Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:26:41.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response Differences of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare) to Chlorsulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Michael E. Foley
Michael E. Foley*
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sci. Dep., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field observations indicate that wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is considerably more tolerant to soil residues of chlorsulfuron {2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide} than barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). The basis for relative differences in tolerance was investigated by measuring herbicide dose response, uptake, movement, and metabolism using ‘Clark’ barley and ‘Marberg’ wheat. Barley root fresh and dry weights were significantly reduced when roots were exposed to nutrient solution containing 35 mM chlorsulfuron for 1 day. Wheat roots similarly exposed for 3 days to 1.1 mM chlorsulfuron displayed no growth reduction. The small differences in uptake and movement of chlorsulfuron detected in wheat and barley are inadequate to explain the large response difference between the two species. Both species rapidly metabolize chlorsulfuron in 1 day and there is no significant difference in the level of parent compound remaining in barley compared to wheat. A factor other than uptake, movement, or metabolism must account for barley roots greater sensitivity to root-applied chlorsulfuron.

Keywords

Herbicide metabolismherbicide movementmode of action
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 17 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rotation crops to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 31:861–865.Google Scholar
2. Foley, M. E., Nafziger, E. D., Slife, F. W., and Wax, L. M. 1983. Effect of glyphosate on protein and nucleic acid synthesis and ATP levels in common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) root tissue. Weed Sci. 31:76–80.Google Scholar
3. Hageman, L. H. and Behrens, R. 1984. Basis for response difference of broadleaf weeds to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 32:162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
5. Palm, H. L., Riggleman, J. D., and Allison, D. A. 1980. Worldwide review of the new cereal herbicide – DPX 4189. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds: 1–6.Google Scholar
6. Ray, T. B. 1982. The mode of action of chlorsulfuron: A new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron. Inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.Google Scholar
8. Sweetser, P. B., Schow, G. S., and Hutchison, J. M. 1982. Metabolism of chlorsulfuron by plants: biological basis for selectivity of a new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Walker, A. and Brown, P. A. 1983. Measurement and prediction of chlorsulfuron persistence in soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:365–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed