Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:44:38.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological Basis for Tolerance of Sugarbeet Varieties to s-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott L. Bollman ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
Donald Penner
Scott L. Bollman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate the tolerance of four commercial sugarbeet varieties to s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P, determine the principle site of absorption of these herbicides, and determine the physiological basis for differential tolerance among varieties to these herbicides. ‘Beta 5833R’ was the most tolerant sugarbeet variety, and ‘Hilleshog 7172RZ’ was the most susceptible sugarbeet variety to injury from s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. The primary site of s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P absorption was through the sugarbeet roots; however, some absorption occurred through the sugarbeet hypocotyl. Sugarbeet injury was greater from dimethenamid-P than s-metolachlor when sugarbeet was grown in soil. However, when sugarbeet was grown hydroponically, injury from the herbicides was similar, indicating that the relative availability of these herbicides in the soil greatly influenced sugarbeet injury. Reduced translocation and slower metabolism of 14C-dimethenamid-P in both the roots and shoots of the sugarbeet plants most likely contributed to the greater susceptibility of sugarbeet to dimethenamid-P compared with s-metolachlor. Metabolism of 14C-herbicides in sugarbeet shoots was 0.7 to 2.1 h slower in the more susceptible sugarbeet varieties compared with the more tolerant variety, Beta 5833R. This was the most significant factor contributing to differences in sugarbeet variety tolerance to both s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P.

Keywords

s-Metolachlordimethenamid-Psugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.Metabolismherbicide uptakeherbicide translocation
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 18 - 25
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

Anonymous. 2005a. Outlook® herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corporation. 9 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005b. Dual Magnum® herbicide label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 16 p.Google Scholar
Breaux, E. J. 1986. Identification of initial metabolites of acetochlor in corn and soybean seedlings. J. Agric. Food Chem. 34:884–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottingham, C. K. and Hatzios, K. K. 1992. Basis of differential tolerance of two corn hybrids (Zea mays) to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 40:359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, T. M., McGrath, J. M., and Renner, K. A. 2005. Response of sugarbeet varieties and populations to postemergence herbicides. J. Sugarbeet Res. 42:119–126.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Kern, J. J. 1977. Response of several sugarbeet varieties to EPTC. in. Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society, Champaign, IL. 35–36.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2003. Dual and dual magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 34:79–83.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Bredehoeft, M. W., and Luecke, J. L. 2002. Lay-by outlook plus other herbicides and fungicides. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 33:74–79.Google Scholar
Dixon, G. A. and Stoller, E. W. 1982. Differential toxicity, absorption, translocation, and metabolism of metolachlor in corn (Zea mays) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 30:225–230.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1981. Physiological bases of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) tolerance to foliar application of ethofumesate. Weed Sci. 29:648–654.Google Scholar
Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1974. Basis of selectivity of phenmedipham and desmedipham on wild mustard, redroot pigweed, and sugar beet. Weed Sci. 22:179–184.Google Scholar
Le Baron, H. M., McFarland, J. E., Simoneaux, B. J., and Ebert, E. 1988. Metolachlor. in Kerney, P.C. and Kaufman, D.D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Volume 3. New York Dekker. 335–373.Google Scholar
Miller, K. D., Irzyk, G. P., Fuerst, E. P., McFarland, J. E., Barringer, M., Cruz, S., Eberle, W. J., and Rory, W. 1996. Time course of benoxacor metabolism and identification of benoxacor metabolites isolated from suspension-cultured Zea mays cells one h after treatment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:3326–3334.Google Scholar
O'Connell, K. M., Breaux, E. J., and Fraley, R. T. 1988. Different rates of metabolism of two chloroacetanilide herbicides in Pioneer 3320 corn. Plant Physiol. 86:359–363.Google Scholar
Osborne, B. T., Shaw, D. R., and Ratliff, R. L. 1995. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 43:288–292.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. 2003. Dual Magnum Preemergence on Sugarbeets. Michigan State University Field Crop Advisory Team Alert. East Lansing, MI: 18: 7, May 29, 2003. http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_fld/FC05-29-03. Accessed: December 12, 2006.Google Scholar
Rice, C. A., Ransom, C. V., and Ishida, J. K. 2002. Efficacy and sugarbeet tolerance with postemergence dimethenamid-P. J. Sugarbeet Res. 39:89–107.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Rossman, E., and Penner, D. 1990. Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 38:563–566.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 91, 150–152, 299–300.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 13:25–29.Google Scholar
Zama, P. and Hatzios, K. K. 1986. Effects of CGA-92194 on the chemical radioactivity of metolachlor with glutathione and metabolism of metolachlor in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 34:834–841.Google Scholar
Zhang, M., Smyser, B. P., Shalaby, L. M., Boucher, C. R., and Berg, D. S. 1999. Lenacil degradation in the environment and its metabolism in sugar beets. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 47:3843–3849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed