Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:06:05.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Paraquat and Light Regime on Quackgrass Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. A. Akhavein  and
D. L. Linscott
A. A. Akhavein
Affiliation:
Cornell University, Dep. of Farm Crops, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon
D. L. Linscott
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, U. S. Dep. of Agr. and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We applied 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion (paraquat) to quackgrass (Agropyron repens L. Beauv.) at different stages of growth and subjected these treated plants to different light regimes. After paraquat and light treatment, foliage was removed and the reduction in regrowth was measured as evidence of paraquat movement and its effect on the regenerative potential of the rhizomes. Paraquat or a toxic metabolite moved in quantity from point of leaf application. Sufficient basipetal movement occurred in both the dark and light to significantly affect regrowth. As quackgrass plants matured and developed more foliage, the effect of paraquat treatment increased (i.e., the regrowth capacity of the plants and the regenerative ability of their rhizome buds decreased). A period of darkness (24 hr) after paraquat application and before exposure of treated plants to light did not affect numbers of plants killed but did decrease rate of regrowth. Treated quackgrass foliage showed extensive paraquat injury when placed in light for 48 to 72 hr after treatment; but only parts of treated leaves were killed. Leaving treated foliage intact greatly increased the number of plants killed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , May 1970 , pp. 378 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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. Akhavein, A. A. and Linscott, D. L. 1968. The dipyridylium herbicides, paraquat and diquat. Residue Rev. 23:97–145.Google Scholar
2. Baldwin, B. D. 1963. Translocation of diquat in plants. Nature 198:872–873.Google Scholar
3. Brian, R. C. 1966. The bypyridylium quaternary salts: The effect of atmospheric and soil humidity on the uptake and movement of diquat and paraquat in plants. Weed Res. 6:292–303.Google Scholar
4. Brian, R. C. 1967. The uptake and absorption of diquat and paraquat by tomato, sugarbeet, and cocksfoot. Ann. Appl. Biol. 59:91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Calderbank, A. and Slade, P. 1966. The fate of paraquat in plants. Outlook on Agr. 5:55–59.Google Scholar
6. Funderburk, H. H. Jr. and Lawrence, S. H. 1963. Absorption and translocation of radioactive herbicides in submersed and emersed aquatic weeds. Weed Res. 3:304–309.Google Scholar
7. Jeater, R. S. L. and McIlvenney, H. C. 1960. The control of perennial grasses with dipyridyl herbicides alone and in mixtures. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 5:311–320.Google Scholar
8. Putnam, A. R. and Ries, S. K. 1967. The synergistic action of herbicide combinations containing paraquat on Agropyron repens L. Beauv. Weed Res. 7:191–199.Google Scholar
9. Slade, P. and Bell, E. G. 1966. The movement of paraquat in plants. Weed Res. 6:267–274.Google Scholar
10. Smith, J. M. and Sagar, G. R. 1966. A re-examination of the influence of light and darkness on the long-distance transport of diquat in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Weed Res. 6:314–321.Google Scholar