Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-gkscv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T12:02:31.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Translocation of 2,4-D in Leafy Spurge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James H. Hunter  and
G. I. McIntyre
James H. Hunter
Affiliation:
Canada Dep. of Agr., Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, Saskatchewan
G. I. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Canada Dep. of Agr., Regina Research Station, Box 440, Regina, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The translocation of foliar-applied 14C-labelled 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] in seedlings of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) was investigated. Approximately 90% of the tracer was extracted from the tissues with 80% ethanol. Seven days after treatment 48% of the 14C in the shoot extract and 75% of that extracted from the root were identified chromatographically as 2,4-D. Translocation out of the treated leaves and into the shoot, root, and root buds was significantly increased both by decapitation of the shoot and by increasing the nitrogen supply. This effect is attributed to the marked promotion of bud growth produced by both of these treatments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , March 1974 , pp. 167 - 171
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. Buchholtz, K.P. 1962. Some characteristics of quackgrass and their relation to control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 16:16–22.Google Scholar
2. Crafts, A.S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1958. Comparative tests on the uptake and distribution of labelled herbicides by Zebrina pendula and Tradescantia fluminensis . Hilgardia 27:421–454.Google Scholar
3. Davidson, J.D., Oliverio, V.T., and Peterson, J.I. 1970. Combustion of samples for liquid scintillation counting. Pages 222–234 in Bransome, F.D., ed. The current status of liquid scintillation counting. Grume and Stratton Inc., New York and London.Google Scholar
4. Dexter, A.G., Slife, F.W., and Butler, H.S. 1971. Detoxification of 2,4-D by several plant species. Weed Sci. 19:721–726.Google Scholar
5. Hanson, H.C. and Rudd, V.E. 1933. Leafy spurge, life history and habits. North Dakota Agr. Ext. Bull. 266. 24 pp.Google Scholar
6. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1939. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Univ. Calif. Coll. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
7. McIntyre, G.I. 1965. Some effects of the nitrogen supply on the growth and development of Agropyron repens L. Beauv. Weed Res. 5:1–12.Google Scholar
8. McIntyre, G.I. 1971. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula L. The influence of the nitrogen supply on the correlative inhibition of root bud activity. Can. J. Bot. 50:949–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. McIntyre, G.I. and Raju, M.V.S. 1967. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula L. Some effects of the nitrogen supply on the growth and development of the seedling. Can. J. Bot. 45: 975–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Montgomery, M.L., Chang, Y.L., and Freed, V.H. 1971. Comparative metabolism of 2,4-D by bean and corn plants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19:1219–1221.Google Scholar
11. Raju, M.V.S., Steeves, T.A., and Coupland, R.T. 1963. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula L. Morphology of the root system. Can. J. Bot. 41:579–589.Google Scholar
12. Selleck, G.W., Coupland, R.T., and Frankton, C. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecol. Monogr. 32:1–29.Google Scholar
13. Small, J.G.C. and Leonard, O.A. 1969. Translocation of C14-labelled photosynthate in nodulated legumes as influenced by nitrate nitrogen. Amer. J. Bot. 56:187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Zick, W.H. and Buchholtz, K.P. 1955. The influence of nitrogen fertilization on the control of quackgrass with herbicides. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 12:40–42.Google Scholar