Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:41:40.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Formulation and Adjuvant Effects on Uptake and Translocation of Clethodim in Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vijay K. Nandula*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Daniel H. Poston
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Clifford H. Koger
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, P.O. Box 345, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The effect of formulation and adjuvants on absorption and translocation of 14C-clethodim was determined at 1, 4, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment (HAT) in bermudagrass under greenhouse conditions. Absorption of 14C-clethodim with the 0.12 kg L−1 (15 to 85%) formulation was higher than with the 0.24 kg L−1 (5 to 40%) formulation, regardless of presence or absence of adjuvant. There was considerable variation in the effect of adjuvant on 14C-clethodim absorption. When either ammonium sulfate (AMS) or AMS plus crop oil concentrate (COC) was added to the 0.12 kg L−1 formulation, 14C-clethodim absorption increased significantly at all harvest times except at 12 HAT compared with 0.12 kg L−1 formulation alone, whereas, 14C-clethodim absorption after addition of COC to the 0.12 kg L−1 formulation was similar to the 0.12 kg L−1 formulation alone up to 24 HAT. Conversely, COC enhanced 14C-absorption at all harvest times when added to 0.24 kg L−1 formulation. Most of 14C-clethodim (79 to 100% of absorbed) remained in the treated leaf, independent of formulation or adjuvant. Formulation did not have an impact on distribution of absorbed 14C-clethodim; however, presence of an adjuvant increased movement of 14C-clethodim out of treated leaf. Of the absorbed 14C-label, most remained in the treated leaf. 14C-clethodim that translocated out of the treated leaf remained in the shoot, and negligible amount of 14C-clethodim translocated to roots. These results demonstrated improved absorption of clethodim with formulations containing half the active ingredient (0.12 kg L−1) and inclusion of both AMS and COC.

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

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Herbicide Handbook, 7th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 352.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005a. Select 2EC label. Walnut Creek, CA Valent USA Corp.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Select 2EC MSDS. Walnut Creek, CA Valent USA Corp.Google Scholar
Burton, J. D., Gronwald, J. W., Somers, D. A., Connely, J. A., Gegenbach, B. G., and Wyse, D. L. 1987. Inhibition of plant acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase by the herbicides sethoxydim and haloxyfop. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 148:10391044.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Physiological basis for antagonism of clethodim by imazapic on goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn]. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 76:3745.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., and Tredaway-Ducar, J. 2004. Annual grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and imazapic. Weed Technol. 18:8892.Google Scholar
Callahan, L. M. and Engel, R. E. 1965. The effects of phenoxy herbicides on the physiology and survival of turfgrass. USGA Green Sect. Rec. 3:15.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1987. Retention, absorption, translocation, distribution of sethoxydim in monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. Weed Res. 27:179186.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Corbin, F. T., and Sheldon, Y. 1999. Influence of adjuvants and bromoxynil on absorption of clethodim. Weed Technol. 13:536541.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrichemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:163.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hull, H. M., Davis, G. D., and Stolzenberg, G. E. 1982. Action of adjuvants on plant surfaces. in Hodgson, R.H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 2667.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., and Corbin, F. T. 1989. Effect of ammonium sulfate and bentazon on sethoxydim absorption. Weed Technol. 3:674677.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1982. The use of adjuvants. in Hodgson, R.H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 1125.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. and Dalley, C. D. 2005. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) interference in a three-year sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) production cycle. Sugar Cane Int. 23:37.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S Department of Agriculture 2005. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. Accessed: July 28, 2005.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989a. Identification of efficacious adjuvants for sethoxydim and bentazon. Weed Technol. 3:6066.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989b. Foliar penetration of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215231.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308317.Google Scholar