Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:22:52.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to Postemergence Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas O. Ballard ,
Michael E. Foley  and
Thomas T. Bauman
Thomas O. Ballard
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Michael E. Foley
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Thomas T. Bauman
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the response of common and giant ragweed to postemergence applications of imazethapyr using relative growth rate parameters. The relative growth rate was the same for untreated common and giant ragweed through the 21 d harvest interval. Relative growth rates of treated common and giant ragweed were 50% lower than the relative growth rates of untreated ragweeds 21 d after treatment. Between 21 and 56 d after treatment, the relative growth rate of common ragweed declined an additional 13%, while the relative growth rate of giant ragweed declined an additional 38%. The sharp continued decline in the relative growth rate of giant ragweed indicated plant death. The moderation and slight increase in the relative growth rate of common ragweed between 21 and 56 d corresponded with the initiation of lateral axillary buds and the regeneration of plant growth. Relative growth rate parameters identified differences in the response of common and giant ragweed to imazethapyr as early as 21 d after treatment. Relative growth rate demonstrated utility by objectively measuring differences in the growth response of these two weeds that are moderately susceptible to imazethapyr under laboratory conditions.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ♯ AMBELgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.♯ AMBTRRelative growth rateAMBELAMBTR
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 248 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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, P. C. and Hibberd, K. A. 1985. Evidence for the interaction of an imidazolinone herbicide with leucine, valine, and isoleucine metabolism. Weed Sci. 33: 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ballard, T. O. 1994. Common and giant ragweed control with imazethapyr. , Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN. 105 pp.Google Scholar
3. Blackman, G. E. and Wilson, G. L. 1951. Physiological and ecological studies in the analysis of plant environment. VII. An analysis of the differential effects of light intensity on the net assimilation rate, leaf-area ratio, and relative growth rate of different species. Ann. Bot. 15: 373–408.Google Scholar
4. Blackman, V. H. 1919. The compound interest law and plant growth. Ann. Bot. 33: 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Childs, D. J. and Jordan, T. N. 1990. Survey of problem weeds in Indiana: 1989. Purdue Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. WS-10. 4 pp.Google Scholar
6. Cooper, C. S. 1967. Relative growth of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil seedlings under low light intensity. Crop Sci. 7: 176–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agri. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
8. Mahmoud, A. and Grime, J. P. 1974. A comparison of negative relative growth rates in shaded seedlings. New Phytol. 73: 1215–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Mulchi, C. L., Lee, E., Tuthill, K., and Olinick, E. V. 1988. Influence of ozone stress on growth processes, yields and grain quality characteristics among soybean cultivars. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A. Ecol. Biol. 53: 151–169.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Parsons, R. F. 1968. The significance of growth-rate comparisons for plant ecology. Amer. Nat. 102: 595–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Pell, E. J., Winner, W. E., Vinten-Johansen, C., and Mooney, H. A. 1990. Response of radish to multiple stresses. I. Physiological and growth responses to changes in ozone and nitrogen. New Phytol. 115: 439–446.Google ScholarPubMed
12. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones. Potent Inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76: 545–546.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Shaner, D. L. and Reider, M. L. 1986. Physiological responses of corn (Zea mays) to AC 243,997 in combination with valine, leucine, and isoleucine. Pestic. Biochem, Physiol. 25: 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Shaner, D. L., Singh, B. K., and Stidham, M. A. 1990. Interaction of imidazolinones with plant acetohydroxy acid synthase: Evidence for In vivo binding and competition with sulfometuron methyl. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38: 1279–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Shipley, B. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes. J. Ecol. 76: 1101–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Whipps, J. M. and Greaves, M. P. 1986. Effect of mecoprop on plant growth and distribution of photosynthate in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. Weed Res. 26: 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar