Advertisement

Characterization of Paraquat-Resistant Conyza Leaves Through Delayed Fluorescence

  • E. Lehoczki
  • Z. Szigeti

Abstract

The kinetics of chlorophyll delayed fluorescence (DF) induction was used as a tool for the detection of paraquat action in paraquat resistant (R) and susceptible (S) biotypes of Conyza canadensis. In both bio-types, a physiologically active level of paraquat rapidly inhibits the DF within 30 min after the spraying of whole plants. The inhibition of the DF in the S bio-type is irreversible, while in the R plants the DF is slowly recovered with time. This transient inhibition of photosynthesis in intact leaves is very important as concerns the explanation of the mechanism of paraquat resistance. In the present study a solid-state device for measurement of the DF is described, which is suitable for studies of photosynthesis and stress physiology under field conditions.

Key words

delayed fluorescence paraquat resistance Conyza canadensis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Fuerst EP, Nakatani HY, Dodge AD, Penner D, Arntzen CJ, 1985. Paraquat-resistance in Conyza. Plant Physiology 77: 984–989.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Harvey BMR, Muldoon J and Harper DB, 1978. Mechanism of paraquat tolerance in perennial ryegrass. I. Uptake, metabolism and translocation of paraquat. Plant Gell Environ. 1: 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Havaux M and Lannoye R, 1985. In vivo chlorophyll fluorescence and delayed light emission as rapid screening techniques for stress tolerance in crop plants. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 95: 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Itoh S and Murata N, 1973. Correlation between delayed light emission and fluorescence of chlorophyll a in system II particles derived from spinach chloroplasts. Photochemistry and Photobio-logy 18: 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lavorel J, 1975. Luminescence. In: Govindjee ed. Bioenergetics of Photosynthesis. Academic Press, New York. pp. 223–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Polos E, Mikulas J, Szigeti Z, Matkovics B, DoQuy H, Parducz A and Lehoczki E, 1988. Paraquat and atrazine co-resistance in Conyza canadensis. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 30: 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Powles SB and Cornic G, 1987. Mechanism of paraquat resistance in Hordeum glaucum. Studies with isolated organelles and enzymes. Aust. J. Plant Physiology 14: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shaaltiel Y and Gressel J, 1986. Kinetic analysis of resistance to paraquat in Conyza. Plant Physiology 85: 869–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Summers LA, 1980. The Bipyridilium Herbicides. Academic Press London.Google Scholar
  10. Szigeti Z, Polos E and Lehoczki E 1988 (In this proceeding).Google Scholar
  11. Vaughn KC and Fuerst EP, 1985. Structural and physiological studies of paraquat-resistant Conyza. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 24: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Lehoczki
    • 1
  • Z. Szigeti
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiophysicsJozsef Attila UniversitySzegedHungary
  2. 2.Department of Plant PhysiologyEotvos Lorand UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations