Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:41:11.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference and Water Use of Biotypes Differing in Sensitivity to MSMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. Raisuddin Akanda ,
Robert H. Walker  and
Glenn Wehtje
M. Raisuddin Akanda
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biotypes of common cocklebur were identified, which were assumed to differ only with respect to sensitivity to MSMA. Water use of these biotypes when grown as isolated plants in a growth chamber was determined with stem flow gauges. The MSMA-tolerant biotype exhibited less whole-plant sap flow at media moisture levels above 17%. Furthermore, only in the tolerant biotype did sap flow differ between the upper and lower canopy; the upper canopy had greater sap flow. Field experiments were conducted to compare growth parameters, water use and competitive ability toward cotton of the MSMA-sensitive and -tolerant biotypes. Sensitive biotype plants were taller and had greater leaf area than those of the tolerant biotype; dry weight was equivalent. The tolerant biotype used less water and reduced seed cotton yield more than the sensitive biotype.

Keywords

MSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidCommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. ♯ XANSTcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Competitionheat balanceherbicide resistanceinterferencesap flowstem-flow gaugewater use
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 830 - 835
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. Baker, J. M. and van Bavel, C.H.M. 1987. Measurement of mass flow of water in the stem of herbaceous plants. J. Plant Cell and Environ. 10: 777–782.Google Scholar
2. Bandeen, J. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Cowett, E. R. 1982. Discovery and distribution of herbicide resistant weed in North America. Pages 9–19 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 10018.Google Scholar
3. Cohen, Y., Takeuchi, S., Nozaka, J., and Yano, T. 1993. Accuracy of sap flow measurement using heat balance and heat pulse methods. Agron. J. 85: 1080–1086.Google Scholar
4. Cook, C. G. and El-Zik, K. M. 1993. Fruiting and lint yield of cotton cultivers under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 33: 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Davis, R. G., Wiese, A. F., and Pafford, J. L. 1965. Root moisture extraction profiles of various weeds. Weeds 13: 98–100.Google Scholar
6. Gressel, J. and Segal, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: The outlook for the future. Pages 325–348 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 10018.Google Scholar
7. Haigler, W. E., Gossett, B. J., Harris, J. R., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Resistance of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) to the organic arsenical herbicides. Weed Sci. 36: 24–27.Google Scholar
8. Halterlein, A. J. 1983. Bean. Pages 157–185 in Teare, I. D. and Peet, M. M., eds. Crop-Water Relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
9. Jones, R. E. Jr. and Walker, R. H. 1993. Effect of interspecific interference, light intensity, and soil moisture on soybean, common cocklebur, and sicklepod water uptake. Weed Sci. 41: 534–540.Google Scholar
10. Mullins, G. L. and Edwards, J. H. 1988. Root trimming influence of elongation, development and potassium influx of corn roots. Agron. J. 80: 91–94.Google Scholar
11. Patterson, M. G. and Hicks, T. V. 1991. Herbicide resistance demonstrated by cocklebur in cotton. AL Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Update Cotton. Bull No. 12. 1–3 pp.Google Scholar
12. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1982. Physiological responses and fitness of susceptible and resistant weed biotypes to triazine herbicides. Pages 263–283 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 10018.Google Scholar
13. Sakuratani, T. 1981. A heat balance method for measuring water flux in the stem of intact plants. J. Agric. Meteorol. 37: 9–17.Google Scholar
14. Sakuratani, T. 1984. Improvement of the probe for measuring water flow rate in intact plants with the heat balance method. J. Agric. Meteorol. 40: 273–277.Google Scholar
15. Salisbury, C. D. and Chandler, J. M. 1993. Interaction of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) plants for water is affected by their interaction for light. Weed Sci. 41: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Senock, R. S. and Ham, J. M. 1993. Heat balance sap flow gauge for small diameter stems. J. Plant, Cell and Environ. 16: 593–601.Google Scholar
17. Steinberg, S. L., van Bavel, C.H.M., and McFarland, M. J. 1990. Improved sap flow gauge for woody and herbaceous plants. Agron. J. 82: 851–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Steinberg, S., Zajicek, J. M., and McFarland, M. J. 1991a. Short-term effect of uniconazole on the water relations and growth of Ligustrum . J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 116: 460–464.Google Scholar
19. Steinberg, S., Zajicek, J. M., and McFarland, M. J. 1991b. Water relations of hibiscus following pruning or chemical growth regulation. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 116: 465–470.Google Scholar
20. van Bavel, C.H.M., Lascano, R., and Wilson, D. R. 1978. Water relations of fritted clay. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42: 657–659.Google Scholar
21. Well, J. W., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1984. The effect of common cocklebur interference on cotton water relations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37: 313.Google Scholar
22. Woolson, E. A. Organicarsenical herbicides. 1975. Pages 741–776 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicide Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY 10016.Google Scholar