Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:30:03.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physiological Bases of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Tolerance to Foliar Application of Ethofumesate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David N. Duncan
Affiliation:
Pesticide Res. Center, Dep. Crop
William F. Meggitt
Affiliation:
Pesticide Res. Center, Dep. Crop
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824

Abstract

Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulphonate] were studied to explain field observations showing differences in susceptibility among sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). In laboratory studies, two- to four-leaf seedlings of the highly susceptible species, redroot pigweed and common lambsquarter, absorbed greater amounts of 14C-ethofumesate from foliar application than the moderately susceptible common ragweed and tolerant sugarbeet. Sugarbeet translocated very little 14C from treated foliage to untreated plant tissue. All weed species translocated 14C-ethofumesate to untreated leaf tissue when 14C-ethofumesate was applied to seedlings at the two-leaf stage. Ethofumesate was translocated basipetally to the stem and root of two-leaf redroot pigweed and common lambsquarter seedlings. A high percentage of the 14C was found in the water-soluble fraction in sugarbeet seedlings, indicating inactivation. The amount of metabolites recovered in the non-polar fraction depended on the stage of plant growth. Total photosynthesis and respiration in redroot pigweed was inhibited 4 h after foliar application and did not recover after 96 h. Uptake and evolution of CO2 were also inhibited in sugarbeet leaves, but they recovered rapidly, depending on age of plant at treatment. The stage of plant development was the key factor determining species response to foliar treatments of ethofumesate in terms of absorption, metabolism, and total photosynthesis and respiration.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Crafts, A. S. and Yamaguchi, S. 1964. The autoradiography of plant material. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 35. 143 pp.Google Scholar
2. Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Bond, R. C. 1976. Weed control evaluations at different stages of growth in sugarbeet. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33.170.Google Scholar
3. Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1977. A mode of action of ethofumesate. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 84.Google Scholar
4. Eshel, Y., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1976. Sugarbeet tolerance of post-emergence applications of desmedipham and ethofumesate. Weed Res. 16:249254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Eshel, Y., Zimdahl, R. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1976. Basis for interactions of ethofumesate and desmedipham on sugarbeets and weeds. Weed Sci. 24:619626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1974. Basis for selectivity of phenmedipham and desmedipham on wild mustard, redroot pigweed, and sugarbeet. Weed Sci. 22:179184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Holmes, H. M., Pfeiffer, R. K., and Griffiths, W. 1974. Preemergence and postemergence use of ethofumesate in sugarbeet. Proc. 12th Br. Weed Control Conf. 493501.Google Scholar