Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:15:53.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Continuous-Flow Model Ecosystem for Studying Effects of Herbicides on Aquatic Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David M. Paterson  and
S. John L. Wright
David M. Paterson
Affiliation:
School Biol. Sci., Univ. Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
S. John L. Wright
Affiliation:
School Biol. Sci., Univ. Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A continuous-flow system was designed for the culture of aquatic weeds in the laboratory and used to examine the effects of low concentrations of terbutryn [N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-N′-ethyl-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine] and diquat cation (6,7-dihydrodipyrido [1,2-:2′,1′-c] pyrazinediium ion) on algae (epiphyton) growing on surfaces of common elodea (Elodea canadensis L. C. Rich # ELDCA). Terbutryn did not affect the density of the epiphytic algal community, although development of the diatom component was favored at the highest concentration (50 μg/L). Diquat cation stimulated the growth of the epiphyton, particularly the diatoms, at concentrations as low as 5 μg/L. Possible reasons for this response included hormesis, differential tolerance to diquat, and facultative heterotrophy.

Keywords

Epiphytonmicroecosystemsterbutryndiquat cationElodea canadensisELDCA
Type
Soil, Air and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , September 1987 , pp. 704 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Adema, D.M.M., Kuiper, J., Hanstveit, A. D., and Canton, H. H. 1983. Consecutive system of tests for assessment of the effects of chemical agents in the aquatic environment. Pages 537–544 in Miyamoto, J. and Kearney, P. C., eds. Pesticide Chemistry. Vol. 3. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
2. Admiraal, W. 1984. The ecology of estuarine sediment-inhabiting diatoms. Pages 269–322 in Round, F. E. and Chapman, D. J., eds. Progress in Phycological Research, Vol. 3. Biopress Ltd., Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
3. Barrett, P.R. F. 1981. Aquatic herbicides in Great Britain, recent changes and possible future developments. Pages 95–103 in Proc. Conf. Aquat. Weeds and their Control. Assoc. Appl. Biol., Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
4. Bowmer, K. H. 1982. Aggregates of particulate matter and aufwuch on Elodea canadensis in irrigation waters, and inactivation of diquat. Aust. J. Mar. and Freshwater Res. 33:589–593.Google Scholar
5. Bowmer, K. H., Boulton, P.M.D., Short, D. L., and Higgins, M. L. 1986. Glyphosate-sediment interactions and phytotoxicity in turbid water. Pestic. Sci. 17:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Boyle, T. P. 1980. Effects of the aquatic herbicide 2,4-D DMA on the ecology of experimental ponds. Environ. Pollut., Series A. 21:35–49.Google Scholar
7. Gough, S. B. and Woelkerling, W. J. 1976. On the removal and quantification of algal aufwuch from macrophyte hosts. Hydrobiologia 48:203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Ebert, E. and Dumford, S. W. 1976. Effects of triazine herbicides on the physiology of plants. Residue Rev. 65:1–103.Google Scholar
9. Goulding, R. 1981. Toxicity assessment for the acceptance of aquatic herbicides. Pages 287–293 in Proc. Conf. Aquat. Weeds and their Control. Assoc. Appl. Biol., Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
10. Luckey, T. D. 1959. Antibiotics in nutrition. Pages 174–321 in Goldberg, H. S., ed. Antibiotics – their Chemistry and Nonmedical Uses. D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton.Google Scholar
11. Metcalf, R. L., Sangha, G. K., and Kapoor, I. P. 1971. Model ecosystems for evaluation of pesticide biodegradability and ecological magnification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5:709–731.Google Scholar
12. Moss, B. 1976. The effects of fertilization and fish on the community structure and biomass of aquatic macrophytes and epiphytic algal populations: an ecosystem experiment. J. Ecol. 64:313–342.Google Scholar
13. Murphy, K. J. 1982. The use of methylthio-triazine herbicides in freshwater systems: A review. Proc. 6th European Weed Res. Soc. Symp. Aquat. Weeds. Pages 263–277.Google Scholar
14. Paterson, D. M. and Wright, S.J.L. 1986. The epiphyllous algal colonization of Elodea canadensis Michx.: community structure and development. New Phytol. 103:809–819.Google Scholar
15. Phillips, G. L., Eminson, D., and Moss, B. 1978. A mechanism to account for macrophyte decline in progressively eutrophicated freshwaters. Aquat. Bot. 4:103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Ries, S. K., Schweizer, C. J., and Chmiel, H. 1968. The increase in protein content and yield of simazine-treated crops in Michigan and Costa Rica. Biol. Sci. 18:205–208.Google Scholar
17. Rogers, K. H. and Breen, C. M. 1981. Effects of epiphyton on Potamogeton crispus L. leaves. Microbiol. Ecol. 7:351–363.Google Scholar
18. Round, F. E. 1981. The Ecology of the Algae. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. 653 pp.Google Scholar
19. Sand-Jensen, K. 1977. Effect of epiphytes on eelgrass photosynthesis. Aquat. Bot. 3:55–63.Google Scholar
20. Singh, B. and Salunkhe, D. K. 1970. Some metabolic responses of bush bean plants to subherbicidal concentration of certain s-triazine compounds. Can. J. Bot. 4:2213–2217.Google Scholar
21. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA. 539 pp.Google Scholar
22. Wiedman, S. J. and Appleby, A. P. 1972. Plant growth stimulation by sublethal concentrations of herbicides. Weed Res. 12:65–74.Google Scholar