4.7 Article

Carfentrazone-ethyl and glyphosate drift inhibits uredinial formation of Austropuccinia psidii on Eucalyptus grandis leaves

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 53-62

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5163

关键词

fungal infection; myrtle rust; photosynthesis; transmission electron microscopy

资金

  1. 'Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico' (CNPq)
  2. 'Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior' (CAPES)
  3. 'Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais' (FAPEMIG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND The response to infection of Austropuccinia psidii in resistant (CLR-383) and susceptible (CLR-384) Eucalyptus grandis clones, exposed to herbicide drift of carfentrazone-ethyl, glyphosate and a mixture of these two herbicides, was evaluated at microscopic and physiological levels. RESULTS Plants of the two clones showed symptoms of phytotoxicity caused by herbicide drift. However, net CO2 assimilation rate, height and shoot dry matter were lower in CLR-384 than in CLR-383. At the ultrastructure level, the leaves of both clones exposed to the herbicides showed thylakoid disorganization and accumulation of starch grains in the chloroplasts. Only plants of CLR-384 were infected by A. psidii, but when exposed to herbicide drift, rust severity was lower than in control plants. Six days after inoculation (dai), plants of this clone exposed to the herbicides had smaller uredinia than control plants. At 12 dai, non-herbicide treated plants showed normal uredinia, containing abundant urediniospores. By contrast, plants exposed to the herbicides were less colonized by the fungus, and the uredinia were smaller with reduced production of urediniospores, which were sometimes not even detected. CONCLUSION Glyphosate and carfentrazone-ethyl herbicide drift reduce infection and uredinial formation of A. psidii and to some extent induce basal resistance in a susceptible clone of E. grandis. (c) 2018 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据