Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:01:41.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clifford H. Koger  and
Krishna N. Reddy
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and laboratory studies were conducted to examine the effects of site of plant exposure to glyphosate spray on efficacy, absorption, and translocation in pitted morningglory. Absorption of 14C-glyphosate in four-leaf pitted morningglory gradually increased with time from 19% at 1 h after treatment (HAT) to 44% at 192 HAT. The amount of 14C translocated with time ranged from 0.4% at 1 HAT to 25% at 192 HAT. Vining 1-m tall plants were controlled 75 to 100% when the top-, middle-, bottom one-third, or entire plant was treated with 1.38 or 2.76 kg ha−1 glyphosate, with control affected more by glyphosate rate than plant section exposed to glyphosate spray. Absorption of 14C-glyphosate at 96 HAT was similar whether it was applied to the top-, middle-, bottom one-third, or entire plant of 1-m tall pitted morningglory. The amount of 14C translocated out of the treated area (5 to 6%) did not differ whether it was applied to top-, middle-, or bottom one-third plant section. Results indicate that absorption and translocation of 14C-glyphosate in pitted morningglory was rapid and increased with time. Treating any one-third section of pitted morningglory plants was as effective as entire plant exposure, and control with glyphosate is more affected by rate than the degree of plant exposure to glyphosate.

Keywords

Glyphosatepitted moringglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLABiomass reductionglyphosate tolerancespray coverageweed control
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , June 2005 , pp. 277 - 283
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

Anonymous. 1995. Weed survey-southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:290–305.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Weed survey-southern states, grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:247–274.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Weed survey-southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Glyphosate Product Label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Godley, F. M. 1984. Control of annual morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 32:813–818.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. A comparison between glyphosate and assimilate translocation patters in tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea). Weed Sci 31:308–314.Google Scholar
[ERS] Economic Research Service. 2003. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops on the U.S. http://www.ers.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci 36:345–353.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci 35:185–193.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., and Reddy, K. N. 2004. Effect of glyphosate spray coverage on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Technol 18:124–130.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1988. Control of morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) in sugarcane with layby herbicide treatments. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol 8:62–66.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 34:711–717.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725–731.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 50:26–33.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res 20:195–200.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986. Absorption and translocation of MON 0818 adjuvant in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 34:817–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 46:652–660.Google Scholar
[SWSS] Southern Weed Science Society. 1998. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington: D.C. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0603.pdf.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Pp. 214–217.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied at layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol 16:142–148.Google Scholar