Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:09:36.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Absorption and Translocation of Metribuzin by Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) and Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel L. Devlin ,
David R. Gealy  and
Larry A. Morrow
Daniel L. Devlin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
David R. Gealy
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Larry A. Morrow
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foliar and root absorption and translocation of metribuzin (4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one) by downy brome (Bromus tectorum L. # BROTE) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was determined. After a 48-h absorption period, roots of three-week-old downy brome plants had absorbed two times more metribuzin on a total plant fresh weight basis than had roots of winter wheat. Root-absorbed metribuzin was translocated similarly regardless of species with 80% of absorbed 14C accumulating in leaf blades, 10% in the leaf sheaths, and 10% in the roots. After 24 h, leaves of downy brome and winter wheat had absorbed, respectively, 26 and 36% of foliar-applied metribuzin, and absorption increased threefold with the addition of a nonionic surfactant. Translocation of foliar-absorbed metribuzin was primarily towards the apex of the treated leaf. No translocation from the treated leaf to other plant parts occurred with either species. The greater tolerance of winter wheat to metribuzin is due in part to less root absorption of metribuzin by winter wheat than by downy brome.

Keywords

Foliar absorptionnonionic surfactantroot absorption
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Coble, H. D. and Schrader, J. W. 1973. Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 21:308–309.Google Scholar
2. Devlin, D. L., Morrow, L. A., and Gealy, D. R. 1985. Effect of metribuzin on downy brome and winter wheat. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 25:15.Google Scholar
3. Fortino, J. Jr., and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.Google Scholar
4. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callahan, R. H., and Dwelle, R. P. 1985. Metribuzin absorption, translocation, and distribution in two potato (Solarium tuberosum) cultivars. Weed Sci. 33:629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin absorption and translocation in two barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars. Weed Sci. 34:491–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hargroder, T. G. and Rogers, R. L. 1974. Behavior and fate of metribuzin in soybeans and hemp sesbania. Weed Sci. 22:238–245.Google Scholar
7. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
8. Ladlie, F. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505–507.Google Scholar
9. Ladlie, F. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of soil texture on microbial degradation, adsorption, and mobility of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:477–481.Google Scholar
10. Ladlie, F. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Role of pH on metribuzin dissipation in field soils. Weed Sci. 24:508–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Mangeot, B. L., Slife, F. E., and Rieck, C. E. 1979. Differential metabolism of metribuzin by two soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Weed Sci. 27:267–269.Google Scholar
12. Maun, M. A. and McLeod, W. J. 1978. Absorption and metabolism of metribuzin in barnyardgrass and America nightshade. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Phatak, S. C. and Stephenson, G. R. 1973. Influence of light and temperature on metribuzin phytotoxicity to tomato. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:843–847.Google Scholar
14. Rardon, P. L. and Fay, P. K. 1980. Effect of metribuzin on winter wheat when applied at various stages of growth. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 33:71.Google Scholar
15. Rydrych, D. J. and Muzik, T. J. 1968. Downy brome competition and control in dryland wheat. Agron. J. 601:279–280.Google Scholar
16. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar
17. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Champaign, IL. 515 pp.Google Scholar