Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T11:43:00.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Technique for Studying Absorption and Translocation in Submersed Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. A. Frank  and
Richard H. Hodgson
P. A. Frank
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Richard H. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Get access

Abstract

An effective technique was developed for partitioning the environment of intact submersed aquatic plants. The technique facilitates absorption and translocation studies by permitting application of radioactive herbicides to selected portions of the plants. Root and shoot treatments of Potamogeton pectinatus L. for 24 to 96 hours with C14-labeled 2,3,6-trichlorophenylacetic acid (fenac) showed no leakage across the partitioned system. Little or no basipetal translocation of the herbicide was observed. Limited acropetal translocation occurred and this was reduced by removal of tubers prior to herbicide application. Accumulation of activity in nodal regions of the stem was noted.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 80 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Aldrich, F. D., and Otto, N. E. 1959. The translocation of 2,4-D-1-C14 in Potamogeton pectinatus, a submersed aquatic plant. Weeds 7:295–299.Google Scholar
2. Frank, P. A., Otto, N. E., and Bartley, T. R. 1961. Techniques for evaluating aquatic weed herbicides. Weeds 9:515–521.Google Scholar
3. Hochreutiner, G. 1896. Etudes sur les phanerogames aquatiques du Rhone et du port de Geneve. Rev. Gen. Botan. 8:90–265.Google Scholar
4. Hodgson, Richard H., and Otto, N. E. 1963. Pondweed growth and response to herbicides under controlled light and temperature. Weeds 11:232–237.Google Scholar
5. Oborn, E. T., Lyons, E. T., and Timblin, L. O. 1954. Studies of herbicidal action on aquatic weeds using radioactive 2,4-D-1-C14 . Joint laboratory report SI-4, U.S.D.I., Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Laboratories, and U.S.D.A., ARS, Field Crops Research Branch.Google Scholar
6. Pond, R. H. 1905. Contributions to the biology of the Great Lakes. The biological relation of aquatic plants to the substratum, p. 483–526. Commissioner's Report, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries.Google Scholar
7. Schenck, H. 1886. Vergleichende Anatomie der submersen Gewachse. Bibliotheca Botanica, Cassel p. 29.Google Scholar
8. Snell, K. 1908. Untersuchungen uber die Nahrangsaufnahme der Wasserpflanzen. Flora 98:213–249.Google Scholar
9. Strasburger, E. 1891. Uber den Bau und die Verrichtungen der Leitungsbahnen in den Pflanzen. Histologische Beitrage p. 935.Google Scholar
10. Thoday, D., and Sykes, M. G. 1909. Preliminary observations on the transpiration current in submerged water-plants. Ann. Botany 23:635–637.Google Scholar