Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:06:59.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological behavior of root-absorbed flumioxazin in peanut, ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price ,
John W. Wilcut  and
John R. Cranmer
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John R. Cranmer
Affiliation:
Valent USA Corporation, Suite 250-3, 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Cary, NC 27511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research has shown that flumioxazin has the potential to cause peanut injury. In response to this concern, laboratory and greenhouse experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of temperature on germination of flumioxazin-treated peanut seed and the effect of interval between flumioxazin application and irrigation on peanut emergence and injury. Laboratory experiments using 14C-flumioxazin were also conducted to investigate differential tolerance exhibited by peanut, ivyleaf morningglory, and sicklepod to flumioxazin. Flumioxazin treatments containing either water-dispersible granular or wettable powder formulation at 1.4 μmol L−1 did not influence germination compared with nontreated peanut across all temperature regimes (15 to 40 C). Peanut treated with either formulations of flumioxazin preemergence and receiving irrigation at emergence and 2 and 4 d after emergence were injured between 40 and 60%. Peanut treated at 8 and 12 d after emergence were injured between 25 and 15%, respectively. Total 14C absorbed by ivyleaf mornigglory was 57% of applied whereas sicklepod absorbed 46%, 72 h after treatment (HAT). Peanut absorbed > 74% of applied 14C 72 HAT. The majority of absorbed 14C remained in roots of sicklepod, ivyleaf morningglory, and peanut at all harvest times. Ivyleaf morningglory contained 41% of the parent herbicide 72 HAT whereas sicklepod and peanut contained only 24 and 11% parent compound, respectively. Regression slopes indicated slower flumioxazin metabolism by ivyleaf morningglory (a susceptible species) compared with sicklepod and peanut (tolerant species).

Keywords

Flumioxazinivyleaf morningglory, [Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.] IPOHEsicklepod, [Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby] CASOBpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 10C’Absorptiontranslocationmetabolism
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 718 - 724
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. 1988. Flumioxazin. Pages 29–31 in Hatzios, K. K. ed. WSSA Herbicide Handbook—Supplement to 7th Edition. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–269.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002a. Flumioxazin Product Label. Specimen Label, 2003-VLR-0001 9/02 (AV) Form 20020807. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002b. Flumioxazin Product Label. Specimen Label, 2003-VWP-0001 9/02 (AV) Form 20020807. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 16:743–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:158.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Duke, S. O., Reddy, K. N., Hamper, B. C., and Leschinsky, K. L. 1997a. Effects of isoxazole herbicides on protoporphyrinogen oxidase and porphyrin physiology. J. Agric. Food Chem 45:967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci 44:12–17.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997b. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lydon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Environmental effects on CGA-248757 and flumiclorac efficacy/soybean tolerance. Weed Sci 49:668–674.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. Pages 37–38 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci 23:30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2002. Peanut production practices. Pages 7–22 in Jordan, D. L. ed. 2002 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service publication AG-331. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Office.Google Scholar
Larsen, A. L. 1965. Use of the thermogradient plate for studying temperature effects on seed germination. Proc. Int. Seed Test. Assoc 30:861–868.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. Effect of diclosulam and flumioxazin on three runner-type peanut varieties. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:30.Google Scholar
Murphree, T. A., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Porter, B. L., Baughman, T. A., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2002. Varietal tolerance to diclosulam and flumioxazin in Texas peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:33.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1981. Penetration, translocation, and metabolism of acifluorfen in soybean (Glycine max), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). Weed Sci 29:474–480.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 15:360–364.Google Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2002. Rainfall as a factor impacting peanut tolerance to flumioxazin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:32–33.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Flumioxazin injury to peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:195–196.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Wilkerson, G. G., and Linker, H. M. et al. 2000. A proposal to standardize soil/solution herbicide distribution coefficients. Weed Sci 48:75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, J. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol 15:137–140.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. R. 2000. Valor™: a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:159–160.Google Scholar