Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:49:48.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accumulation and Metabolism of Bromacil in Pineapple Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis) and Cleopatra Mandarin (Citrus reticulata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. S. Jordan  and
W. A. Clerx
L. S. Jordan
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Sci., Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521
W. A. Clerx
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Sci., Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Young orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck ‘Pineapple sweet orange’] trees are more sensitive to bromacil (5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil) than young mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco ‘Cleopatra mandarin’) trees. Pineapple sweet orange roots absorbed twice as much 14C from bromacil, and accumulated three times as much in the leaves, as did Cleopatra mandarin. The amount of conjugated metabolites formed was the same in the roots of the two cultivars, but twice as much formed in the leaves of Cleopatra mandarin as in the leaves of Pineapple sweet orange. The principle metabolite was 5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-hydroxymethyluracil; a minor metabolite was tentatively identified as 5-bromo-3-(3-hydroxyl-1-methylpropyl)-6-methyluracil. No 5-bromouracil was detected. Citrus cultivars differ in their ability to accumulate and metabolize bromacil into conjugated nonphytotoxic compounds.

Keywords

Herbicidedistributiontoleranceconjugationaglycone
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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

1. Bray, G. A. 1960. A simple efficient liquid scintillator for counting aqueous solutions in a liquid scintillation counter. Anal. Biochem. 1:279.Google Scholar
2. Davidson, J. D. and Oliverio, T. V. 1967. Tritium and C14 oxygen flask combustion. Atomlight 60:1.Google Scholar
3. Day, B. E. and Jordan, L. S. 1969. A research program for adaptation of herbicides to citrus culture. Pages 459–462 in Chapman, H. D., ed. Proc. First Int. Citrus. Symp., Vol. 1. Riverside, Calif. Google Scholar
4. Day, B. E., Jordan, L. S., Mann, J. D., and Russell, R. C. 1964. Uracil herbicides for weed control. Calif. Citrogr. 49:371, 380, 382.Google Scholar
5. Gardiner, J. A., Reiser, R. W., and Sherman, H. 1964. Identification of the metabolites of bromacil in rat urine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 17:967–973.Google Scholar
6. Gardiner, J. A., Rhodes, R. C., Adams, J. B. Jr., and Soboczenski, E. J. 1969. Synthesis and studies with 2-C14-labeled bromacil and terbacil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 17:980–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Hilton, J. L., Monaco, T. J., Moreland, D. E., and Gentner, W. A. 1964. Mode of action of substituted uracil herbicides. Weeds 12:129–131.Google Scholar
8. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method of growing plants without soil. California Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347.Google Scholar
9. Jordan, L. S. and Day, B. E. 1973. Weed control in citrus. Pages 82–97 in Reuther, W., ed. The Citrus Industry. Vol. 3. Univ. of Calif., Div. Agric. Sci. Berkeley, Calif. Google Scholar