JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in JEQ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martínez-Ghersa, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Satorre, E. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martínez-Ghersa, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Satorre, E. H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Martínez-Ghersa, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Satorre, E. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Weed Management
Right arrow Agricultural Pesticides
Right arrow Plant and Environment Interactions
Right arrow Air Pollution

Herbicide Selection of Italian Ryegrass under Different Levels of UVB Radiation

M. Alejandra Martínez-Ghersaa,*, Martín M. Vila Aiuba,c, Claudio M. Ghersaa, Pedro Gundela and Emilio H. Satorreb

a IFEVA, Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martin 4453, C1417DSE Buenos Aires, Argentina
b Departamento de Produccion Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martin 4453, C1417DSE Buenos Aires, Argentina
c Present address: University of Western Australia, WA Herbicide Resistance Initiative (WAHRI), Department of Plant Science, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6007, Australia



View larger version (57K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Overview of the selection protocol and experimental design. (A) Selection cycles conducted during 1996 and 1997; (B) herbicide screening tests conducted in 1998.

 


View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation on survival of Italian ryegrass seedlings of a parental population when treated with different doses of diclofop-methyl. Bars represent means ± standard errors. Analysis of variance for (A) 1996: UVB light (L), P = 0.18; herbicide dose (D), P = 0.0001; L x D, P = 0.95. Analysis of variance for (B) 1997: L, P = 0.12; D, P = 0.00001; L x D, P = 0.04.

 


View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation on biomass of seedlings of a parental population of Italian ryegrass surviving treatment with different doses of diclofop-methyl. Bars represent means ± standard errors. Analysis of variance for (A) 1996: UVB light (L), P = 0.13; herbicide dose (D), P = 0.43; L x D, P = 0.76. Analysis of variance for (B) 1997: L, P = 0.39; D, P = 0.10; L x D, P = 0.03.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. The effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) light on the relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass per Italian ryegrass plant growing in (A) nontreated (control) plots and (B) herbicide-treated plots. Both parental populations were pooled for analysis. Regression equations: (A) UVB–: y = 0.1354x + 0.0013, R2 = 0.95, P = 0.001, SE of the slope = 0.01; UVB+: y = 0.1102x + 0.0015, R2 = 0.89, P = 0.001, SE of the slope = 0.01; (B) UVB–: y = 0.1011x + 0.0227, R2 = 0.31, P < 0.05, SE of the slope = 0.05; UVB+: y = –0.0461x + 0.0276, R2 = 0.06, P > 0.05.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. The effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) light on the density-dependent production of reproductive biomass in (A) nontreated (control) plots and (B) herbicide-treated plots. Parental and F1 populations were pooled for analysis. Regression model fitted: y = a exp(–Kx). Parameters for (A) UVB–: a = 0.061, K = 0.017 (SE = 0.01), R2 = 0.88; UVB+: a = 0.045, K = 0.014 (SE = 0.004), R2 = 0.97; parameters for (B) UVB–: a = 0.18, K = 0.12 (SE= 0.055), R2 = 0.47; UVB+: not significant.

 


View larger version (49K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation on survival of Italian ryegrass seedlings of an F1 population when treated with different doses of diclofop-methyl. Bars represent means ± standard errors. Analysis of variance: UVB light (L), P = 0.17; herbicide dose (D), P = 0.39; L x D, P = 0.02.

 


View larger version (30K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Effect of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation on biomass of seedlings of an F1 population of Italian ryegrass surviving treatment with different doses of diclofop-methyl. Parental and F1 populations were exposed to the same UVB light and herbicide environments. Bars represent means ± standard errors. Analysis of variance: UVB light (L), P = 0.0034; herbicide dose (D), P = 0.0007; L x D, P = 0.31.

 


View larger version (62K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Selection of ryegrass populations in different UVB light and herbicide environments as estimated by the survival to herbicide application of F1 seedlings from seeds produced in 1996 and 1997. The figure illustrates the significant interactions between current environment (herbicide screening) and selection history from Table 2. Bars represent means ± standard errors.

 


View larger version (54K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. Selection of ryegrass populations in different UVB light and herbicide environments as estimated by the survival to herbicide application to F2 seedlings from seeds produced in 1997. The figure illustrates the significant interactions between current environment (herbicide screening) and two cycles of the same selection history from Table 2. Bars represent means ± standard errors.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.