Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:23:07.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption, fate, and soil activity of quinclorac in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen F. Enloe ,
Scott J. Nissen  and
Philip Westra
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory and greenhouse experiments were conducted to examine the absorption and fate of quinclorac in field bindweed and to assess the importance of quinclorac soil activity for field bindweed control. No foliar absorption of 14C-quinclorac occurred when applied alone, but absorption increased to 24% when quinclorac was applied with 2,4-D, 28% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), and methylated seed oil (MSO). Quinclorac translocation in field bindweed was limited, as < 18% of the total amount of absorbed radiolabeled material translocated out of the treated leaves 168 hours after treatment (HAT). Quinclorac metabolism in the treated leaves was minimal; 95% of the recovered 14 C was intact herbicide 168 HAT. Quinclorac soil activity on field bindweed was demonstrated in preemergence and soil subsurface applications. Preemergence application of 35, 70, 140, or 280 g ha−-1 quinclorac reduced field bindweed shoot growth. Field bindweed shoots exhibited auxinic herbicide symptoms at all quinclorac rates. Subsurface layering of quinclorac below the root system at rates of 35 and 280 g ha−-1 also reduced shoot and root growth. Both herbicide rates induced malformation in root structure with a proliferation of lateral branching, swollen and fused root tips, and malformed root buds. Shoot growth from surviving roots replanted in untreated media was also reduced in both herbicide treatments. These findings suggest quinclorac soil activity may be important for field bindweed control.

Keywords

Quinclorac, 2,4-Dfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONAR.Translocation, metabolism, perennial weed, CONAR
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 136 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Agbakoba, C.S.O. and Goodin, J. R. 1969. Effect of stage of growth of field bindweed on absorption and translocation of 14C-labelled 2,4-D and picloram. Weed Sci. 17: 436–438.Google Scholar
Agbakoba, C.S.O. and Goodin, J. R. 1970. Picloram enhances 2,4-D movement in field bindweed. Weed Sci. 18: 19–21.Google Scholar
Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America, pp. 258–259.Google Scholar
Berghaus, R. and Wuerzer, B. 1989. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of quinclorac in rice and barnyardgrass. Pages 133–139 in Proceedings of the 12th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Conference. Kwangju, Korea: Asian Pacific Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Bingham, S. W., and Shaver, R. L. 1991. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of quinclorac in two grass species. Weed Technol. 5: 771–775.Google Scholar
Dall'Armellina, A. A. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1989. Effects of watering frequency, drought, and glyphosate on growth of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 37: 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Growth and reproductive characteristics of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes. Weed Sci. 32: 525–528.Google Scholar
Enache, A. J. and Ilnicki, R. D. 1991. BAS 514 and dithiopyr for weed control in cool season turfgrasses. Weed Technol. 5: 616–621.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F. and Westra, P. 1996. Evaluation of quinclorac for long term management of field bindweed. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 50: 78.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Barrett, M. 1989. Effects of glyphosate combinations with 2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 37: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frasier, J. C. 1943. Food reserve depletion and synthesis in field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L., as related to 7-day and 14-day intervals of cultivation. Plant Physiol. 18: 315–323.Google Scholar
Frasier, J. C. 1948. Principal Noxious Perennial Weeds of Kansas, with Emphasis upon Their Root Systems in Relation to Control. Topeka, KS: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 331.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Jourdan, S. W., Wyse, D. L., Somers, D. A., and Magnusson, M. U. 1993. Effect of ammonium sulfate on absorption of imazethapyr by quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and maize (Zea mays) cell suspension cultures. Weed Sci. 41: 325–334.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. and Kwiatkowski, J. 1993. Selective induction of ethylene and cyanide biosynthesis appears to be involved in the selectivity of the herbicide quinclorac between rice and barnyardgrass. Plant Physiol. 142: 457–466.Google Scholar
Hickman, M. V., Messersmith, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1989. Picloram release from leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) roots in the field. Weed Sci. 37: 167–174.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, G. L. and Rusness, D. G. 1995. Quinclorac absorption, translocation, metabolism, and toxicity in leafy spurge Euphorbia esula . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 53: 210–226.Google Scholar
Lauridson, T. C., Wilson, R. G., and Haderlie, L. C. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control, absorption, and translocation of herbicide. Weed Sci. 31: 674–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Nalewaja, J. D., and Szelezniak, E. F. 1987. Esterified seed oils with herbicides. Pages 139–148 in Chow, P.N.P., Groat, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simudsson, E., eds. Adjuvants and Agrochemicals. Volume II. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Nalewaja, J. D., and Szelezniak, E. F. 1990. Small grain and grass weed response to BAS-514 with adjuvants. Weed Technol. 4: 366–370.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1991. Intriguing world of weeds: field bindweed. Weed Technol. 5: 913–915.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., and Stougaard, R. N. 1994. Imazethapyr absorption and fate in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 42: 158–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hammon, W. M. 1981. Influence of non-ionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality, and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61: 391–400.Google Scholar
Stauber, L. G., Nastasi, P., Smith, R. J. Jr., Baltazar, A. M., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fasicularis) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 5: 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principals and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 471–476.Google Scholar
Stovicek, R. F. and Penner, D. F. 1986. Absorption of BAS 514. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41: 94.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D, and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 44: 469–475.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 461–472.Google Scholar