4.7 Article

Relevance of the deposit structure for the uptake and bio-efficacy of diquat, as monitored by the spatially resolved chlorophyll fluorescence

期刊

PESTICIDE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 2, 页码 218-225

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2013.07.004

关键词

Capillary movement; Pesticide-surface interaction; Weeds; Coffee-ring; Surfactant; Herbicide

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. Research Training Group GrK 722 Use of information technologies for the precise crop protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of our study was to exploit the relation between deposit structure at the microscale and the uptake and biological efficacy of herbicides. For this purpose, we analysed the relevance of the deposit structure of diquat dibromide, as affected by surfactants, on the spatially resolved chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) and the desiccation of the leaves. The present study is a sequential work to our studies with the systemic compound glyphosate. On that basis, we hypothesized here that larger deposits of diquat are negatively related to the bio-efficacy of the compound. By using selected ethoxylated rapeseed oil adjuvants (RSO 5, RSO 10, RSO 30, RSO 60) we influenced the deposit properties of diquat dibromide droplet residue on the leaves of easy-to-wet Viola arvensis and the difficult-to-wet Chenopodium album species. With the spatially-resolved pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) ChlF technique we demonstrated the effect of diquat on the physiology of the tissue. As shown, the RSO surfactants did not affect the area of diquat residue on the easy-to-wet leaves of V. arvensis; this trend is similar to those observed for ChlF and the herbicide desiccation potential. In contrary, on C album, decreased deposit area of diquat droplet was associated with increased effect on ChlF parameters and increased desiccation potential of the herbicide, thus explaining its higher foliar uptake. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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