Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:51:37.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of Application Influences Translocation of Auxinic Herbicides in Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2017

Christopher R. Johnston ,
Peter M. Eure ,
Timothy L. Grey ,
A. Stanley Culpepper  and
William K. Vencill
Christopher R. Johnston*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Peter M. Eure
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Professor, and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793.
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Professor, and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793.
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Professor, and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793.
William K. Vencill
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacy of WSSA Group 4 herbicides has been reported to vary with dependence on the time of day the application is made, which may affect the value of this mechanism of action as a control option and resistance management tool for Palmer amaranth. The objectives of this research were to evaluate the effect of time of day for application on 2,4-D and dicamba translocation and whether or not altering translocation affected any existing variation in phytotoxicity seen across application time of day. Maximum translocation (Tmax) of [14C]2,4-D and [14C]dicamba out of the treated leaf was significantly increased 52% and 29% to 34% in one of two repeated experiments for each herbicide, respectively, with application at 7:00 AM compared with applications at 2:00 PM and/or 12:00 AM. Applications at 7:00 AM increased [14C]2,4-D distribution to roots and increased [14C]dicamba distribution above the treated leaf compared with other application timings. In phytotoxicity experiments, dicamba application at 8 h after exposure to darkness (HAED) resulted in significantly lower dry root biomass than dicamba application at 8 h after exposure to light (HAEL). Contrasts indicated that injury resulting from dicamba application at 8 HAEL, corresponding to midday, was significantly reduced with a root treatment of 5-[N-(3,4-dimethoxyphenylethyl)methylamino]-2-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-2-isopropylvaleronitrile hydrochloride (verapamil) compared with injury observed with dicamba application and a root treatment of verapamil at 8 HAED, which corresponded to dawn. Overall, time of application appears to potentially influence translocation of 2,4-D and dicamba. Furthermore, inhibition of translocation appears to somewhat influence variation in phytotoxicity across times of application. Therefore, translocation may be involved in the varying efficacy of WSSA Group 4 herbicides due to application time of day, which has implications for the use of this mechanism of action for effective control and resistance management of Palmer amaranth.

Keywords

2,4-D5-[N-(3,4-dimethoxyphenylethyl)methylamino]-2-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-2-isopropylvaleronitrile hydrochloridedicambaPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.Auxin transport inhibitorherbicide resistanceradiolabeled herbicide
Type
Physiology/Chemistry/Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 4 - 14
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Current address of second author: Syngenta Biological Assessment–North America, Product Evaluation, Houston, TX 77030.

Associate Editor for this paper: Ramon G. Leon, University of Florida.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2015a) Distinct® herbicide product label. BASF Corporation Publication. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015b) XtendiMax™ with VaporGrip™ Technology herbicide product label and brochure. Monsanto Canada Inc. Publication. Winnipeg, MB: Monsanto Canada. 35 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Engenia™ herbicide product label. BASF Corporation Publication. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 22 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Enlist Duo™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences Publication. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beriault, JN, Horsman, GP, Devine, MD (1999) Phloem transport of D,L-glufosinate and acetyl-L-glufosinate in glufosinate-resistant and -susceptible Brassica napus . Plant Physiol 121:619–627 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovey, RW, Haas, RH, Meyer, RE (1972) Daily and seasonal response of huisache and Macartney rose to herbicides. Weed Sci 20:577–580 Google Scholar
Bowe, S, Landes, M, Best, J, Schmitz, G, Graben, M (1999) BAS 662H: an innovative herbicide for weed control in corn. Proc Brighton Conf Weeds 1:35–40 Google Scholar
Brady, HA (1969) Light intensity and the absorption and translocation of 2,4,5-T by woody plants. Weed Sci 17:320–322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunn, S, Subramanian, MV, Walters, E, Patel, B, Reagan, JD (1994) Biochemical characterization of auxin transport protein using phytotropins. Pages 203–211 in Hedin PA ed. Bioregulators for Crop Protection and Pest Control (ACS Symposium Series No. 557. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society Google Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, AH, Reade, JPH (2010) Auxin-type herbicides. Pages 133–156 in Cobb AH & Reade JPH eds. Herbicides and Plant Physiology. 2nd edn. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friml, J, Wisniewska, J, Benkova, E, Mendgen, K, Palme, K (2002) Lateral relocation of an auxin efflux regulator PIN3 mediates tropism in Arabidopsis . Nature 415:806–809 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geiger, DR, Bestman, HD (1990) Self-limitation of herbicide mobility by phytotoxic action. Weed Sci 38:324–329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, DA, Umphres, AM, Nie, H, Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE, Young, BG, Scott, RC, Tranel, PJ (2017) Two new PPX2 mutations associated with resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides in Amaranthus palmeri. Pest Manag Sci 2017:10.1002/ps.4581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, DE, Cawthray, GR, Powles, SB (2016) 2,4-D resistance in wild radish: reduced herbicide translocation via inhibition of cellular transport. J Exp Bot 67:3223–3235 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, K (2000) Mode of action of auxin herbicides: a new ending to a long, drawn out story. Trends Plant Sci 5:506–508 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, K, Caspar, G, Kwiatkowski, J, Bowe, SJ (2002) On the mechanism of selectivity of the corn herbicide BAS 662H: a combination of the novel auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr and the auxin herbicide dicamba. Pest Manag Sci 58:1002–1014 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, FD, Subramanian, MV, Brunn, SA, Jain, R (1998) Inhibition of auxin transport. Page 56 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Plant Growth Substances. Tokyo-Makuhari, Japan: International Plant Growth Substances AssociationGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RM (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR, Vassios, JD, Nissen, SJ, Ritz, C (2011) Nonlinear regression analysis of herbicide absorption studies. Weed Sci 59:601–610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, RG, Deibert, KJ (2005) Diflufenzopyr influences leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control by herbicides. Weed Technol 19:329–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, AG, Minarik, CE, Weintraub, RL (1950) Herbicides. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 1:141–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF, Bukovac, MJ (1969) Some physical-kinetic considerations in penetration of naphthaleneacetic acid through isolated pear leaf cuticle. Physiol Plant 22:701–712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallas, JE (1960) Effects of temperature and humidity on foliar absorption and translocation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid and benzoic acid. Plant Physiol 35:575–580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R, Foy, CL, Crafts, AS (1967) Effects of relative humidity on absorption and translocation of foliarly applied dalapon. Weeds 15:149–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, RG (1977) A review of foliar absorption and translocation of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Weed Res 17:259–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, C, Baty, F, Streibig, JC, Gerhard, D (2015) Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE 10:e0146021 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritz, C, Spiess, AN (2008) qpcR: an R package for sigmoidal model selection in quantitative real- time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Bioinformatics 24:1549–1551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, MW, Murray, DS, Verhalen, LM (1999) Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, JA, Blackman, GE (1969) Studies on foliar penetration. IV. Mechanisms controlling the rate of penetration of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) into leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris . J Exp Bot 20:542–555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, JA, Blackman, GE (1972) Studies on foliar penetration. IX. Patterns of penetration of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid into the leaves of different species. J Exp Bot 23:830–841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, RC, Steckel, LE, Smith, KL, Mueller, S, Oliver, LR, Norsworthy, JK (2007) Glyphosate- resistant Palmer amaranth in Tennessee and Arkansas. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 60:226 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG (2003) Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol 17:302–306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, MP, Vanden Born, WH (1970) Foliar penetration of picloram and 2,4-D in aspen and balsam poplar. Weed Sci 18:57–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukla, S, Ohnuma, S, Ambudkar, SV (2011) Improving cancer chemotherapy with modulators of ABC drug transporters. Curr Drug Targets 12:621–630 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skuterud, R, Bjugstad, N, Tyldum, A, Semb Tørresen, K (1998) Effect of herbicides applied at different times of the day. Crop Prot 17:41–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, Y (2014) Insight into the mode of action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) as an herbicide. J Integr Plant Biol 56:106–113 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Time of day impacts postemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:346–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramanian, MV, Bernasconi, P, Patel, BC, Reagan, J (1997) Revisiting auxin transport inhibition as a mode of action for herbicides. Weed Sci 45:621–627 Google Scholar
Weaver, ML, Nylund, RE (1963) Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weeds 11:142–148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL (2015) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) morphology, growth, and seed production in Georgia. Weed Sci 63:264–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, AC, Whitaker, JR, Culpepper, AS, Main, CL (2007) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the southeastern United States. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 60:225 Google Scholar
Zhu, J, Geisler, M (2015) Keeping it all together: auxin-actin crosstalk in plant development. J Exp Bot 66:4983–4998 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed