Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:02:11.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha) Response to Quinoclamine in a Pine Bark Substrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James E. Altland ,
Glenn Wehtje ,
Michael L. Mckee  and
Charles H. Gilliam
James E. Altland*
Affiliation:
Application Technology Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wooster, OH 44691
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Chemistry Department, and Horticulture Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Michael L. Mckee
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Chemistry Department, and Horticulture Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Chemistry Department, and Horticulture Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quinoclamine is an herbicide under development for control of liverwort, a weed common in nursery crops. With respect to liverwort control, quinoclamine has been considered to primarily have POST activity. However, some PRE activity has been reported. Growth media sorption studies with 14C-quinoclamine indicate that only 0.64% of the quinoclamine amount that enters the media remains unadsorbed and thus available to be taken up by established plants or propagules. Computer modeling revealed that a large portion of the surface of the quinoclamine molecule is positively charged, which likely is the reason for its high adsorptivity. In a simulation of PRE activity, hydroponically grown liverwort and germinating gemmae were exposed to increasing quinoclamine concentrations. Phytotoxicity to both plants and gemmae was obtained with a minimal concentration of 4 to 6 mg L−1. Based upon the projected use rate, and assuming minimal vertical infiltration depth, the theoretical concentration of quinoclamine within the aqueous phase of a pine bark substrate would be approximately 8 mg L−1. In toto, results indicate that the projected use rate will result in sufficient quinoclamine in the aqueous phase of a pine bark substrate to provide PRE control of gemmae propagules as well as to contribute to the efficacy of POST applications to established liverwort.

Keywords

Quinoclamineliverwort, Marchantia polymorpha L.Herbicide adsorptionhydroponic solutionnursery cropsgemmaethalli
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 762 - 766
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

Adams, F., Burmester, C., Hue, N. V., and Long, L. F. 1982. A comparison of column displacement and centrifugation methods of obtaining soil solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 44:733–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altland, J. E., Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Miller, M. E. 2007. Liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha) control with quinoclamine. Weed Technol. 21:483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005. Quinoclamine, Volume. 1: Draft Assessment Report. http://ecb.jrc.it/classlab/8606a2_S_quinoclamine.doc Accessed: August 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Doyle, W. T. 1970. The Biology of Higher Cryptogams. Toronto, ON Macmillan.Google Scholar
England, J. and Jeger, M. 2006. Liverwort gemmae dispersal: the effect of overhead irrigation and its influence on gemmae production. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 60:24. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37:428–433.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The Water-Culture Method for Growth in plants without Soil. Davis, CA California Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular 347.Google Scholar
Humphrey, W., Dalke, A., and Schulten, K. 1996. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14:33–38.Google Scholar
Krewer, G. and Ruter, J. 2005. Fertilizing blueberries in pine bark beds. Athens, GA University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Public Bulletin 1291.Google Scholar
McConaha, M. 1941. Ventral structures effecting capillarity in the Marchantiales. Am. J. Bot. 28:301–306.Google Scholar
Newby, A., Altland, J. E., Gilliam, C. H., and Wehtje, G. 2007. Preemergence liverwort control in nursery containers. Horttechnology. 17:496–500.Google Scholar
Ross, R. L. M. and Puritch, G. S. 1981. Identification, abundance, and origin of moss, liverwort, and algal contaminants in greenhouses of containerized forest nurseries. Can. J. For. Res. 11:356–360.Google Scholar
SAS 2001. The SAS System for Windows. Release 8.2. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 45–48.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Senesac, A. F. 2005. Evaluation of Mogeton for liverwort control in container nurseries. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 45:32. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Svenson, S. E. 1997. Controlling common liverworts and moss in nursery production. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop. Soc. 47:414–422.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. R. 1995. Chemical characteristics for pine bark. in. Media Notes for North Carolina Growers. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/pdffiles/pinebark.pdf. Accessed: August 13 2007.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Wilkerson, G. G., Linker, H. M., et al. 2000. A proposal to standardize soil/solution herbicide distribution coefficients. Weed Sci. 48:75–88.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1993. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oxadiazon in container media and soil. Hortscience. 28:126–128.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1994. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oryzalin in container media and soil. Hortscience. 29:824.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., Miller, M. E., and Altland, J. E. 2006. Foliar vs. root sensitivity of hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) to isoxaben. Weed Technol. 20:326–333.Google Scholar