Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:56:45.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aminocyclopyrachlor Absorption, Translocation and Metabolism in Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Bradley Lindenmayer ,
Scott J. Nissen ,
Philip P. Westra ,
Dale L. Shaner  and
Galen Brunk
R. Bradley Lindenmayer*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1177, Fort Collins, CO 80521-1177
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1177, Fort Collins, CO 80521-1177
Philip P. Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1177, Fort Collins, CO 80521-1177
Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 2150 Centre Ave, Building D, Suite320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Galen Brunk
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1177, Fort Collins, CO 80521-1177
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: brad.lindenmayer@syngenta.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field bindweed is extremely susceptible to aminocyclopyrachlor compared to other weed species. Laboratory studies were conducted to determine if absorption, translocation, and metabolism of aminocyclopyrachlor in field bindweed differs from other, less susceptible species. Field bindweed plants were treated with 3.3 kBq 14C-aminocyclopyrachlor by spotting a single leaf mid-way up the stem with 10 µl of herbicide solution. Plants were then harvested at set intervals over 192 h after treatment (HAT). Aminocyclopyrachlor absorption reached a maximum of 48.3% of the applied radioactivity by 48 HAT. A translocation pattern of herbicide movement from the treated leaf into other plant tissues emerged, revealing a nearly equal aminocyclopyrachlor distribution between the treated leaf, aboveground tissue, and belowground tissue of 13, 14, and 14% of the applied radioactivity by 192 HAT. Over the time-course, no soluble aminocyclopyrachlor metabolites were observed, but there was an increase in radioactivity recovered bound in the nonsoluble fraction. These results suggest that aminocyclopyrachlor has greater translocation to belowground plant tissue in field bindweed compared with results from other studies with other herbicides and other weed species, which could explain the increased level of control observed in the field. The lack of soluble metabolites also suggests that very little metabolism occurred over the 192 h time course.

Keywords

Field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis LaminocyclopyrachlorAbsorptionaminocyclopyrachlormetabolismradiolabeled herbicidetranslocation
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 63 - 67
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

Agbakoda, C.S.O. and Goodin, J. R. 1970. Picloram enhances 2,4-D movement in field bindweed. Weed Sci. 18:19–21.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Klingeman, W. E., Flanagan, P. C., Breeden, G. K., and Halcomb, M. 2009. Comparisons of the experimental herbicide DPX-KJM44 with aminopyralid for control of key invasive weeds in Tennessee. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 49:410.Google Scholar
Bell, J. L., Burke, I. C., and Prather, T. S. 2011. Uptake, translocation and metabolism of aminocyclopyrachlor in prickly lettuce, rush skeltonweed and yellow starthistle. Pest Manag. Sci. 67:1338–1348.Google Scholar
Claus, J., Turner, R. G., and 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. 5:277.Google Scholar
Coombs, E. M., Clark, J. K., Piper, G. L., and Cofrancesco, A. F. Jr. 2004. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 151 p.Google Scholar
Bukun, B., Lindenmayer, R. B., Nissen, S. J., Westra, P., Shaner, D. L., and Brunk, G. 2010. Absorption and translocation of aminocyclopyrachlor and aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 58:96–102.Google Scholar
Derscheid, L. A., Strizke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590–596.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. 2008. The effects of DPX-KJM44 on native and non-native Colorado rangeland species. Proc West. Soc. Weed Sci. Abstr. 61:5.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., Nissen, S. J., and Westra, P. 1999. Absorption fate and soil activity of quinclorac in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 47:136–142.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. L. and Cudney, D. W. 2003. How to manage pests: field bindweed. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7462.html. Accessed October 13, 2011.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. M. and Gracia, O. 1977. Studies of weed plants as sources of viruses V. Occurrence of alfalfa mosic virus on origanum crops and on some weeds in Argetina. Phytopathology Zeitschrift. 90:87–90.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Barrett, M. 1989. Effects of glyphosate combinations with 2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 37:12–18.Google Scholar
Frasier, J. C. 1943. Food reserve depletion and synthesis in field bindweed, Convolvulus arvesis L., as related to 7-dya and 14-day intervals of cultivation. Plant Physiol. 18:315–323.Google Scholar
Gershater, M. C. and Edwards, R. 2007. Regulating biological activity in plants with carboxylesterases. Plant Sci. 173:579–588.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 217–224.Google Scholar
Jenks, B. M. 2010. Yellow toadflax control in rangeland with DPX-MAT28. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Abstr. 63:4.Google Scholar
Kniss, A. R., Vassios, J. D., Nissen, S. J., and Ritz, C. 2011. Nonlinear regression analysis of herbicide absorption studies. Weed Science 59:601–610.Google Scholar
Lauridson, T. C., Wilson, R. G., and Haderlie, L. C. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control, absorption, and translocation of herbicide. Weed Sci. 31:674–680.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, B., Westra, P., and Brunk, G. 2009. Selected invasive species control using aminocyclopyrachlor. Proc. West. Soc. Weed. Sci. Abstr. 62:42.Google Scholar
Maillet, J. 1988. Les liserons. Phytoma. Defense de Culture 399:11–15.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed February 27, 2012.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay using R. J. Stat. Soft. 12(5). http://www.jstatsoft.org. Accessed February 29, 2012.Google Scholar
Schoenhals, M. G., Wiese, A. F., and Wood, M. L. 1990. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with imazapyr. Weed Technol. 4:771–775.Google Scholar
Tamaki, G., Moffat, H. R., and Turner, J. E. 1975. The influence of perennial weeds on the abundance of the redbacked cutworm on asparagi. Environ. Entomol. 4:274–276.Google Scholar
Timmons, F. L. 1949. Results of bindweed control experiments at the Fort Hays Branch Station. Kansas Agr. Expr. Sta. Bull. 296:50 p.Google Scholar
Turner, R. G., Claus, J. S., Hidalgo, E., Holliday, M. J., and Armel, G. R. 2009. Technical introduction of the new DuPont vegetation management herbicide aminocyclopyrachylor. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 49:405.Google Scholar
USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database. 2011. PLANTS Profile: Convolvulus arvensis L. field bindweed. http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=field+bindweed&mode=comname&submit.x=16&submit.y=13. Accessed October 17, 2011.Google Scholar
Vassios, J. D., Douglass, C., Bridges, M., Lindenmayer, B., and Nissen, S. 2009. Native grass tolerance to aminopyralid and DPX-KJM44. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 49:153.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:461–472.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Chapman, P., Stahlman, P. W., Miller, S. D., and Fay, P. K. 1992. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combinations. Weed Technol. 6:949–955.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvesis L.) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D and competitive crops. Agron. J. 1959:672–675.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Burrill, L. C., Dewey, S. A., Cudney, D. W., Nelson, B. E., Lee, R. D., and Parker, R. 2006. Weeds of the West, 9th ed. 630.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Lym, R. G. 2000. Identification and control of field bindweed. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/w802w.htm. Accessed October 17, 2011.Google Scholar