Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:08:48.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Basis for Increased Activity from Herbicide Combinations with Ethofumesate Applied on Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

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

Abstract

Differences in susceptibility of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) to preemergence application of ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate], pyrazon [5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone], and TCA (trichloroacetic acid) were evaluated in several combination treatments. Exposure of plants to ethofumesate severely decreased epicuticular wax deposition on leaf surfaces. Separation of epicuticular wax into major components by gas-liquid chromatography indicated that ethofumesate decreased deposition of alkanes and sec-ketones, but increased the percentage of long-chain waxy esters. TCA also decreased deposition of alkane and ketone components, but not of waxy esters. Waxes were unaffected by pyrazon. Greater foliar absorption of 14C-ethofumesate, 14C-desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)], and 14C-ethofumesate + 14C-desmedipham was observed in plants that received preemergence treatments of ethofumesate plus TCA compared to pyrazon or a control.

Type
Research Article
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. Davis, D. G. and Dusbabek, K. F. 1973. Effect of diallate on foliar uptake and translocation of herbicides in pea. Weed Sci. 21:1618.Google Scholar
2. Dewey, O. R., Gregory, P., and Pfeiffer, R. K. 1956. Factors affecting the susceptibility of peas to selective dinitroherbicides. Proc. 3rd Br. Weed Control Conf. 1:313326.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Flore, J. A. and Bukovac, M. J. 1974. Pesticide effects on the plant cuticle: I. Response of Brassica oleracea L. to EPTC as indexed by epicuticular wax production. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 99:3437.Google Scholar
5. Gentner, W. A. 1966. The influence of EPTC on external foliage wax development. Weeds 14:2731.Google Scholar
6. Juniper, B. E. 1957. The effect of pre-emergent treatment of peas with trichloroacetic acid on the submicroscopic structure of the leaf surface. New Phytol. 58:15.Google Scholar
7. Kollattakudy, P. E. 1965. Biosynthesis of wax in Brassica oleracea . Biochemistry 4:18441855.Google Scholar
8. Leavitt, J.R C., Duncan, D. N., Penner, D., and Meggitt, W. F. 1978. Inhibition of epicuticular wax deposition on cabbage by ethofumesate. Plant Physiol. 61:10341036.Google Scholar
9. Pfeiffer, R. K., Dewey, O. R., and Brunskill, R. T. 1959. Further investigation of the effect of pre-emergence treatment with trichloroacetic dichloropropionic acids on the subsequent reaction of plants to other herbicidal sprays. Proc. 4th Int. Cong. Crop Prot. 1:523525.Google Scholar
10. Putnam, A. R. and Penner, D. 1974. Pesticide interactions in higher plants. Residue Rev. 50:73110.Google Scholar