Abstract
Methyl ester of diclofop {2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) phenoxy] propanoic acid} (diclofop as used herein refers to the methyl ester) added to nutrient solution inhibited adventitious root development and reduced the mitotic index in adventitious root tips of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. ‘Neepawa’) and wild oat ( Avena fatua L.). Elongation of wild oat roots was significantly inhibited by 0.15 μM diclofop 24 h after treatment; whereas, wheat roots were unaffected at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days, indicating at least a 10-fold difference in sensitivity. Initiation of new adventitious roots was reduced in both species by 0.30 μM diclofop. Mitotic index was more severely reduced at lower concentrations and after a shorter exposure in wild oat than in wheat. Histological studies showed that 24 h after wild oat roots were treated with 0.30 μM diclofop for 24 h, severe damage occurred to tissues within the developing central cylinder, close to the root apex. Disruption of cortical and epidermal cells generally was not as severe until 4 to 7 days after treatment. By 12 days the entire root tip was almost completely obliterated, with only the epidermal cell walls remaining intact.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Diclofop at 0.15 μM significantly inhibited elongation of wild oat roots 24 h after treatment.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Elongation of wild oat roots was significantly inhibited by 0.15 μM diclofop 24 h after treatment; whereas, wheat roots were unaffected at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days, indicating at least a 10-fold difference in sensitivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat roots were unaffected by diclofop at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- at concentrations less than 1.5 μMe1
- Outcome
- wheat rootse1
- Direction
- unaffectede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Elongation of wild oat roots was significantly inhibited by 0.15 μM diclofop 24 h after treatment; whereas, wheat roots were unaffected at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days, indicating at least a 10-fold difference in sensitivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Wild oat was at least 10-fold more sensitive to diclofop than wheat in root elongation.
Verbatim
e1“Elongation of wild oat roots was significantly inhibited by 0.15 μM diclofop 24 h after treatment; whereas, wheat roots were unaffected at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days, indicating at least a 10-fold difference in sensitivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Diclofop at 0.30 μM reduced initiation of new adventitious roots in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- 0.30 μM diclofope2
- Outcome
- Initiation of new adventitious rootse2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Initiation of new adventitious roots was reduced in both species by 0.30 μM diclofop”
e3“added to nutrient solution inhibited adventitious root development and reduced the mitotic index in adventitious root tips of wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Diclofop at 0.30 μM reduced initiation of new adventitious roots in wild oat.
- Taxon
- wild oate1
- Treatment
- 0.30 μM diclofope2
- Outcome
- Initiation of new adventitious rootse2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e2“Initiation of new adventitious roots was reduced in both species by 0.30 μM diclofop”
e1“Elongation of wild oat roots was significantly inhibited by 0.15 μM diclofop 24 h after treatment; whereas, wheat roots were unaffected at concentrations less than 1.5 μM even at 12 days, indicating at least a 10-fold difference in sensitivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Mitotic index was more severely reduced in wild oat than in wheat at lower diclofop concentrations.
Verbatim
e4“Mitotic index was more severely reduced at lower concentrations and after a shorter exposure in wild oat than in wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Diclofop at 0.30 μM caused severe damage to tissues within the developing central cylinder of wild oat roots close to the root apex.
Verbatim
e5“Histological studies showed that 24 h after wild oat roots were treated with 0.30 μM diclofop for 24 h, severe damage occurred to tissues within the developing central cylinder, close to the root apex”
Claim · model-written summary
Disruption of cortical and epidermal cells in wild oat roots was not as severe until 4 to 7 days after treatment.
Verbatim
e6“Disruption of cortical and epidermal cells generally was not as severe until 4 to 7 days after treatment”
e5“Histological studies showed that 24 h after wild oat roots were treated with 0.30 μM diclofop for 24 h, severe damage occurred to tissues within the developing central cylinder, close to the root apex”
Claim · model-written summary
By 12 days the entire wild oat root tip was almost completely obliterated, with only epidermal cell walls remaining intact.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e7“By 12 days the entire root tip was almost completely obliterated, with only the epidermal cell walls remaining intact”
e5“Histological studies showed that 24 h after wild oat roots were treated with 0.30 μM diclofop for 24 h, severe damage occurred to tissues within the developing central cylinder, close to the root apex”
The same questions in other papers
diclofop · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
diclofop · growth · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.