Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:23:47.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sago Pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) Tuber Size Influences Its Response to Fluridone Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David F. Spencer
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Aquatic Weed Lab., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Gregory G. Ksander
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Aquatic Weed Lab., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Linda C. Whiteand
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Pacific West Area, Albany, CA 94170

Abstract

In greenhouse experiments, sago pondweed plants were grown from three different size classes of tubers and treated with four levels of fluridone. Results indicate that although fluridone significantly reduced mean plant weight, the extent of the reduction in weight depended on the size of tuber from which the plant was grown. Mean plant weight was greater for plants exposed to fluridone (up to 0.5 mg/L) for 7 days, if the plants were initially from larger tubers (51 to 60 or 101 to 200 vs. 11 to 20 mg fresh weight). Mean plant length and the number of ramets/plant were affected in a similar manner. The results underscore the importance of specifying the size of tubers used in growth studies and contribute to understanding of the roles that biological factors play in regulating aquatic plant response to herbicide treatment.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, L.W.J. 1981. Effect of light on the phytotoxicity of fluridone in American pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus) and sago pondweed (P. pectinatus). Weed Sci. 29:723728.Google Scholar
2. Arnold, W. R. 1979. Fluridone — a new aquatic herbicide. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 17:3033.Google Scholar
3. Frank, P. A., Otto, N. E., and Bartley, T. R. 1961. Techniques for evaluating aquatic weed herbicides. Weeds 9:515521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Haller, W. T., Miller, J. L., and Garrard, L. A. 1976. Seasonal production and germination of hydrilla vegetative propagules. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 14:2629.Google Scholar
5. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York. 892 pp.Google Scholar
6. Hodgson, R. H. 1966. Growth and carbohydrate status of sago pondweed. Weeds 14:263268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hutchinson, G. E. 1975. A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. III. Limnological Botany. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 660 pp.Google Scholar
8. McCowen, M. C., Young, C. L., West, S. D., Parka, S. J., and Arnold, W. R. 1979. Fluridone, a new herbicide for aquatic plant management. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 17:2730.Google Scholar
9. SAS Institute, Inc. 1987. SAS/Stat. Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
10. Sculthorpe, C. D. 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Arnold, Ltd., London, England. 610 pp.Google Scholar
11. Smart, R. M. and Barko, J. W. 1985. Laboratory culture of submersed freshwater macrophytes on natural sediments, Aquat. Bot. 21:251263.Google Scholar
12. Spencer, D. F. 1987. Tuber size and planting depth influence growth of Potamogeton pectinatus L. Am. Midl. Nat. 118:7784.Google Scholar
13. Spencer, D. F. 1986. Tuber demography and its consequences for Potamogeton pectinatus L. Proc. EWRS/AAB 7th Symp. Aquat. Weeds. 1986. Pages 321325.Google Scholar
14. Spencer, D. F. and Anderson, L.W.J. 1986. Photoperiod responses in monoecious and dioecious Hydrilla verticillata . Weed Sci. 34:551557.Google Scholar
15. Spencer, D. F., Anderson, L.W.J., Ames, M. D., and Ryan, F. J. 1987. Variation in Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle Propagule Weight. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 25:1114.Google Scholar
16. Sutton, D. L. and Portier, K. M. 1985. Density of tubers and turions of hydrilla in South Florida. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 23:6467.Google Scholar