Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:50:13.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Herbicides on Endomycorrhizal Fungi in Florida Citrus (Citrus spp.) Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stan Nemec  and
David Tucker
Stan Nemec
Affiliation:
V.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., V.S. Hort. Res. Lab., Orlando, FL 32803
David Tucker
Affiliation:
Univ. of Florida Inst. Food Agric. Sci., Agric. Res. Ed. Ctr., 700 Exp. Stn. Rd., Lake Alfred, FL 33850
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide effects on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi were studied in greenhouse and field tests. In field plots treated with a bromacil (5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil) and diuron (3-[3,4-dichlorophenyl]-1,1-dimethylurea) mixture, fungus infection was similar to levels present in cultivated plots. A slight reduction of infection occurred in roots of grove trees in a simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis [ethylamino]-s-triazine) plus paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion)-treated plot compared to a cultivated plot. In the greenhouse studies, diuron, bromacil, and trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) had no apparent effect on Glomus etunicatus Becker and Gerd. and plant growth. Paraquat, PPG 844 {1-(carboethoxy) ethyl 5-[2′-chloro-4′-(trifluoromethyl) phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate} and simazine adversely affected plant growth and the fungus.

Keywords

Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungipesticidessoil microorganisms
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 427 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effect of herbicides on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361–385.Google Scholar
2. Bollen, W. B. 1961. Interaction between pesticides and soil microorganisms. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 15:69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burpee, L. L. and Cole, H. Jr. 1978. Influence of alachlor, trifluralin, and diazinon on development of endogenous mycorrhizae in soybeans. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:191–197.Google Scholar
4. Castle, W. S. and Tucker, D.P.H. 1978. Susceptibility of citrus nursery trees to herbicides as influenced by rootstock and scion cultivar. HortScience 13:692–693.Google Scholar
5. Dasilva, E. J., Hendriksson, L. E., and Udris, M. 1977. Growth responses of mycorrhizal Boletus and Rhozopogon species to pesticides. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 68:434–437.Google Scholar
6. Fletcher, W. M. 1960. The effect of herbicides on soil microorganisms. Pages 20–63 in Woodford, E. K., ed. Herbicides and the Soil. Blackwell. Oxford, England.Google Scholar
7. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 347. 32.Google Scholar
8. Kelly, W. D. and South, D. B. 1977. In vitro effects of selected herbicides on growth of mycorrhizal fungi. Third North Am. Conf. on Mycorrhizae. Athens, GA. p. 15. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
9. Palmer, J. G. Jr., Kuntz, J. E., and Palmer, J. G. Sr. 1979. Effect of the herbicide dacthal on mycorrhizal development of Pinus resinosa Ait. in southern Wisconsin. J. Arboriculture 5:162.Google Scholar
10. Phillips, J. M. and Hayman, D. S. 1970. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 55:158–161.Google Scholar
11. Pope, P. E. and Holt, H. A. 1978. Interaction of paraquat and napropamide with mycorrhizae. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 33:114–115.Google Scholar
12. Pope, P. E. and Holt, H. A. 1981. Paraquat influences development and efficacy of the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus fasciculatus . Can. J. Bot. 59:519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Ryan, G. F. 1969. The use of chemicals for weed control in Florida citrus. Proc. First Int. Citrus Symp. 1:467–472.Google Scholar
14. Schwab, S. M., Johnson, E.L.V., and Menge, J. A. 1982. Influence of simazine on formation of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Plant Soil 64:283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Smith, J. R. and Ferry, B. W. 1979. The effects of simazine applied for weed control on the mycorrhizal development of Pinus seedlings. Ann. Bot. 43:93–99.Google Scholar
16. South, D. 1981. Effects of selected herbicides on endomycorrhizal formation of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.). Fifth North Am. Conf. on Mycorrhizae. Quebec. p. 69. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
17. Tucker, D.P.H. 1978. Bromacil and diuron residue levels in Florida citrus soils. Pestic. Monit. J. 12:47–50.Google Scholar
18. Tucker, D.P.H., Muraro, R., and Abbitt, B. 1980. Two weed control systems for Florida citrus. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 93:30–33.Google Scholar
19. Uhlig, S. K. 1966. Uber den Einfluss von Chlor-bis-athylamino-s-triazin (Simazin) auf die Bildung ektotropher Mykorrhiza bei Picea abies und Pinus sylvestris . Arch. Forstiv. 15:463–464.Google Scholar