Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:07:21.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uptake, Translocation, and Metabolism of Root Absorbed Sulfentrazone and Sulfentrazone plus Clomazone in Flue-Cured Tobacco Transplants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Loren R. Fisher ,
Ian C. Burke ,
Andrew J. Price ,
W. David Smith  and
John W. Wilcut
Loren R. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
USDA Southern Weed Science Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
USDA National Soil Dynamics Lab., Auburn, AL 36832
W. David Smith
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: loren_fisher@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to evaluate root uptake, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-sulfentrazone alone or in a mixture with clomazone in solution in flue-cured tobacco transplants. Uptake and translocation of sulfentrazone was rapid and was not affected by the addition of clomazone. Fifty-nine and 65% of the 14C absorbed by the plant was translocated to the leaves within 24 h with sulfentrazone alone and in the clomazone plus sulfentrazone mixture, respectively. Differences in plant metabolism were observed between sulfentrazone alone and sulfentrazone plus clomazone. After 3 h, 66% of the 14C recovered from the leaves was metabolized when sulfentrazone was applied alone, compared to 91% when sulfentrazone was applied with clomazone. The difference could indicate that metabolism of sulfentrazone by tobacco transplants was enhanced by the presence of clomazone.

Keywords

Clomazone, sulfentrazone, flue-cured tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 71’Enhanced metabolismsafeningtoleranceHAT, hours after treatmentLSS, liquid scintillation spectrometryPPI, preplant incorporated treatmentPRE-T, pre-emergence soil surface treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 898 - 902
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

Dayan, F. E. and Duke, S. O. 1997. Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: phenomology, mode of action, and mechanism of resistance. in Roe, R.M., eds. Herbicide activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA IOS Press. 11–35.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci. 44:12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R. and Smith, W. D. 2003. Weed Management. in. 2004 Tobacco Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University. AG 187. 51–69.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R., Smith, W. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Effect of sulfentrazone rate and application method on weed control and stunting in flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 46:5–8.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Price, A. J. 2000. Physiological behavior of sulfentrazone and clomazone in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Lisbon, Portugal 2000 CORESTA Congress AP 32. 81 p.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., Hancock, H. G., and Davis, J. W. 2004. Influence of sulfentrazone rate and application method on peanut weed control. Weed Technol. 18:619–625.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method of growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347 32.Google Scholar
Smith, W. D., Fisher, L. R., and Boyette, M. D. 2004. Transplant production in the float system. in. 2005 Tobacco Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University AG187. 15–30.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Troxler, S. C., Smith, W. D., Fisher, L. R., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of sulfentrazone in peanut, prickly sida (Sida spinosa), and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Sci. 53:446–450.Google Scholar
Theodoridis, G., Baum, J. S., and Hotzman, F. W. et al. 1992. Synthesis and herbicidal properties of aryltriazolinones. A new class of pre- and postemergence herbicides. in Baker, D.R., Fenyes, J.G., Steffens, J.J., eds. Synthesis and Chemistry of Agrochemicals III. ACS symposium series 504. 135–146.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. and Duke, S. O. 1991. Mechanisms of resistance. in Ebing, W., ed. Chemistry and Plant Protection. Volume 7. Herbicide Resistance—Brassinosteriods, Gibberellins, Plant Growth Regulators. New York Springer-Verlag. 142–169.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762–765.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Wilkerson, G. G., and Linker, H. M. et al. 2000. A proposal to standardize soil/solution herbicide distribution coefficients. Weed Sci. 48:75–88.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Smith, W. D., and Fisher, L. R. 2004. Chemical weed control in field crops. in North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. North Carolina State University. 363–364.Google Scholar