Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:16:17.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazamox Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism in Red Lentil and Dry Bean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bekir Bukun ,
Scott J. Nissen ,
Dale L. Shaner  and
Joseph D. Vassios
Bekir Bukun
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Scott J. Nissen*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State; University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Water Management Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Joseph D. Vassios
Affiliation:
United Phosphorous Incorporated, Rocklin, CA 95765
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazamox is an imidazolinone herbicide used to control many grasses and broadleaf weeds in leguminous crops such as soybean, alfalfa, and dry bean; however, imazamox cannot be used on red lentil due to unacceptable injury. Studies were conducted to compare imazamox absorption, translocation, and metabolism in red lentil and dry bean to determine if any or all of these factors contributed to differential crop sensitivity. Radiolabeled imazamox was applied to three young red lentil leaves and the youngest, fully expanded dry bean trifoliolate leaf. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism were followed over a 96-h time course. Red lentil had more rapid absorption compared to dry beans with 64 and 54% of the applied dose absorbed 12 h after treatment (HAT), respectively. Maximum absorption was also greater in red lentil than dry bean, 79 and 61%, respectively. Translocation out of the treated leaf was significantly higher in red lentil compared with dry bean, 16 and 0.5%, respectively, at 96 HAT. Translocation was greater to red lentil roots compared to shoots, 9 and 7%, respectively, at 96 HAT. In dry bean only 14% of applied 14C-imazamox remained intact 24 HAT, while 79% of the radioactivity was imazamox in red lentil 24 HAT. Both species metabolized the herbicide to more polar metabolites. The inherent sensitivity of aceolactate synthase (ALS) from dry bean and red lentil was also evaluated. ALS from both species had similar I50 values for imazamox, 7.2 and 8.2 µM, respectively. The combined effects of increased imazamox absorption and reduced imazamox metabolism are the major contributors to differential selectivity between dry bean and red lentil. Rapid imazamox metabolism in dry bean significantly limited herbicide translocation out of the treated leaf.

Keywords

Imazamoxalfalfa, Medicago sativa Ldry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris Lred lentil, Lens culinaris Mediksoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrImidazolinone herbicidesimazamoxabsorptiontranslocationmetabolismherbicide physiology
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 350 - 354
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

Ball, D. A., Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Chevalier, P. M. 1997. The influence of seeding rate on weed control in small-red lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Sci. 45:296–300.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995. ‘Olathe’ pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Sci. 43:276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12:64–68.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Molnar, L. J. 2008. Integration of conservation tilleage and herbicides for sustainable dry bean production. Weed Technol. 22:168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, M. M. 1976. Rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, M. A., Chiu, T. Y., and Miller, P. 1987. Hydrolytic Activation versus oxidative degradation of Assert herbicide, an imidazolinone aryl-carboxylate, in susceptible wild oat versus tolerant corn and wheat. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 27:24–29.Google Scholar
Bukun, B. and Guler, B. H. 2005. Densities and importance values of weeds in lentil production. Int. J. Bot. 1:15–18.Google Scholar
Collins, H. P., Rasmussen, P. E., and Douglas, C. L. 1992. Crop rotation and residue management effects on soil carbon and microbial dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halila, M. H. 1995. Status and potential of winter-sowing of lentil in Tunisia. Pages 172–183 in Proceedings of the Workshop on Towards Improved Winter-Sown Lentil Production for the West Asia and North African Highlands, 1994 Antalya, Turkey. Central Research Institute for Field Crops, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
Hekmat, S., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. 2008. Effect of imazamox plus bentazon on dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Prot. 27:1491–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, A. R., Vassios, J. D., Nissen, S. J., and Ritz, C. 2011. Nonlinear regression analyses of herbicide absorption studies. Weed Sci. 59:601–610.Google Scholar
Little, L. D. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 53–69 in Shaner, D. L., and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Weed control in wide- and narrow row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and CGA-277476 plus quizalofop. Weed Technol. 12:137–144.Google Scholar
Ohba, K., Minoura, M., Safarpour, M. M., Picard, G. L., and Safarpour, H. 1997. Method for the determination of imazamox and its two hydroxyl and glucose conjugate metabolites in adzuki beans by capillary electrophoresis. Pestic. Sci. 22:277–281.Google Scholar
Pester, T. A., Nissen, S. J., and Westra, P. 2001. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazamox in jointed goatgrass and feral rye. Weed Sci. 49:607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2009. SAS OnlineDoc® 9.2. Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2008. Guide to Crop Protection. Regina, SK Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 418 p.Google Scholar
Shafi, M., Attaullah, B. J., and Khan, M. A. 2010. Effect of crop sequence and crop residues on soil C, soil N and yield of maize. Pak. J. Bot. 42:1651–1664.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2003. Imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 769–784 in Plimmer, J., Gammon, D., and Ragsdale, N., eds. Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals. Hoboken NJ John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones potent inhibitors of acethydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Mallipudi, N. M. 1991. Mechanisms of selectivity of the imidazolinones. Pages 91–102 in Shaner, D. L., and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Robson, P. A. 1985. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of AC 252 214 in soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 33:469–471.Google Scholar
Singh, B. K., Stidham, M. A., and Shaner, D. L. 1988. Assay of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Anal. Biochem. 171:173–179.Google Scholar
Slinkard, A. E., Vandenberg, A., and Holm, F. A. 2007 June 19. Lentil plants having increased resistance to imidazolinone herbicides. U.S. patent 7,232,942.Google Scholar
Unland, R. D., Al-Khatip, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1999. Interactions between imazamox and diphenylethers. Weed Sci. 47:462–467.Google Scholar
Westerfeld, W. W. 1945. A colorimetric determination of blood acetion. J. Biol. Chem. 161:495–502.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar