Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:01:57.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative activity comparison of aminocyclopyrachlor to pyridine carboxylic acid herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2019

Benjamin P. Sperry Open the ORCID record for Benjamin P. Sperry [Opens in a new window] ,
José Luiz C. S. Dias ,
Candice M. Prince ,
Jason A. Ferrell  and
Brent A. Sellers
Benjamin P. Sperry
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
José Luiz C. S. Dias
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
Candice M. Prince
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Jason A. Ferrell*
Affiliation:
Professor and Director, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Gainesville, FL, USA
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Range Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jason A. Ferrell, Professor and Director, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71 Street, Gainesville, FL32653. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The pyridine carboxylic acid (PCA) herbicide family can exhibit differential activity within and among plant species, despite molecular resemblances. Aminocyclopyrachlor (AMCP), a pyrimidine carboxylic acid, is a recently discovered compound with similar use patterns to those of the PCA family; however, relative activity among PCAs and AMCP is not well understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to quantify relative activity among aminopyralid, picloram, clopyralid, triclopyr, and AMCP in canola, squash, and okra using dose-response whole-plant bioassays. Clopyralid was less active than all other herbicides in all species and did not fit dose-response models. Aminopyralid and picloram performed similarly in squash (ED50 = 21.1 and 23.3 g ae ha−1, respectively). Aminopyralid was 3.8 times and 1.7 times more active than picloram in canola (ED50 = 60.3 and 227.7 g ha−1, respectively) and okra (ED50 = 10.3 and 17.3 g ha−1, respectively). Triclopyr (ED50 = 37.3 g ha−1) was more active than AMCP (ED50 = 112.9 g ha−1) and picloram in canola. Aminocyclopyrachlor (ED50 = 6.6 g ha−1) and triclopyr (ED50 = 7.8 g ha−1) were more active in squash than aminopyralid and picloram. In okra, AMCP (ED50 = 14.6 g ha−1) and aminopyralid (ED50 = 10.3 g ha−1) performed similarly but were more active than triclopyr (ED50 = 88.2 g ha−1). Herbicidal activity among AMCP and PCAs was vastly different despite molecular similarities that could be due to variable target-site sensitivity among species.

Keywords

Dose-responsedifferential activitypyridine carboxylic acidstructure-activity relationshipaminocyclopyrachloraminopyralidclopyralidpicloramtriclopyrcanola, Brassica napus L.squash, Cucurbita pepo L.okra, Abelmoschus esculentus L.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 402 - 407
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware

References

Akanda, RU, Mullahey, JJ, Dowler, CC, Shilling, DG (1997) Influence of postemergence herbicides on Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum). Weed Technol 11:656–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armel, GR, Klingeman, WE, Flanagan, PC, Breeden, GK, Halcomb, M (2009) Comparison of the experimental herbicide DPX-KJM44 with aminopyralid for control of key invasive weeds in Tennessee. Page 410in Proceedings of the 49th Annual meeting of the Weed Science Society of America. Orlando, FL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Arnold, JS, Farmer, WJ (1979) Exchangeable cations and picloram sorption by soil and model adsorbents. Weed Sci 27:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, JL, Burke, IC, Prather, TS (2011) Uptake, translocation and metabolism of aminocyclopyrachlor in prickly lettuce, rush skeletonweed and yellow starthistle. Pest Manag Sci 67:1338–1348CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackshaw, RE (1989) Mixes of DPX-A7881 and clopyralid in canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol 3:690–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovey, RW, Mayeux, HS (1980) Effectiveness and distribution of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, picloram and 3,6-dichloror-picolinic acid in honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa). Weed Sci 28:666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovey, RW, Ketchersid, ML, Merkle, MG (1979) Distribution of triclopyr and picloram in huisache (Acacia farnesiana). Weed Sci 27:527–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukun, B, Gaines, TA, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P, Brunk, G, Shaner, DL, Sleugh, BB, Peterson, VF (2009) Aminopyralid and clopyralid absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 57:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claus, J, Turner, RG, Armel, G, Holliday, M (2008) DuPont Aminocyclopyrachlor (proposed common name) (DPX-MAT28/KJM44) herbicide for use in Turf, IWC, bare-ground and brush markets. Inter Weed Sci Cong 5:277Google Scholar
Dias, JL, Banu, A, Sperry, BP, Enloe, SF, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA (2017) Relative activity of four triclopyr formulations. Weed Technol 31:928–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R (2008) The effects of DPX-KJM44 on native and non-native Colorado rangeland species. Page 5in Proceedings of the 61st Western Society of Weed Science Annual Meeting. Anaheim/Garden Grove, CA: Western Society of Weed ScienceGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Belcher, J, Loewenstein, N, Aulakh, JS, van Santen, E (2012) Cogongrass control with aminocyclopyrachlor in pastures. Forage & Grazinglands 10, doi: 10.1094/FG-2012-0828-02-RSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Kniss, AR (2009a) Does a diflufenzapyr plus dicamba premix synergize Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) control with auxinic herbicides? Invas Plant Sci Mana 2:318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Kniss, AR (2009b) Influence of diflufenzapyr addition to picolinic acid herbicides for Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) control. Weed Technol 23:450–45410.1614/WT-08-184.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Kyser, GB, Dewey, SA, Peterson, V, DiTomaso, JM (2008) Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) control with low rates of aminopyralid on range and pasture. Invas Plant Sci Mana 1:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Lym, RG, Wilson, R, Westra, P, Nissen, S, Beck, G, Moechnig, M, Peterson, V, Masters, RA, Halstvedt, M (2007) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with Aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol 21:890–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fast, BJ, Ferrell, JA, MacDonald, GE, Krutz, LJ, Kline, WN (2010) Picloram and aminopyralid sorption to soil and clay minerals. Weed Sci 58:484–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA, MacDonald, GE, Kline, WN (2009) Influence of herbicide and application timing on blackberry control. Weed Technol 23:531–53410.1614/WT-09-036.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Mullahey, JJ, Langeland, KA, Kline, WN (2006) Control of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) with aminopyralid. Weed Technol 20:453–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, McElroy, JS, Cardoso, LA, Martins, D (2012) Simulated spray drift of aminocyclopyrachlor in cantaloupe, eggplant, and cotton. Weed Technol 26:724–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, McCurdy, JD, McElroy, JS (2011a) Tolerance of five zoysiagrass cultivars to aminocyclopyrachlor. Weed Technol 25:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, McElroy, JS, Wehtje, GR (2011b) Quantification of warm-season turfgrass injury from triclopyr and aminocyclopyrachlor. Weed Technol 25:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gantz, RL, Laning, ER (1963) Tordon for the control of woody rangeland species in the western United States. Down Earth 19:10–13Google Scholar
Geronimo, J (1978) Response of several herbaceous weed species to triclopyr and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Page 43 in Abstracts of the 1978 Meeting of the Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Gorrell, RM, Bingham, SW, Foy, CL (1988) Translocation and fate of dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr in horsenettle, Solanum carolinense. Weed Sci 36:447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci 66:113–120Google ScholarPubMed
Hall, JC, Vanden Born, WH (1988) The absence of a role of absorption, translocation, or metabolism in the selectivity of picloram and clopyralid in two plant species. Weed Sci 36:9–1410.1017/S0043174500074373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallmen, UL (1974) Translocation and complex formation of picloram and 2,4-D in rape and sunflower. Physiol Plant 32:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamaker, JW, Johnston, H, Martin, RT, Redeman, CT (1963) A picolinic acid derivative: a plant growth regulator. Science 141:363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrington, TB, Rader-Dixon, LT, Taylor, JW (2003) Kudzu (Pueraria montana) community responses to herbicides, burning, and high-density loblolly pine. Weed Sci 51:965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herr, DE, Stroube, EW, Ray, DA (1966) The movement and persistence of picloram in soil. Weeds 14:248–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, TD, Everman, WJ, Richardson, RJ (2015) Aminocyclopyrachlor absorption and translocation in three aquatic weeds. Weed Sci 63:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, PW, Meadors, CH, Clark, LE (1990) Effects of triclopyr, clopyralid, and picloram on growth and production of cotton. J Prod Agric 3:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, BM (2010) Yellow toadflax control in rangeland with DPX-MAT28. Page 4in Proceedings of the 63rd Western Society of Weed Science Annual Meeting. Waikoloa, HI: Western Society of Weed ScienceGoogle Scholar
Kleier, DA (1988) Phloem mobility of xenobiotics I. Mathematical model unifying the weak acid and intermediate permeability theories. Plant Physiol 86:803–810CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR, Lyon, DJ (2011) Winter wheat response to preplant applications of aminocyclopyrachlor. Weed Technol 25:51–5710.1614/WT-D-10-00049.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladner, DW (1990) Structure-activity relationships among the imidazolinone herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 29:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, DL, Knudsen, CG, Michaely, WJ, Chin, HL, Nguyen, NH, Carter, CG, Cromartie, TH, Lake, BH, Shribbs, JM, Fraser, T (1998) The structure-activity relationships of the triketone class of HPPD herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 54:377–3843.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, DF, Hoyle, ST, Fisher, LR, Yelverton, FH, Richardson, RJ (2011) Effect of simulated aminocyclopyrachlor drift on flue-cured tobacco. Weed Technol 25:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangla, S, Sheley, RL, James, JJ, Radosevich, S (2011) Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth. Plant Ecol 212:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandihalli, UB, Duke, MV, Duke, SO (1992) Quantitative structure-activity relationships of protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting diphenyl ether herbicides. Pestic Biochem Physiol 43:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novoplansky, A, Goldberg, D (2001) Effects of water pulsing on individual performance and competitive hierarchies in plants. J Veg Sci 12:199–20810.2307/3236604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orfanedes, MS, Wax, LM, Liebl, RA (1993) Absence of a role for absorption, translocation, and metabolism in differential sensitivity of hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) to 2 pyridine herbicides. Weed Sci 41:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, PA, Kossatz, VC (1982) Selective control of Canada thistle in rapeseed with 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Can J Plant Sci 62:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, C, Spiess, AN (2008) qpcR: an R package for sigmoidal model selection in quantitative real-rime polymerase chain reaction analysis. Bioinformatics 24:1549–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Softw 12:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Lancaster, SR, Langeland, KA (2014) Herbicides for postemergence control of mile-a-minute (Mikania micrantha). Invas Plant Sci Mana 7:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, SA (2014) Herbicide Handbook, 10th edition. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 41–46, 111–112, 350–352, 459–461Google Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiess, AN, Neumeyer, N (2010) An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: a Monte Carlo approach. BMC Pharmacol 10:6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomkins, DJ, Grant, WF (1974) Differential response of 14 weed species to seven herbicides in two plant communities. Can J Bot 52:525–53310.1139/b74-068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, RG, Claus, JS, Hidalgo, E, Holliday, MJ, Armel, GR (2009) Technical introduction of the new DuPont vegetation management herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor. Page 405in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America. Orlando, FL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Vassios, JD, Douglass, C, Bridges, M, Lindenmayer, B, Nissen, S (2009) Native grass tolerance to aminopyralid and DPX-KJM44. Page 153in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America. Orlando, FL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar