Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:28:42.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron Root Uptake, Translocation, and Inhibition of Acetolactate Synthase in Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Karen M. Novosel  and
Karen A. Renner
Karen M. Novosel
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies have shown primisulfuron to be more injurious to sugarbeet than nicosulfuron 1 and 2 yr after herbicide application. Experiments were initiated to determine if primisulfuron is more injurious to sugarbeet grown in a nutrient culture and if the difference in sugarbeet response is a result of greater uptake, translocation, or acetolactate synthase (ALS) site sensitivity with primisulfuron. Concentrations of primisulfuron and nicosulfuron that reduced sugarbeet growth by 50% were 1.9 and 8.9 μg ai L−1, respectively, at pH 6.5. The pH of the nutrient solution did not influence sugarbeet response to either herbicide. Uptake of primisulfuron was greater (3%) than that of nicosulfuron (1%). Translocation (expressed as a percent of uptake) of nicosulfuron was more rapid than primisulfuron. Fifty-seven percent of the absorbed nicosulfuron translocated out of the root during the 12-h pulse period, while an equal concentration of primisulfuron was not translocated out of the root until 48 h after pulsing. The total nicosulfuron translocated after 144 h was half that of primisulfuron. The nutrient solution taken up by sugarbeet in the 12-h pulse period was reduced by 41% in the presence of either herbicide compared to the untreated control. The ALS enzyme was a minimum of 15 times more sensitive to primisulfuron compared to nicosulfuron which may account for greater sugarbeet response to primisulfuron.

Keywords

nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl] amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidsugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.)AbsorptionhydroponicsALSacetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS)
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 342 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Beer, E. M., Brown, H. M., and Duffy, M. J. 1987. Sulfonylurea herbicides in soil. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. 6:531–540.Google Scholar
2. Blankendaal, M., Hodgson, R. H., Davis, D. G., Hoerauf, R. A., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1972. Growing plants without soil for experimental use. Misc. Publi. No. 1251, U.S. Dep. of Agriculture. pp 1–36.Google Scholar
3. Bradford, M. M. 1976. A 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
4. Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in five plant species. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:69.Google Scholar
5. Chomas, A. J. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Response of rotation crops to nicosulfuron or primisulfuron following application in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 33:88.Google Scholar
6. Corbin, F. T. 1986. Radioisotope techniques. Page 265–289 in Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd Edition. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar
7. Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1993. Herbicide carryover to sugarbeet and other crops. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 50:116–118.Google Scholar
8. Duffy, M. J. and Hanafey, M. K. 1987. Predicting sulfonylurea herbicide behavior under field conditions. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. 6:541–547.Google Scholar
9. Fredrickson, D. R. and Shea, P. J. 1986. Effect of soil pH on degradation, movement, and plant uptake of chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 34:328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hart, S. E., Saunders, J. W., and Penner, D. 1992. Chlorsulfuron-resistant sugarbeet: cross-resistance and physiological basis of resistance. Weed Sci. 40:378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Haughn, G. W. and Sommerville, C. R. 1990. A mutation causing imidazolinone resistance maps to the Csrl locus of Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. 92:1081–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Keeler, S. J., Sanders, P., Smith, J. K., and Mazur, B. J. 1993. Regulation of tobacco acetolactate synthase gene expression. Plant Physiol. 102:1009–1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Shaner, D. L. 1989. Factors affecting soil and foliar bioavailability of the imidazolinone herbicides. Cyanamid Publication # PE 0334, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
14. Westerfield, W. W. 1945. A colormetric determination of blood acetoin. J. Biol. Chem. 161:495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar