Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:51:03.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Basis for Selectivity of Root-Applied Ethofumesate in Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) and Three Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David N. Duncan ,
William F. Meggitt  and
Donald Penner
David N. Duncan
Affiliation:
Pesticide Res. Center, Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
William F. Meggitt
Affiliation:
Pesticide Res. Center, Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Pesticide Res. Center, Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) were studied as possible bases for selectivity of preemergence-applied ethofumesate. The sensitive redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters plants translocated more 14C-ethofumesate from nutrient culture to the leaf tissue than did the tolerant sugarbeet and common ragweed. The radioactivity was more highly concentrated in sugarbeet and common ragweed roots. The rapid metabolism of ethofumesate by sugarbeet and common ragweed, particularly that which accumulated in the leaf tissue, appeared related to tolerance.

Keywords

Amaranthus retroflexusChenopodium albumAmbrosia artemisiifoliatranslocationmetabolism
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , March 1982 , pp. 191 - 194
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. Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Bond, R. C. 1976. Weed control evaluations at different stages of growth in sugarbeets. Res. Rep., North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:170.Google Scholar
2. Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Bond, R. C. 1977. General weed control evaluations in Michigan sugarbeets. Res. Rep., North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 34:139.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. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agr. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
5. Holmes, H. M., Pfeiffer, R. K., and Griffiths, W. 1974. Pre-emergence and post-emergence use of ethofumesate in sugarbeet. Proc. 12th Br. Weed Control Conf. pp. 493–501.Google Scholar
6. Sharpe, N., Segarceanu, O., Ciorlaus, L., Popovici, I., Clotan, I., and Nagy, C. 1974. The efficiency of herbicides based on pyrazone, ethofumesate, lenacil, and phenmedipham, used alone or in combination, in sugarbeet grown under Romanian conditions. Proc. 12th Br. Weed Control Conf. pp. 477–483.Google Scholar