Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T00:03:02.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shoot Zone Uptake and Translocation of Soil-Applied Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. K. Nishimoto  and
G. F. Warren
R. K. Nishimoto
Affiliation:
Dep. of Horticulture, Purdue Univ
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Dep. of Horticulture, Purdue Univ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diphenamid (N,N-dimethyl-2,2-diphenylacetamide) severely inhibited adventitious roots in the shoot zone of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench., var. RS 610) and corn (Zea mays L., var. WF9 X B37) without decreasing foliage growth. Using diphenamid to inhibit shoot zone roots, the presence of adventitious roots was shown to increase foliage injury to corn, sorghum, or both when exposed to 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-l,l-dimethylurea (diuron), 2-(ethylamino)-4-(isopropylamino)-6-(methylthio)-s-triazine (ametryne), or 3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil (terbacil) in the shoot zone. Inhibition of adventitious roots was associated with a decrease in uptake of 14C-diuron and 14C-ametryne in both corn and sorghum. Inhibition of the adventitious roots did not alter the response of corn or sorghum, as measured by top growth, when treated with dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA), isopropyl-m-chlorocarbanilate (chlorpropham), S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), and α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin). The meristematic region of the sorghum shoot before emergence was more sensitive than other regions of the shoot to DCPA and chlorpropham. Injury from other application sites depended upon uptake from the treated area and movement to the meristematic region, where both herbicides appear to be acting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 156 - 161
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

1. Appleby, A. P., Furtick, W. R., and Fang, S. C. 1965. Soil placement studies with EPTC and other carbamate herbicides on Avena sativa. Weed Res. 5:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Arle, H. Fred. 1967. Increasing the tolerance of cotton seedlings to herbicides by soil application of trifluralin. Proc. West. Weed Control Conf. 21:36.Google Scholar
3. Avery, G. S. Jr., Burkholder, P. R., and Creighton, H. B. 1937. Polarized growth and cell studies in the first internode and coleoptile of Avena in relation to light and darkness. Bot. Gaz. 99:125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1964. The Autoradiography of Plant Materials. California Agr. Expt. Sta. and Ext. Serv. Manual 35. 143 p.Google Scholar
5. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Deli, J. and Warren, G. F. 1970. Uptake, translocation and herbicidal effect of diphenamid. Weed Sci. 18: (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Eshel, Y. and Prendeville, G. N. 1967. A technique for studying root versus shoot uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:242–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Friesen, H. A., Banting, J. B., and Walker, D. R. 1962. The effect of placement and concentration of 2,3-DCDT on the selective control of wild oats in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 42:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Inge, R. D. and Loomis, W. E. 1937. Growth of the first internode of the epicotyl in maize seedlings. Am. J. Bot. 24:542–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Knake, E. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Knake, E. L. and Wax, L. M. 1968. The importance of the shoot of giant foxtail for uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nishimoto, R. K., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. West. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Prog. Rept. p. 121–122.Google Scholar
13. Nishimoto, R. K. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Site of uptake, movement, and activity of DCPA. Weed Sci. 19: (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Parker, C. 1963. Factors affecting selectivity of 2,3-dichloroallyl N,N-diisopropylthiocarbamate (diallate) against Avena spp. in wheat and barley. Weed Res. 3:259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Prendeville, G. N. 1968. Shoot zone uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 8:106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Prendeville, G. N., Eshel, Y., Schreiber, M. M., and Warren, G. F. 1967. Site of uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar