Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7qbj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:54:42.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytotoxic Action of Desmedipham: Influence of Temperature and Light Intensity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gabor Bethlenfalvay  and
R. F. Norris
Gabor Bethlenfalvay
Affiliation:
Univ. of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616
R. F. Norris
Affiliation:
Univ. of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inhibition of growth and photosynthesis in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L. var. ‘USH10’) treated with desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)] was most severe between 25 and 30 C and decreased with higher or lower temperatures. Transfer of sugarbeet plants grown at temperatures from 10 to 35 C to higher temperatures after treatment increased injury and photosynthetic inhibition. Higher temperatures prior to treatment reduced injury at all posttreatment temperatures. When the temperature was changed from 25 to 40 C, inhibition was most severe immediately after treatment. Two days after treatment this 15 C temperature change did not cause additional injury. High posttreatment light intensities caused greater inhibition of photosynthesis than low light intensities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , November 1975 , pp. 499 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Arndt, F., Rush, R., Lenzner, H., and Gierke, K.V. 1970. Die Beeinflussing der Selektivität von Phenmedipham durch verschiedene Faktoren. Z. Pflanzenkr. Sonderheft V:89–93.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F.M. 1965. Relationship between light and toxicity symptoms caused by atrazine and monuron. Weeds 13:164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bischof, F. von, Koch, W., Majumdar, J.C., and Schwerdtle, F. 1970. Retention, penetration und Verlust von Phenmedipham in Abhangigkeit von einigen Faktoren. Z. Pflanzenkr. Sonderheft V:95–102.Google Scholar
4. Gaastra, P. 1959. Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature and stomatal diffusion resistance. Meded. Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen 59(13): 1–69.Google Scholar
5. Hendrick, L.W., Meggitt, W.F., and Penner, D. 1974. Basis for selectivity of Phenmedipham and desmedipham on wild mustard, redwood pigweed, and sugar beet. Weed Sci. 22:179–184.Google Scholar
6. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water culture method of growing plants without soil. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 374. 17 pp.Google Scholar
7. Kassebeer, H. 1970. Aufnahmegeschwindigkeit, Metabolismus, und Verlagerung von Phenmedipham bei verschieden empfindlichen Pflanzen. Z. Pflanzenkr. 79:158–174.Google Scholar
8. Laufersweiler, H. and Gates, C.M. 1972. Response of weeds and sugarbeets to EP-475, a phenmedipham analog. J. Am. Soc. Sugarbeet Tech. 17:53–57.Google Scholar
9. Levitt, J. 1972. Response of Plants to Environmental Stress. Academic Press, New York. pp. 272–321.Google Scholar
10. Stanger, C.E. and Appleby, A.P. 1972. A proposed mechanism for diuron-induced phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 20:357–363.Google Scholar
11. Trebst, A., Pistorius, E., Boroschewski, G., and Schultz, H. 1968. Die Hemmung photosynthetischer Herbicide des Biscarbamat Typs. Z. Naturforsch. 23b:342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar