, Volume 196, Issue 3, pp 464–468 | Cite as

The mechanism of resistance to paraquat is strongly temperature dependent in resistant Hordeum leporinum Link and H. glaucum Steud.

  • Edison Purba
  • Christopher Preston
  • Stephen B. Powles


Paraquat-resistant biotypes of the closely-related weed species Hordeum leporinum Link and H. glaucum Steud. are highly resistant to paraquat when grown during the normal winter growing season. However, when grown and treated with paraquat in summer, these biotypes are markedly less resistant to paraquat. This reduced resistance to paraquat in summer is primarily a result of increased temperature following herbicide treatment. The mechanism governing this decrease in resistance at high temperature was examined in H. leporinum. No differences were observed between susceptible and resistant biotypes in the interaction of paraquat with isolated thylakoids when assayed at 15, 25, or 35 °C. About 98 and 65% of applied paraquat was absorbed through the leaf cuticle of both biotypes at 15 and 30 °C, respectively. Following application to leaves, more herbicide was translocated in a basipetal direction in the susceptible biotype compared to the resistant biotype at 15 °C. However, at 30 °C more paraquat was translocated in a basipetal direction in the resistant biotype. Photosynthetic activity of young leaf tissue from within the leaf sheath which had not been directly exposed to paraquat was measured 24 h after treatment of plants with para. quat. This activity was inhibited in the susceptible biotype when plants were maintained at either 15 °C or 30 °C after treatment. In contrast, photosynthetic activity of such tissue of the resistant biotype was not inhibited when plants were maintained at 15 °C after treatment, but was inhibited at 30 °C. The mechanism of resistance in this biotype of H. leporinum correlates with decreased translocation of paraquat and decreased penetration to the active site. This mechanism is temperature sensitive and breaks down at higher temperatures.

Key words

Herbicide translocation Hordeum (herbicide resistance) Paraquat resistance Photosystem I 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnon, D.I. (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 24, 1–15Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, B.C. (1963) Translocation of diquat in plants. Nature 198, 872–873Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, T., Powles, S.B., Cornic, G. (1987) Mechanism of paraquat resistance in Hordeum glaucum. II. Paraquat uptake and translocation. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 14, 539–547Google Scholar
  4. Brian, R.C. (1967) Darkness and the activity of diquat and paraquat on tomato, broad bean and sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 60, 77–85Google Scholar
  5. Brian, R.C. (1969) The influence of darkness on the uptake and movement of diquat and paraquat in tomatoes, sugar beet and potatoes. Ann. Appl. Biol. 63, 117–126Google Scholar
  6. Calderbank, A., Slade, P. (1976) Paraquat and diquat. In: Herbicides: chemistry, degradation and mode of action, vol 2, pp. 501–540, Kearney, P.C., Kaufman, D.D., eds. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Mees, G.C. (1960) Experiments on the herbicidal action of 1,1′-ethylene-2,2′-dipyridylium dibromide. Ann. Appl. Biol. 48, 601–612Google Scholar
  8. Powles, S.B. (1986) Appearance of a biotype of the weed, Hordeum glaucum Steud., resistant to the herbicide paraquat. Weed Res. 26, 167–172Google Scholar
  9. Powles, S.B., Cornic, G. (1987) Mechanism of paraquat resistance in Hordeum glaucum. I. Studies with isolated organelles and enzymes. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 14, 81–89Google Scholar
  10. Preston, C. (1994) Resistance to photosystem I disrupting herbicides. In: Herbicide resistance: biology and biochemistry, pp. 61–82, Powles, S. B., Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Lewis Publishers Inc., Boca Raton, FlaGoogle Scholar
  11. Preston, C., Holtum, J.A.M., Powles, S.B. (1992) On the mechanism of resistance to paraquat in Hordeum glaucum and H. leporinum. Delayed inhibition of photosynthetic O2 evolution after paraquat application. Plant Physiol. 100, 630–636Google Scholar
  12. Slade, P., Bell, E.G. (1966) The movement of paraquat in plants. Weed Res. 6, 267–274Google Scholar
  13. Smith, J.M., Sagar, G.R. (1966) A re-examination of the influence of light and darkness on the long-distance transport of diquat in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Weed Res. 6, 314–321Google Scholar
  14. Tucker, E.S., Powles, S.B. (1991) A biotype of hare barley (Hordeum leporinum) resistant to paraquat and diquat. Weed Sci. 39, 159–162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edison Purba
    • 1
  • Christopher Preston
    • 1
  • Stephen B. Powles
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Crop ProtectionWaite Agricultural Research Institute, University of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations