Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T07:27:26.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Susceptibility of Annual Weeds and Canada Thistle to MCPA Applied at Different Times of Day

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. L. Weaver  and
R. E. Nylund
M. L. Weaver
Affiliation:
Washington State University, Pullman
R. E. Nylund
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul
Get access

Abstract

Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and white mustard (Brassica hirta L.) were highly susceptible to 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) regardless of the pretreatment light exposure to which they were subjected. These broadleaved weeds were slightly more susceptible to MCPA applied after a prolonged period of darkness. Neither total carbohydrate, reducing sugar, protein, nor amino acid contents at the time of spraying were associated with the susceptibility of mustard plants to MCPA. Floral bud development on Canada thistle was greatly reduced by MCPA applied at any time of the day to plants 9 and 12 inches tall and was prevented on plants 3 and 6 inches tall. The susceptibility of broadleaved annual weeds and Canada thistle to MCPA was not affected by variations in temperature and humidity at time of spraying.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1965 , pp. 110 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 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. Ashwell, G. 1957. Colorimetric analysis of sugars, p. 79. In: Methods in enzymology III. Academic Press, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
2. Blackman, G. E. and Robertson-Cunninghame, R. C. 1955. Interrelationships between light intensity and physiological effects of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on the growth of Lemna minor . J. Expt. Bot. 6:156–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Egler, F. E. 1950. Herbicide effects in Connecticut vegetation in 1949. Bot. Gaz. 112:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Federer, W. T. 1955. Experimental design. MacMillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
5. Greenhorn, C. G. 1950. Studies in phytocides. 1. Diurnal variations in effectiveness of methoxone. Australian J. Agr. Res. 1:148–155.Google Scholar
6. Hitchcock, A. E. and Zimmerman, P. W. 1948. Effects of concentration of 2,4-D, rate of application, and respraying on killing of Japanese honeysuckle. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 51: 668–669.Google Scholar
7. Holly, K. 1956. Penetration of chlorinated phenoxyacetic acids in leaves. Ann. Appl. Biol. 44(1):195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Leloir, L. F. and Cardini, C. F. 1957. Characterization of phosphorus compounds by acid lability, p. 843–844. In: Methods in enzymology, III. Academic Press, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
9. Lowry, O. H., Rosenbrough, N. J., Farr, A. R., and Randall, R. J. 1951. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Biol. Chem. 193:265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rice, E. L. 1948. Absorption and translocation of ammonium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid by bean plants. Bot. Gaz. 109:301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Robinson, R. G. and Dunham, R. S. 1950. A sprayer for experimental plots. Agron. J. 42:57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical methods. Fifth ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames.Google Scholar
13. Somogyi, M. 1951. Notes on sugar determination. Biol. Chem. 195:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Thornton, B. J. 1947. Research Rept. WWCC 9:8.Google Scholar
15. Weaver, M. L. and Nylund, R. E. 1963. Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weeds 11:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Yemm, E. W. and Cocking, E. C. 1955. The determination of amino acids with ninhydrin. Analyst 80:209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar