Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:12:41.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Dispersal Patterns: I. As a Function of Leaf Surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

F. D. Hess ,
D. E. Bayer  and
R. H. Falk
F. D. Hess
Affiliation:
Dep. of Botany, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
D. E. Bayer
Affiliation:
Dep. of Botany, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
R. H. Falk
Affiliation:
Dep. of Botany, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The distribution pattern of MCPA ([(4-chloro-o-tolyl)oxy] acetic acid) on leaf surfaces of three species was studied using the cathodoluminescence detection mode of a scanning electron microscope. On low-wax-content sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) leaves MCPA concentrated in the depressions over the anticlinal cell walls when applied at high volumes (748 and 374 L/ha). At low volumes (23 L/ha), numerous small deposits of MCPA were randomly distributed over both anticlinal and periclinal walls. These distinct patterns were independent of herbicide concentration. Regardless of spray volumes, MCPA remaining on the waxy leaf surfaces of cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) coalesced into small thick deposits. Large spray drops from high application volumes shattered on impact with the stellate hairs of turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus Benth.) resulting in some MCPA reaching the leaf surface. Spray drops from low application volumes did not shatter but lodged on the hairs with very little reaching the leaf surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , July 1974 , pp. 394 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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, C.A. 1967. Introduction to the electron microprobe and its applications to biochemistry. In Glick, D., ed., Methods of Biochemical Analysis, Vol. 5. Interscience, New York. pp. 147–270.Google Scholar
2. Falk, R.H. 1972. Cathodoluminescence–Its potential for Botany. Stereoscan Colloquium 5:35–42.Google Scholar
3. Falk, R.H. 1972. Scanning electron microscope induced cathodoluminescence. Proc. Electron Microscopy Soc. Amer. 30:368–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Falk, R.H., Gifford, E.M. Jr. and Cutter, E.G. 1970. Scanning electron microscopy of developing plant organs. Science 168:1471–1474.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, M.A.W. and Lyon, T.L. 1972. Antitranspirant film detection by scanning electron microscopy of cathodoluminescence. HortSci. 7:245–247.Google Scholar
6. Franke, W. 1964. The entry of solutes into leaves by means of ectodesmata. In Hacskaylo, J., ed., Absorption and Translocation of Organic Substances in Plants. S. Sect., Amer. Soc. of Plant Physiol. pp. 95–111.Google Scholar
7. Franke, W. 1964. Uber die Beziehungen der Ektodesmen zur Stoffaufnahme durch Blätter. 3. Mitt.: Nachweis der Beteiligung der Ektodesmen an der Stoffaufnahme durch Blätter mittels radioaktiver Stoffe. Planta (Berl.) 61:1–16.Google Scholar
8. Goldberg, P. 1966. Luminescence of Inorganic Solids. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
9. Ivey, H.F. 1963. Electroluminescence and related effects. In: Morton, L., ed., Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1–240.Google Scholar
10. Kay, D.H. 1965. Techniques for Electron Microscopy. F.A. Davies, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
11. Ong, B.Y., Falk, R.H. and Bayer, D.E. 1973. Scanning electron microscope observations of herbicide dispersal using cathodoluminescence as the detection mode. Plant Physiol. 51:415–420.Google Scholar
12. Pease, R.F.W. and Hayes, T.L. 1966. Scanning electron microscopy of biological materials. Nature 210:1049.Google Scholar
13. Tate, R.W. 1968. Conventional spray application and influence of nozzle design on droplet size. Proc. S. Weed Conf. 21:25–31.Google Scholar