Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-l9xz9 Total loading time: 1.045 Render date: 2021-04-13T01:08:12.283Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Basis for Selectivity of Phenmedipham and Desmedipham on Wild Mustard, Redroot Pigweed, and Sugar Beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Larry W. Hendrick
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
William F. Meggitt
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824

Abstract

The basis for selectivity of phenmedipham (methyl-m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate) and desmedipham (ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate) on wild mustard [Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler ‘pinnatifida’ (Stokes) L.C. Wheeler], redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) was studied by evaluating spray retention, absorption, translocation, and metabolism. Total photosynthesis in wild mustard was severely inhibited in less than 5 hr after foliar application of either herbicide and did not recover. Total photosynthesis in sugar beet was slightly inhibited but recovered after 24 hr. Photosynthesis in redroot pigweed recovered from a treatment of phenmedipham but did not recover when treated with desmedipham. Differences in spray retention or foliar absorption did not explain selectivity. Within 5 hr after herbicide application, redroot pigweed had translocated more desmedipham than phenmedipham from the site of absorption and had metabolized a large amount of the phenmedipham but little desmedipham. The key factor explaining selectivity appeared to be at the initial detoxication reaction of the parent compound.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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.

References

1. Arndt, F. and Kotter, C. 1968. Zur selektivitat von phenmedipham als nachauflaufherbized in Betaruben. Weed Res. 8:249271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bischof, F. Von., Koch, W., Majumdar, J.C., and Schwerdtle, F. 1970. Retention, penetration, and loss of phenmedipham related to varying factors. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenpathol. Pflanzenschutz 5:95102.Google Scholar
3. Buchel, K.H. 1972. Mechanisms of action and structure activity relations of herbicides that inhibit photosynthesis. Pestic. Sci. 3:89110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Edwards, C.J. 1969. Experiments in the field performance of phenmedipham. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 9:575579.Google Scholar
5. Good, N.E. 1962. Inhibitors of photosynthesis as herbicides. World Rev. Pest Contr. 1:1928.Google Scholar
6. Holmes, H.M. 1969. Phenmedipham activity and selectivity under U.K. conditions. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 9:580585.Google Scholar
7. Kassebeer, H. 1971. Aufnahmegeschwindigkeit, metabolismus and verlagerung von phenmedipham bei verschieden empfindlichen pflanzen. Z Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenschutz 18:158174.Google Scholar
8. Knowles, C.O. and Sonawane, B. 1972. Ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (EP-475) metabolism in sugar beets. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:7376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Kotter, C. and Arndt, F. 1968. Der einfluss von phenmedipham auf die CO2-aufnahme und die dunkelatmung von zuckerruben und senf in abhangigkeit von pflanzenalter. J. Int. Inst. Sugar Beet Res. 3:126133.Google Scholar
10. Lui, T.-Y. Oppenheim, A., and Castlefranco, P. 1965. Ethyl alcohol metabolism in leguminous seedlings. Plant Physiol. 40:12611268.Google Scholar
11. Norris, R.F. 1973. Crystallization of phenmedipham from aqueous emulsions. Weed Sci. 21:610.Google Scholar
12. Schweizer, E.E. and Weatherspoon, D.M. 1971. Response of sugar beets and weeds to phenmedipham and two analogs. Weed Sci. 19:635639.Google Scholar
13. Van Overbeek, J. 1962. Physiological responses of plants to herbicides. Weeds 10:170174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Wang, C.H. and Willis, D.L. 1965. Radiotracer methodology in biological science. Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey, 363 pp.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 6 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Basis for Selectivity of Phenmedipham and Desmedipham on Wild Mustard, Redroot Pigweed, and Sugar Beet
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Basis for Selectivity of Phenmedipham and Desmedipham on Wild Mustard, Redroot Pigweed, and Sugar Beet
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Basis for Selectivity of Phenmedipham and Desmedipham on Wild Mustard, Redroot Pigweed, and Sugar Beet
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *