Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T07:19:30.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movement and Metabolism of CIPC in Resistant and Susceptible Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. N. Prendeville ,
Y. Eshel ,
C. S. James ,
G. F. Warren  and
M. M. Schreiber
G. N. Prendeville
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Y. Eshel
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture
C. S. James
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
M. M. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sublethal concentrations of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)- carbamate (CIPC) labeled with 14C in the ring or side chain were applied to all leaves present or to the roots of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), pale smartweed (Polygonum lapathiofolium L.), and parsnip (Pastinaca sativa L.). These species were selected because of their different susceptibilities to CIPC. The herbicide did not move out of the treated leaves in pigweed and smartweed and only slightly in parsnip in 21 days. In root treatment (3 days), the herbicide moved to all plant parts and the extent of movement was essentially the same in all species. Water soluble metabolites, which differed in Rf values were extracted from all three species. The metabolites apparently were not the result of cleavage of the CIPC molecule, but were more likely conjugates of CIPC with natural plant component(s). Very little 14CO2 was released by any of the species in 3 days. These data indicate that differences in movement and metabolism are not sufficient to account for the different susceptibilities of these three plant species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 432 - 435
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. Baker, R. S. and Warren, G. F. 1962. Selective herbicidal action of amiben on cucumber and squash. Weeds 10:219–224.Google Scholar
2. Colby, S. R. 1965. Herbicide metabolism: N-glycoside of amiben isolated from soybean plants. Science 150:619–620.Google Scholar
3. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1963. The Autoradiography of Plant Materials. California Agr. Expt. Station and Ext. Ser. Manual 35. 143 p.Google Scholar
4. Ennis, W. B. Jr. 1949. Histological and cytological responses of certain plants to some aryl carbamic esters. Amer. J. Bot. 36:823.Google Scholar
5. Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. A simplified method for determining phytotoxicity, leaching, and adsorption of herbicides in soils. Weeds 15:115–118.Google Scholar
6. Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. Postemergence action of CIPC. Weeds 15:237–241.Google Scholar
7. Foy, C. L. 1961. Uptake of radioactive 4-chloro-2-butynyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) carbamate (barban) and translocation of C14 in Hordeum vulgare and Avena spp. Res. Prog. Rept. WWCC pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
8. Hogue, E. J. and Warren, G. F. 1968. Selectivity of linuron on tomato and parsnip. Weeds 16:51–54.Google Scholar
9. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 347. 32 p.Google Scholar
10. Mann, J. D., Jordan, L. S., and Day, B. E. 1965. The effect of carbamate herbicides on polymer synthesis. Weeds 13:63–66.Google Scholar
11. Moreland, D. E. and Hill, K. L. 1959. Herbicide structure and activity. The action of alkyl N-phenylcarbamates on the photolytic activity of isolated chloroplasts. J. Agr. Food Chem. 7:832–837.Google Scholar
12. Riden, J. R. and Hopkins, T. R. 1962. Formation of a water-soluble, 3-chloroaniline-containing substance in barban-treated plants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 10:455–458.Google Scholar
13. Roberts, H. A. 1965. Comparative tolerance of some dicotyledons to chloropropham. Weed Res. 5:61–67.Google Scholar
14. Ries, S. K. 1953. A theory for the selective mechanism of Chloro IPC. Weeds 2:155–158.Google Scholar
15. Scott, M. Z. and Struckmeyer, B. E. 1955. Morphology and root anatomy of squash and cucumber seedlings treated with isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)-carbamate (CIPC). Bot. Gaz. 117:37–45.Google Scholar
16. Stephenson, G. R. and Ries, S. K. 1967. The movement and metabolism of pyrazon in tolerant and susceptible species. Weed Res. 7:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Swanson, C. R., Shaw, W. C., and Hughes, J. H. 1953. Some effects of isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate and an al-kanolamine salt of dinitro ortho secondary butylphenol on germinating cotton seeds. Weeds 2:178–189.Google Scholar
18. Wessels, J. S. C. and van der Veen, R. 1956. The action of some derivatives of phenylurethan and of 3-phenyl-1,1-dimethylurea on the Hill reaction. Biochem. Biophys. Acta 19:548–549.Google Scholar