Table Of Content» s 2« s is of BAiLir a® oats
TO 2,4-BICHIi0R0PHE10XTACETlC ACID
by
%f%m August Berseheid
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of
The lequir©meats fon the Degree of
doctoi of tm m m m
S'
Major Subjects* Crop Production
Plant Phyaio.logy
bM r'IeofM a jorforic'
Siininffflm^$fee™WSy
lorn State College
1951
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: DP13181
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform DP13181
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
u s* of o o sn m
INBtSSTOJIM * i
w m m of M ttmftuts 2
field Response* 2
Varietal differences * » # * . * , . . » ♦ . * # * * * . I
Differences la stag® of growth * « * * # . . » * * * . * * 4
Morphological Responses ................................. 6
physiological letfoases • • * • * • * • « » • • • , * « • • # i
Other Responses 10
.Iffoots on Seed viability . . . ............................. . . 1©
Iffeots ©a quality . . . . . . . . . . ......... 11
Iff sets ©a progeny '12
m.«aiAi4 jo® iifflOBi . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... is
Varietal Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS
Experimental design' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Varieties tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If
Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1?
Stages of growth 'when treated ................................. . . . 1?
Physiological Response® . . . . . . . 2©
Progeny Responses...........................* .............................. 28
Climatolegieal Bata 24
SXPSRMSmL RESULTS............................................................................................. 28
Varietal Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Effects on yield . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . 28
Effects on seed-weight . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 86
Effects on number of spikes and seeds per spike . . . . 59
Relationship of yield to its component part® . . . . . . 42
Effects on seed viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Physiological Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Si
Progeny Responses......................... 62
Morphological Malformations......................... 65
DISCUSSION............................. 69
mm*m mu comumon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • a©
MffMTOlS 0ISS. 84
ACIWWKW1IT . . . . . . t . tl
~T?f3S
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ill
1*1 ST Qf T&BLIS
1. Rainfall la Inch®a during the Growing Season at the
Experimental Locations.... 2§
2* Maximum ant Minimum Temperatures , la ®©gr®#8 Fahrenheit for
' tb® Growing Season at the Sxperimenial Locations, . .. , * , . * 20
I* Jfsnn Yields, la Bushels per Acre,. @f Barley when Treated 'with
f ,4-D at Four Stage* of Growth ....................... , . , 29
4. lean Yield®# la Bushels per Acre, of Barley Varieties when
■ Treated' at Four Stages-of Growth with 2,4-D, . . . . . . . . . . 30
§, Analyses of Variance of farley Variety Yields. SI
6. lean Yield®, in lash®Is per Acr®, of Oats when Treated with
2,4-D at Four Stages of Growth. » » • • » * * » * * « » * * , . SS
7. lean Yields| in Bushels per Aer®,' of Oat Varieties when
Treated at four Stages of Growth with 2,4*13.............................. . . 34
t. Analyses of Variance of Oat fariety Yields. . . . . .................. 35
0, lean Weight in Grams of 100 Seeds ©f Barley when Treated
with 2,4-D at Four Stages of Growth* . ............................................... 36
10.. Mean Weight®, in Grams, of 100 Seeds of Barley Varieties
when Treated at Four Stages of Growth with 2,4-D. . . . . . . . 37
11. Analyses of Variance of the Seed-welght of Barley Varieties. . • 38
12. Average 'Shatter of Spikes per Foot of Plot of "Barley Varieties
when Treated a t Four Stages of Growth with 2,4-® in 1949. . . * 39
13. Average lumber of 'Seeds per Spike of Barley when Treated
with 2,4-D at four Stages of Growth in 1949........................... . . . 40
14. Average Number of Seeds per Spike of Barley Varieties when
Treated at Four Stages of Growth with 2,4-D in 1949. 41
15. Analyses of Variance of. the lumber of Spikes per Foot and of
the ftafcef of Seed® per Spike of Barley V arieties..................... 42
16. Mean Yields and Component Parts of Barley Varieties Treated
with 2,4-D at Nine Stages of Growth in Two Y e a rs ........................... 53
17. Analyse® of Variance of the Yields .of the Progeny of Plants'
which were Treated with 2,4-D. 62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ir
m m OF FIGURES
I* Om leplltatioii of the Srperljaenhai Design Showing th#
. Detailed SandemiMtl®* ©f Da# Whole-plot, 18
I* Mean Yield and Its Component Farts of light Barley Varieties
when Treated with 2,4-D at four Stages of Growth in 1949. . , * 44
3. Germination of Bight'Barley Yarieties when treated'with
2.4-D in 1947. * „•* 48
4, Gemination of Berea'Barley Yarieties when Treated with
t,4*D in 1948. 46
8. Gemination of light Barley Yarieties when Treated with
2.4-D in 1949. 47
6. Gemination of Sight 'Gat Yarieties when Treated with
2.4-D in lt4f, 48
7. Gomimtion'of light''Sat'Yarieties "when treated with
2.4-D in 1948,- . 4®
8 Gemination of light Oat Yarieties when Treated with
*
2.4-D in 194§. SO
9. Yields of two Barley Yarieties when treated, with 2,4-D
at line Stage* of Growth la 'two Years* 52
10* Relationship between the Yield and its Component Parts of
Moor# Barley'treated'with 2,4-D at fine Stages'of Growth
in ItiG. @8
11. Relationship between the Yield and'its Component Parts of
Wisconsin 38 Barley treated with '2,4-D 'at' Bine 'Stages of
Growth in 1949. * * 89
II# Relationship between the Yield and its Component Parts of
Plains Barley Treated with 2,4-D at line Stages of Growth
in 1949. , 60
18* Relationship 'between the Yield and Its Component' Parts of
Plains Barley Treated with'2,4-D'at Bin® ' Stages of Growth
in 1950. 61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1, Four. stages of growth when treated' la 1949. the
tally tillered stage was about ©a® week older than
ia previous years* * . # . * * » * « * * » * * . * * * # * *. * « 19
2* The nim stages s# the two varieties in the physio
logical response study ia 198©* • 22
8* ©rowing points ef Plains barley at the time the ’ first''
seven treatments were made la 1950..** . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4* Growing points of Plains barley at th® time th®' last
two treatments were made in ISSO * . . the growing
points from the main culm of Plains at the time of
the first, fifth and ninth treatment® in 1949.... . . . . . . . 55
®* Growing points ©£ Moore barley at the tine of'the
first seven and the ninth treatments in 1980.... . . . . . . . . 56
6* Constricted sheath at harvest time **• "Ineomjilehe
heading* caused by eoastrietlon of sheath collar* * ..................... 64
7. Malformations observed in barley treated with 2,4-P**.# . . . » 65
8. gffeets'of treating oats at the §»l®af stag®'with a
2,4—35 ester.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9. Four-row plots of barley showing the lodging of the
two treated rows of Wisconsin 58, Kindred and Manchuria
after treatment with a 2,4*© ester at the heading stage
in 1949.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
INTRODUCTION ■
Seloetiv© herbicides Mr© been used for weed control tine* th© -tufs-
©f th© century, hut th* us© of 2,4-diehlorophenoxyae©tle acid* has been' '
developed during th# past decade. Th© cheaic&l is © valuable adjunct to
weed control program® because numerous broad-leaved seeds are controlled
'with a small mount of the chemical and' many agronomic crops are tolerant
to these small dosages* '
la South Dakota, where aheut■ one-half of th© ©ultimted acreage is
devoted to the preduotioa of m ail grains*' -there 1* widespread Interest
la t-he us# of 2,4-® for the eeatrol of broad-leaved weeds growing la
grain. The experiences of many research workers sad agriculturists Indi
cate that -these crops -are, la- general, relatively toleraabj hut varying.
degrees of injury have been observed, ©specially, when more teal© formu
la t ions were used and when crop# were treated a t certain stages of growth.
It-is, therefor©, necessary to obtain information regarding the reaction
of these cereal crops to treatments with th# chemical.
One purpese- of this, study m s to- determine the differential response
of several economically Important barley and oat varieties* The effects
of 2,4-® on y ield,'o.cwpo'nsnt#. of -field, viability and morphological char
acters wore studied'With'three- ferwulatiene applied at'four stages of
growth. A second purpose1' m s to ©errelat© 'yield response with physio
logical activity a»A morphological stag© of development. A third purpose
was te determine whether 'field reductions and morphological abnormalities
were- transmitted' he -the succeeding generations.
%». the remainder of this manuscript 2,4-diohlorophenoxyacetic aoid w ill
be designated by its common name 2,4-D.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BJPIW Of UTEMKI.SE
The use of selective herbicides to k ill certain plant species
without injuring others has beta known sine# before th® turn of th®
century (66). Many inorganic salts, adds, aromatic oils ant phenolic
compounds have been used (16), but most of them have 'laid, at least, one
undesirable property, larth and liteh ell (50) demonstrated the selec
tiv ity o f w h e n they eliminated narrow-leaved plantain fro® Kentucky
bluegrasa plots with no detrimental effects to the bluegrasa or to orab-
.grass, iumerous investigators the® began the study of th® offsets of
t,4-S on may weed species -and several crop plants. Those who studied
crops were primarily interested in the effects on yield and morphological
eharaetere, but a few have studied some of the physiological and other
responses*
Yield licenses
Although the general concensus of opinion was'that 2,4-D kills
bread-leaved plants and not the grassy plants, Mitchell and Brown (ST)
showed that creeping bentgrass m s less tolerant than Kentucky blue
grass, red top or creeping red fescue. Albrecht (2) then reported that
seme strains of creeping bentgrass were mom tolerant than others.
These.results led to numerous investigations to -study the differential
response of varieties.
Varietal differences ■
Roseman and Staaiforth (71) shewed that seme inbred line* of eora
were 'more susoeptlble to 8,4-$ than others who® treated at the 6 %©- 8-leaf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stage, Staniforth (84) demonstrated that th# same was true of single-
cross hybrids. Iftasea and Buehholts (.1®) confirmed th# findings of
loasmsn sad Staniforth when they treated seedling ©era* lite r (20)
found a marked differential response in sorghum varieties. Bakko and
Staniforth (6), Blackman (8), Coup®land (16), Dunhsua a»ft Hobiaaon (if
and 18), Frieses (62) and fhaica. (8®) hav© iemeastrated that semi flax
varieties *r® slightly more tolerant to. 2,4*# than others*
la wheat, the reports ©a differential variety response are not in
complete ftgreemoKh# Shaw and Willard (76) .reported a differential re-'
#p@*ts#-is winter wheat varieties, but fllfe and fuelleman (8©), Phillips
(63) and Woestemeyer (80) report that the yield response to treatment was
the same for a ll varieties studied* Phillips (66), however, found a
differential response to stage of growth* Bohmont (10), Poster (26) and
©Ison ot &1,(69) reported slight differences 'in the varietal response
of spring wheat, while Beiges©*. (42) found m differences•
Conflicting results have been ebtaiaod from studies of differential
responses in barley* Foster (23) treated 14 varieties with 2,4-D at the
8- and 5-leaf .stages of growth. He found that Warrior, 0.A.C, 21 and
Compana were the most tolerant, while Trebl, Prospect and Vantage were
the most susceptible. ©Ison et al.(5S) treated three varieties when 11
lashes ta il and concluded that Vantage was a# re tele rant than Montcalm
or 0.A.G. Pedersen et al.(61) found no differences among six varieties*
Although the differential response of cats is not clear cut for some
varieties, i t is definite for others*. Foster (24) found that Gopher,
Vanguard and Valor were the most tolerant- of 11 varieties treated at the
3-' and 6-leaf stages of growth and that Anthony was the most susceptible*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Olson et al,{59), however, reported that th# yields of Vanguard and Ajax
were reduced 40 per cant when treated at the ll-iaeb stage, while Bxeter
was m»m tolerant, Robinson et al,(68) showed that three-fourths pound
aeid equivalent of 2,.4-1 or 2-mefchyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetie acid (MSP) re
duced th® 'fields of Clinton and 'lint© at the full tiller, stag# and-that 8,
4-D reduced the" -yield of Andrew at the 3-inch .and fu ll tille r stage, while
Ajax, Sonia, Shelby and Zepher were not affected* Shaw and Willard (74)
indicated that Clinton and Had© were less tolem nt than Ajax and Columbia.
Pedersen et al.(S l) could detect no differences In the seven varieties
studied, fhe 'relative tolerance of Ajax and Vanguard la not clear cut,
but Clinton awl Mind# and perhaps Andrew are definitely leas tolerant
than several other varieties.* foster (24) listed Vanguard as being toler
ant a t the S- and S-leaf stages, while Olson et al.(S t) listed it, as sus
ceptible when 11 laches ta ll, indicating that sow# ©f the discrepancies in
th# results were due to treatment at different stages of growth.
Differences la stage of growth
WIWMK'U.IWIIIW.H. .mil imuiiiilii muiii II worn* ' M M w SSfcii.waiiiiiMw.awi.w
Weaver et n l. (89) had previously reported, 1® 1948, that several
vegetable' Crops showed, marked vegetative responses when treated with. 2,4-D ■
a t early stages of growth, but that yields were reduced more from treat-
neat# applied near flowering time, fh® following year, Klingman (44) re
ported more 'head abnormalities of barley, cats and wheat treated at or be
fore the jointing stage, while treating at the boot or heading stages
caused greater reduction la yield. laMoa (.88) showed that malformation#
were acre prevalent ea flax treated at early 'stages but yield was de- •
creased more by treating after budding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
