated the effects of isoxaben rate (0.84, 1.69, and 3.39 kg/ha) and application type (root only, shoot only, and root plus shoot) on the growth of ajuga, wintercreeper, and dwarf burning bush. Similar responses were exhibited by the three species tested in both hydroponics and sand culture studies. Based on shoot weight reductions, dwarf burning bush was one to three times more sensitive than wintercreeper, which was the most tolerant of the three species, and ajuga was five to 20 times more sensitive than wintercreeper. Isoxaben applied to the root system at all three rates injured ajuga root tips and foliage and reduced root weight by approximately 40% and shoot weight by 20 to 30%. Isoxaben applications to ajuga foliage damaged the roots and leaves and caused over 30% reductions in shoot and root weights at the highest rate tested. Isoxaben applied to dwarf burning bush roots caused less than 20% shoot injury, reduced root weight by 8 to 18%, and reduced shoot weight by less than 10%. Application to dwarf burning bush foliage caused 20 to 30% injury, but only slight reductions in root and shoot weights were observed. No visible injury was observed in wintercreeper from any isoxaben application. However, root treatment reduced wintercreeper root weight by approximately 15%, and shoot treatment reduced shoot weight by 6 to 10% at the highest isoxaben rate tested. Application of isoxaben to both roots and foliage of wintercreeper resulted in similar reductions in shoot and root weights compared to root or shoot exposure alone. Shoot application to wintercreeper affected root growth, and root treatment reduced shoot growth.

Keywords

Isoxaben, N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dimethoxybenzamideajuga, Ajuga reptans L. ‘Alba’wintercreeper, Euonymus fortunei (Turcz.) Hand. Mazz. ‘Colorata’dwarf burning bush, Euonymus alatus (Thunb) Sieb. ‘Compacta.’Differential tolerancepreemergence herbicidesherbicide absorptionornamentalsherbicide uptakeWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 685 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

Current address of senior author: c/o R. Chandran, Extension Specialist (IPM), West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1994. Gallery, an Experimental Herbicide for Use in Turf and Ornamentals. Technical Bull. Indianapolis, IN: DowElanco. 12 p.Google Scholar
Cabanne, F., Lefebvre, A., and Scalla, R. 1987. Behaviour of herbicide EL-107 in wheat and rape grown under controlled conditions. Weed Res. 27:135–142.Google Scholar
Corio-Costet, M. F., Dall'Agnese, M., and Scalla, R. 1991a. Effects of isoxaben on sensitive and tolerant plant cell cultures. 1. Metabolic fate of isoxaben. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 40:246–254.Google Scholar
Corio-Costet, M. F., Lherminier, J., and Scalla, R. 1991b. Effects of isoxaben on sensitive and tolerant plant cell cultures. II. Cellular alterations and inhibition of the synthesis of acid insoluble cell wall material. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 40:255–265.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 1993. Wildflower tolerance to metolachlor and metolachlor combined with other broadleaf herbicides. HortScience 28:1023–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, J. F. 1994a. Weed control in container-grown herbaceous perennials. HortScience 29:95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, J. F. 1994b. Tolerance of ground covers to preemergence herbicides. Proc. South. Nursery Assoc. Res. Conf. 39:303–304.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. and Salihu, S. 1996. Preemergence herbicide effects on nursery crop root and shoot growth. J. Environ. Hortic. 14:210–213.Google Scholar
Fuller, D. L. 1990. Phytotoxicity evaluations of preemergent herbicides on selected ornamental nursery crops. Proc. South. Nursery Assoc. Res. Conf. 35:265–267.Google Scholar
Gilliam, C. H., Wehtje, G., Eason, J. E., Hicks, T. V., and Fare, D. C. 1989. Weed control with Gallery and other herbicides in field-grown nursery crops. J. Environ. Hortic. 7:69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, D. R., Bjelk, L. A., James, J., Schneegurt, M. A., and Larrinua, I. M. 1993. Mechanism of isoxaben tolerance in Agrostis palustris var. Penncross. J. Exp. Bot. 44:1185–1189.Google Scholar
Heim, D. R., Skomp, J. R., Tschabold, E. E., and Larrinua, I. M. 1990. Isoxaben inhibits the synthesis of acid insoluble cell wall materials in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. 93:695–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoagland, D. R. 1937. Some aspects of the salt nutrition of higher plants. Bot. Rev. 3:307–334.Google Scholar
Mervosh, T. L. and Ahrens, J. F. 1997. Herbicidal activity of and woody ornamental tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:29.Google Scholar
Neal, J. C. and Senesac, A. F. 1990. Preemergent weed control in container- and field-grown woody ornamentals with isoxaben (Gallery). J. Environ. Hortic. 8:103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, W. C. 1996. Isoxaben and isoxaben combinations for weed control in container-grown herbaceous flowering perennials. J. Environ. Hortic. 14:27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. L. 1991. Morphological responses of susceptible plants to the herbicide isoxaben. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 31:78.Google Scholar
Salihu, S., Derr, J. F., and Hatzios, K. K. 1998a. Effects of Gallery applied at different growth stages to dwarf burning bush (Euonymus alatus ‘Compacta’). J. Environ. Hortic. 16:155–158.Google Scholar
Salihu, S., Hatzios, K. K., and Derr, J. F. 1998b. Comparative uptake, translocation, and metabolism of root-applied isoxaben in ajuga (Ajuga reptans), and two ornamental Euonymus species. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 60:119–131.Google Scholar
Schneegurt, M. A., Heim, D. R., and Larrinua, I. M. 1994a. Investigation into the mechanism of isoxaben tolerance in dicot weeds. Weed Sci. 42:163–167.Google Scholar
Schneegurt, M. A., Roberts, J. L., Bjelk, L. A., and Gerwick, B. C. 1994b. Postemergence activity of isoxaben. Weed Technol. 8:183–189.Google Scholar
Setyowati, N., Weston, L. A., and McNeil, R. E. 1995. Evaluation of selected preemergence herbicides in field-grown landscape crops in Kentucky. J. Environ. Hortic. 13:196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skroch, W. A., Catanzaro, C. A., and Younce, M. H. 1990. Response of nine herbaceous perennials to selected herbicides. J. Environ. Hortic. 8:26–28.Google Scholar
Staats, D. and Klett, J. E. 1993. Evaluation of weed control and phytotoxicity of preemergence herbicides applied to container-grown herbaceous and woody plants. J. Environ. Hortic. 11:78–80.Google Scholar