. Table 1. Effects of plant growth regulators (PGR) on plant height, leaf dry weight, and leaf area of purple firespike plants pinched 2 weeks after potting to leave two to three nodes and treated with PGRs when new shoots were 3–5 cm. Leaf dry weight and
Amir Rezazadeh and Richard L. Harkess
Marco Volterrani, Nicola Grossi, Monica Gaetani, Lisa Caturegli, Aimila-Eleni Nikolopoulou, Filippo Lulli and Simone Magni
seeding is routinely adopted for several field crops. Properly sized sprigs could fit precision seeding machinery thus with the potential of being planted at a defined depth and spacing. Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are known for their ability to modify
Martin J. Bukovac
The importance of spray application and the role of spray additives are reviewed in reference to increasing the effectiveness of plant growth regulators (PGR). The spray application process is composed of a number of interrelated components, from formulation of the active ingredient into a sprayable, bioactive solution (emulsion/suspension), to atomization, delivery, retention, and penetration into the plant tissue. Each of these events is critical to performance of the PGR. Also, each can be affected by spray additives, particularly adjuvants, which may be incorporated in the formulation of the active ingredient or added to the spray mixture. The role of the individual components and effects of spray adjuvants, particularly surfactants and fertilizer adjuvants, on the component processes are discussed.
A field experiment was conducted over 2 years to determine the effects of treatment dates with plant growth regulators (PGRs) on performance of `Tifway' bermudagrass [Cynodon transvaalensis Burtt-Davy] × [C. dactylon (L.) Pers.]. For flurprimidol at 0.84 kg·ha-1, the highest injury occurred from 16 or 28 June application in 1987 and from 17 May or June application in 1988. The injury was similar from treatment dates with flurprimidol + mefluidide or paclobutrazol + mefluidide. The PGRs were applied over a longer period in 1987 than 1988 without affecting vegetative suppression of `Tifway' bermudagrass. However, in 1988, the suppression from the 17 May treatment was equal to or better than that obtained when treatment dates were delayed until 1 June or later. Chemical names: α-(1 -methylethyl)- α -[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-5-pyrimidinemethanol (flurprimidol); N -[2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]amino]phenyl]acetamide (mefluidide); (±)-(R*R*) β -[(4-chlorophenyl)-methyl]- α -(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 1H -1,2,4-triazole- 1-ethanol (paclobutrazol).
Edward W. Bush, Wayne C. Porter, Dennis P. Shepard and James N. McCrimmon
Field studies were performed on established carpetgrass (Axonopus affinis Chase) in 1994 and 1995 to evaluate plant growth regulators (PGRs) and application rates. Trinexapac-ethyl (0.48 kg·ha-1) improved turf quality and reduced cumulative vegetative growth (CVG) of unmowed and mowed plots by 38% and 46%, respectively, in 1995, and suppressed seedhead height in unmowed turf by >31% 6 weeks after treatment (WAT) both years. Mefluidide (0.14 and 0.28 kg·ha-1) had little effect on carpetgrass. Sulfometuron resulted in unacceptable phytotoxicity (>20%) 2 WAT in 1994 and 18% phytotoxicity in 1995. In 1995, sulfometuron reduced mowed carpetgrass CVG 21%, seedhead number 47%, seedhead height 36%, clipping yield 24%, and reduced the number of mowings required. It also improved unmowed carpetgrass quality at 6 WAT. Sethoxydim (0.11 kg·ha-1) suppressed seedhead formation by 60% and seedhead height by 20%, and caused moderate phytotoxicity (13%) in 1995. Sethoxydim (0.22 kg·ha-1) was unacceptably phytotoxic (38%) in 1994, but only slightly phytotoxic (7%) in 1995, reduced clipping yields (>24%), and increased quality of mowed carpetgrass both years. Fluazasulfuron (0.027 and 0.054 kg·ha-1) phytotoxicity ratings were unacceptable at 2 WAT in 1994, but not in 1995. Fluazasulfuron (0.054 kg·ha-1) reduced seedhead height by 23% to 26% in both years. Early seedhead formation was suppressed >70% when applied 2 WAT in 1994, and 43% when applied 6 WAT in 1995. The effects of the chemicals varied with mowing treatment and evaluation year. Chemical names used: 4-(cyclopropyl-x-hydroxy-methylene)-3,5 dioxo-cyclohexane-carboxylic acid ethyl ester (trinexapac-ethyl); N-2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoro-methyl)sulfonyl]amino]phenyl]acetamide] (mefluidide); [methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl) amino]carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl]benzoate)] (sulfometuron); (2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl-5-[(2-ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one) (sethoxydim); 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(3-trifluoromethyl-pyridin 2-yl) sulphonyl] urea (fluazasulfuron).
Duane W. Greene
Plant growth regulators (PGRs) play an important commercial role in horticulture. Although often expensive, they are generally used on high value crops where the costs can be retrieved through the increased value their usage creates in a given crop. The impetus for development of new PGRs is generally initiated by the agrochemical industry where they perceive a need that has a profit potential, whereas the motivation for the development of a PGR by researchers is largely to aid the industry they serve. University and government researchers initially follow a prescribed protocol early in the development process, but once they have gained personal experience with a PGR, further research is often guided by personal observations and keen technical insight. During the development and evaluation process, university and government researchers are optimistic, and negative effects are generally viewed as challenges, that can and will be overcome. Discussion and effective communication are critical components in the overall development of a new PGR. Researchers generally exchange information very freely, unless restricted from doing so by a nondisclosure or other contract agreement. The underlying goal for university and government researchers is to get approval of a new PGR product and/or use that will allow growers to produce a high quality product for consumers with an improved profit margin for growers. Development of new PGRs is undergoing major change that unfortunately will lead to the development and registration of fewer compounds. There are not as many agrochemical companies, there are a decreasing number of university and government researchers, and diminishing funds available to support the development of new PGRs.
Manjula S. Bandara, Karen K. Tanino and Doug R. Waterer
Seed potato growers seek to maximize yields of desirable sized tubers. This study examined how foliar applications of plant growth regulators influence yields of drop or single-cut seed tubers under field conditions. In 1993, paclobutrazol (PTZ; 300, 450, and 600 mg·liter–1), kinetin (KIN; 10 and 20 mg·liter–1), and methyl jasmonate (MJ; 10–7, 10–6, 10–5, and 10–4 M) were applied to `Norland' (NOR) and `Russet Burbank' (RB) potatoes. In 1994, PTZ (300 mg·liter–1), KIN (both rates), and MJ (10–7 and 10–6 M) treatments were eliminated, and GA3 at 250 mg·liter–1 or KIN at 20 mg·liter–1 was applied to some of PTZ treatments. In 1994, the cultivar Shepody (SH) also was included. Plants were treated at two growth stages; NOR (1993), RB (1993 and 1994), and SH (1994) were treated when tubers were <10 mm or <20 mm in diameter. NOR (1994) was treated at stolon initiation (no tubers) or early tuber initiation (<8 mm in diameter). PTZ had no effect on seed tuber (25–50 mm in diameter) yield in NOR in either season. PTZ increased seed tuber number (STN) in RB by 29% to 40% and in SH by 57% to 70% over the controls. KIN had no effect on STN in any cultivar. MJ had no effect on STN in NOR (1993) or in RB in either season or in SH in 1994. In 1994, the highest rate of MJ (10–4 M) increased STN in NOR by 40% over the controls. GA3 had no beneficial effect on STN when applied after PTZ. This study suggests that, under field conditions, PTZ can increase seed tuber production in RB and SH while MJ was effective in NOR potatoes.
Fang Geng, Renae Moran, Michael Day, William Halteman and Donglin Zhang
of explant collection date, chilling nodal explants, and media concentration of the plant growth regulators GA 3 , EBR, BA, ZT, and TDZ on shoot growth of ‘G.30’ and ‘G.41’ apple during the initial proliferation stage of micropropagation. The focus of
Hiroshi Iwanami, Nobuyuki Hirakawa, Hiroyasu Yamane and Akihiko Sato
Crosses between seedless cultivars had been conducted to produce seedless table grape efficiently by combining with ovule and embryo culture in Vitis vinifera L. But very few plants grew normally in this method. Four plant growth regulators (Cycocel, B-Nine, Uniconazole-P, Ethrel) were applied to shoots 4 weeks before anthesis to develop the seeds of two seedless cultivars `Flame seedless' and `A1706'. Correlation was significant in each cultivar between the shoot length at anthesis and the number of seed traces per berry in all combined treatments. Analysis of covariance revealed that the number of seed traces per berry was significantly higher when the shoots were applied with Uniconazole-P (240 ppm) than B-nine (2000 ppm), Cycocel (500 ppm) and Ethrel (400 ppm) in `Flame seedless' and Uniconazole-P and B-nine than Ethrel in `A1706'. Ovules of these two seedless cultivars crossed with seedless cultivar `Perlette' after the application of four plant growth regulators were cultured on half-strength MS medium with 10 μm IAA and the percentage of developed embryos in ovules was higher when the shoots were applied with Uniconazole-P and B-nine than Cycocel, Ethrel in `Flame seedless' and B-nine than others in `A1706'. These results indicate that the use of certain plant growth regulators promotes the embryo development.
Todd J. Cavins
Anti-gibberellin plant growth regulators (PGRs) not only affect cell elongation, but other biochemical processes. The experimental PGR A-1699 DF was evaluated for efficacy of height and width control as well as effect on flower petal pigmentation. While the active ingredient in A-1699 DF has proven effective for height control on several crops, that was not observed on Impatiens `Accent Cranberry' in this study. However, A-1699 DF did affect flower petal pigmentation. A-1699 DF likely inhibited anthocyanin production that resulted in light pink versus cranberry flower petals observed on the control, Paczol, and B-Nine/Cycocel PGR applications.