Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:02:38.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption, translocation, metabolism, and spray retention of quinclorac in Digitaria sanguinalis and Eleusine indica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph E. Zawierucha  and
Donald Penner
Joseph E. Zawierucha
Affiliation:
BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Absorption, translocation, and metabolism studies using 14C-quinclorac were conducted with quinclorac-sensitive Digitaria sanguinalis and quinclorac-tolerant Eleusine indica at the one- to two-tiller growth stage cultured under hydroponic conditions. After an 80-h exposure time, both species had absorbed nearly equal amounts of 14C-quinclorac (27 and 22% for D. sanguinalis and E. indica, respectively). Over the exposure period, the absorption curve for D. sanguinalis was curvilinear, with the maximum absorption occurring approximately 48 h after exposure. The response curve for E. indica was linear across the exposure period. Results from the translocation studies showed that 95% of the absorbed 14C-quinclorac remained in the treated leaf for D. sanguinalis after 80 h. However, only 58% of the absorbed 14C remained in the treated leaf of E. indica. Most of the 14C translocated out of the leaves moved to the tiller, the crown, and new leaf tissue. There was no appreciable exudation of 14C-quinclorac by either species during the absorption period. Results of the metabolism studies showed that neither the susceptible species (D. sanguinalis) nor the tolerant species (E. indica) metabolized the parent quinclorac herbicide. Spray retention studies showed that E. indica (tolerant) retained more applied quinclorac than D. sanguinalis (sensitive). Overall results suggested that a large difference in tolerance of the two species to quinclorac involves mechanisms other than absorption, metabolism, or spray retention.

Keywords

QuincloracDigitaria sanguinalis L. DIGSA, large crabgrassEleusine indica L. ELEIN, goosegrassLarge crabgrassgoosegrassselectivityDIGSAELEIN
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 296 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing, pp. 108–124.Google Scholar
Berghaus, R. and Wuerzer, B. 1987. The mode of action of the new experimental herbicide quinclorac (BAS 514H). Proc. 11th Asian Pac. Weed Sci. Soc. Conf. 1:81–87.Google Scholar
Boldt, P. F. and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Selectivity mechanisms for diclofopmethyl. I. Retention, absorption, translocation, and volatility. Weed Sci. 28:474–477.Google Scholar
Cary, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1997. Physiological basis for nicosulfuron and primisulfuron selectivity in five plant species. Weed Sci. 45:22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chism, W. S., Bingham, W., and Shaver, R. L. 1991. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of quinclorac in two grass species. Weed Technol. 5:771–775.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44:797–803.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, CA: PTR Prentice Hall. 441 p.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. 1998. Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:707–716.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. and Scheltrup, F. 1997. Selective induction of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) synthase activity is involved in the selectivity of the auxin herbicide quinclorac between barnyardgrass and rice. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 58:145–153.Google Scholar
Hess, D. F. 1987. Relationship of plant morphology to herbicide application and absorption. Pages 19–35 In McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Chapter 3. Monograph Series of WSSA Number 4. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1938. The Water Culture Method for Growing Plants without Soil. Berkeley, CA: California Agricultural Experiment Station Circ. 347. 39 p.Google Scholar
Ma, G., Coble, H. D., and Corbin, F. T. 1997. Physiological mechanisms for differential responses of three weed species to prosulfuron. Weed Sci. 45:642–647.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P., Vanden Born, W. H., and McBeath, O. K. 1978. Spray retention, foliar penetration, translocation, and selectivity of asulam in wild oats and flax. Weed Res. 18:169–173.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Weed control and Zea mays tolerance as affected by timing of RP-201772 application. Weed Sci. 47:375–382.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Friisoe, G. Y., and Bolick, M. R. 1995. Weeds of Nebraska and the Great Plains. 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture. pp. 412–419.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Zawierucha, J. E. 1998. Basis for the Differential Response of Several Weed Species to Quinclorac. . Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 98 p.Google Scholar