Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T11:20:22.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Injection Methodology for Evaluating Plant Growth Retardants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. P. Sterrett
J. P. Sterrett*
Affiliation:
Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Frederick, MD 21701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study describes separate methods for injecting growth retardants into herbaceous and woody plants. Bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Black Valentine’) were treated by injecting growth retardant solutions into the hypocotyl cavity with a syringe. The chemical was subsequently absorbed into the vascular system. Woody California privet (Ligustrum ovalifolium Hassk.) was injected by forcing chemical solution into the vascular system via a predrilled hole. Results with NAA (1-napthalene-acetic acid) and MH (1,2-dihydro-3,6-pyridazinedione) validated the methods by inhibiting growth, respectively. New growth regulators, mefluidide {N-[2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoromethyl) sulfonyl]amino]phenyl]acetamide} and dikegulac (sodium salt of 2,3: 4,6-bis-O-(1-methylethylidene-α-L-xylo-2-hexulofuranosonic acid], inhibited the growth of bean with concentrations of 60 mg/L and 480 mg/L, respectively. Sprout growth of privet was inhibited by 30 mg/L of mefluidide and by 188 mg/L dikegulac.

Keywords

Phaseolus vulgarisLigustrum ovalifoliummefluididedikegulacpiproctanylium bromide

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , November 1979 , pp. 688 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Brown, G. K., Kwolek, W. F., Wuertz, D. E., Jumper, G. A., Wilson, C. L., and Carr, S. R. 1977. Regrowth reduction in American elm and sycamore by growth regulator injection. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102:748–751.Google Scholar
2. Domir, S. C. 1978. Chemical control of tree height. J. Arbor. 4:145–153.Google Scholar
3. Gregory, G. F. 1969. A technique for inoculating plants with vascular pathogens. Phytopathology 59:1014.Google Scholar
4. Hüppi, G. A., Bocion, P. F., and de Silva, W. H. 1976. A new quaternary ammonium compound with plant growth regulator activity. Experentia 32:37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Mitchell, J. W. and Livingston, G. A. 1968. Methods of Studying Plant Hormones and Growth-Regulating Substances. USDA, Agric. Handb. No. 336. 140 pp.Google Scholar
6. Parups, E. V. and Cordukes, W. E. 1977. Growth of turf grasses as affected by Atrinal and Embark. HortScience 12:258–259.Google Scholar
7. Sachs, R. M., Hield, H., and Debie, J. 1975. Dikegulac, a promising new foliar applied growth regulator for woody species. HortScience 10:367–369.Google Scholar
8. Sterrett, J. P. 1979. A pressure injector for herbicidal control of potential danger trees. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:207–212.Google Scholar
9. Sterrett, J. P. and Creager, R. A. 1977. A miniature pressure injector for deciduous woody seedlings and branches. HortScience 12:156–158.Google Scholar