University Microfilms International 300 N
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8418965 Lee, Richard Dalton THE INFLUENCE OF GIBBERELLIC ACID ON THE PHYTOTOXIC RESPONSE OF FLUAZIFOP-BUTYL IN JOHNSONGRASS (SORGHUM HALEPENSE (L.) PERS.) The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1984 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 THE INFLUENCE OF GIBBERELLIC ACID ON THE PHYTOTOXIC RESPONSE OF FLUAZIFOP-BUTYL IN JOHNSONGRASS (SORGHUM HALEPENSE (L.) PERS.) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Ly Richard Dalton Lee, B.S., M.S, ***** The Ohio State University 198U Reading Committee: Approved By: Leo E. Bendixen Edward W. Stroube Adviser Grant L. Jordan Department of Agronomy ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to his adviser Dr. Leo E. Bendixen, for his friendship, assistance, and guidance during the graduate program at The Ohio State University. Much has heen gained in all aspects of Weed Science as a result of this experience. Thanks is also extended to those who served on the graduate committee, Drs. E. W. Stroube, C. A. Swanson, and G. L. Jordan, for their interest and input in this dissertation. Special appreciation is extended to the author's wife, Kristy, to whom this work is dedicated, and daughters Katie and Annie, theirs has been the role of giving patience, understanding, encouragement, and support during the past few years while in graduate school. Appreciation is also extended to parents who instilled the realization that knowledge and learning were the keys to inner peace. VITA May lU, 1953 ................... Birth - Paradise, Utah 1978 .......................... B.S., Utah State University, Logan, Utah 1978 - 1 9 8 0 .................. Research Assistant, Plant Science Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 1980 .......................... M.Sc. , Utah State University, Logan, Utah 1980 - 19 8 1 + ................... Research Associate, Department of Agronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Agronomy (Weed Science). Studies in Agronomy. Professors Bendixen, Henderlong, Miller, and Parsons Studies in Biochemistry. Professors Gross and Ives ■Studies in Botany. Professors Cline, Evans, Floyd, and Swanson Studies in Entomology. Professor Collins Studies in Horticulture. Professor Gorske Studies in Pharmacy. Professors Brueggemeier, Feller, and Malspeis Studies in Physiological Chemistry. Professor Brierley iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................... ii VITA..................................................... iii FIELDS OF S T U D Y .......................................... iii LIST OF TABLES.................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.......................................... vii INTRODUCTION.............................................. 1 Chapter I. LITERATURE REVIEW................................. 3 History of the Plant.......................... 3 Description of the Plant...................... 1+ Growth Factors and Characteristics............. 6 Losses Due to Johnsongrass.................... 12 Practives for Controlling Johnsongrass......... ll+ History and Classification of Gibberellins, . 19 Biosynthesis, Metabolism, Extraction, and Purification of Gibberellins ............... 22 Transport of Gibberellins .................... 30 Influence of Gibberellins on Plant Processes................................. 32 Effects of Gibberellins on Translocation....... 1+1 Gibberellins and Herbicide Interaction......... 1+3 Fluazifop-butyl............................. 1+8 II. GIBBERELLIC ACID ENHANCED PHYTOTOXIC RESPONSE OF JOHNSONGRASS (SORGHUM HALEPENSE) TO POST-EMERGENCE GRAMINICIDES .................... 52 Introduction................................. 52 Materials and Methods ........................ 5^ Results and Discussion................ 56 Literature Cited............................. 65 iv V III. GIBBERELLIC ACID ENHANCEMENT OF FLUAZIFOP-BUTYL ABSORPTION AND PARTITIONING IN JOHNSONGRASS (SORGHUM HALEPENSE)............................... 67 Introduction.......................... 6 7 Materials and Methods ............. 68 Results and Discussion. ......... , 70 Literature Cited.............................. 82 CONCLUSION................................................ 81* LITERATURE CITED.......................................... 86 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The rating scale used in the visual evaluation of leaves of johnsongrass treated with fluazifop-butyl, gibberellic acid, or combinations of the t w o ............ 57 2. Phytotoxic response of rhizome johnsongrass treated with selected herbicides with and without exogenously applied gibberellic acid (1981)..................... 58 3. Phytotoxic response of rhizome johnsongrass treated with selected herbicides with and without exogenously applied gibberellic acid (1982)..................... 59 4. Percent of the applied l4-C fluazifop-butyl label recovered, in specified plant fractions, after 24,48, and 96 hours without gibberellic acid application .... ........ 71 5. Percent of the applied l4-C fluazifop-butyl label recovered, in specified plant fractions, after 24, 48, and 96 hours with an exogenous gibberellic acid application................................. 74 6. Percent recovery of l4-C fluazifop-butyl label after 2k, 48, and 96 hours, in specified plant fractions, as influenced by an application of gibberellic a c i d ................................. 76 7. Percent of the applied 3-H gibberellic acid label recovered, in specified plant fractions, after 2k, 48, and 96 h o u r s .......... .. ........................... 77 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Chemical structure of GAg with the accompanying ring designations and carbon numbers ................................... 21 2. Biosynthetic steps leading to the formation of gibberellins using several gibberellinsas examples ................... 25 3. Chemical structure of fluazifop- butyl ............................................ ^9 it. The visual response to fluazifop-butyl at specified rates, with different levels of gibberellic acid, as influenced by leaf a g e ............ 6l vii INTRODUCTION The influence of gibberellic acid on herbicidal phytotoxicity was first reported with 2,U-D (2,U-d.ichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and indicated that gibberellic acid application could alter the translocation pattern of the applied herbicide (7.8). Similar results were obtained using bean plants treated with 2,1/,5-T (2,U,5-trich- lorophenoxyacetic acid) and gibberellic acid in that gibberellic acid increased accumulation of 2,1j,5-T in the young shoots and decreased accumulation in roots and nutrient solution (lU,1 5). Studies with naptalara (N-l-napththylphthalamic acid) and gibberellic acid in wheat have shown that gibberellic acid stimulated naptalam uptake from the nutrient solution (^3)- Similarily, pre-treatment of bean plants with gibberellic acid resulted in greater absorption of naptalam (UU). In their study of/ gibberellic acid-enhanced phyto toxicity of bentazon (3-isopropyl-lH-2,l,3-benzothiadiazin-M3H)- one 2,2-dioxide) and glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine), Sterrett and Hodgson (209) reported that the enhanced phytotoxicity to Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.) may be due to changes in acropetal translocation and accumulation in leaf sinks. Fluazifop-butyl (butyl-2-(U-(5-trifluoromethyl-2-pyridyloxy)- phenoxy) propionate), a recently developed herbicide, is principally used in the post emergence control of