Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:30:20.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Physiology and Mode of Action of the Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S. J. Parka  and
O. F. Soper
S. J. Parka
Affiliation:
Lilly Res. Lab., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Greenfield, IN 46140
O. F. Soper
Affiliation:
Lilly Res. Lab., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Greenfield, IN 46140
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The substituted 2,6-dinitroanilines were first reported as herbicides in 1960. At the present time, there are 14 2,6-dinitroaniline herbicides in various stages of product development. Literature on absorption, translocation, and mode of action of the dinitroaniline herbicides refers almost entirely to trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) and nitralin [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylaniline]. These herbicides do not directly inhibit the germination of seed. Inhibition of lateral root development is the most characteristic growth response. Swelling of the root tip is a universally recognized morphological effect caused by these compounds. The cells in this region are multinucleate, indicating that the mitotic process has been disrupted. Examination of these cells shows an increase in the percentage of cells in arrested metaphase due to the disruption of spindle microtubules. Inference is made that the dinitroaniline herbicides affect chromosomes in a manner similar to colchicine, but research with pig brain (Sus scrofa) microtubules has shown that effects of the herbicide on microtubular protein is different.

Injury to the top of plants is recognized by stunting, development of dark green color, and swelling and brittleness of the stem or hypocotyl. The major sites of uptake are the shoot of monocots and the hypocotyl or hypocotyl hook for dicots. Exposure of seedling roots to the dinitroaniline herbicides does not kill the plant, but exposure of the young shoot will result in death. Available data indicate that the dinitroaniline herbicides are either absorbed or adsorbed by the roots due to the proximity of the roots to the herbicide, but that translocation from the root to the top is minimal. When a dinitroaniline was found in the plant, the parent compound was the major product present with metabolites equal to 5% or less.

Insufficient information is available to accurately describe effects of these herbicides on plant carbohydrates, lipids, and nitrogenous compounds. The effect of trifluralin on RNA and DNA varies with the plant species, treatment time, concentration of herbicide, and plant part investigated, but differences observed do not correlate with dinitroaniline-susceptible and resistant species. Enzyme activity does not appear to be greatly inhibited by the dinitroaniline herbicides. However, the dinitroaniline herbicides interfere with photosynthesis and respiration in vivo and in vitro.

The phytotoxic action of trifluralin can be antidoted with the organophosphorus insecticides, phorate [0,0-diethyl-S-(ethylthiomethyl)-phosphorodithioate], disulfoton [0,0-diethyl-S-2-(ethylthioethyl)-phosphorodithioate], and externally applied lipids such as D-α-tocopherol. There is a strong correlation that seeds with a high lipid content are resistant to trifluralin and those with a low lipid content are susceptible. Despite all the work that has been conducted, the mode of action of the dinitroaniline herbicides is still unclear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 79 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Alder, E.F., Wright, W.L., and Soper, Q.F. 1960. Control of seedling grasses in turf with diphenylacetonitrile and a substituted dinitroaniline. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 17:23–24.Google Scholar
2. Ahrens, J.F. 1963. Chemical control of weeds in transplanted tomatoes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 17:125–128.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, W.P., Richards, A.B., and Whitworth, J.W. 1967. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weed Sci. 15:224–227.Google Scholar
4. Arle, H.F. 1968. Trifluralin-systemic insecticide interactions on seedling cotton. Weed Sci. 16:430–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ashton, F.M., Penner, D., and Hoffman, S. 1968. Effect of several herbicides on proteolytic activity of squash seedlings. Weed Sci. 16:169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Ashton, F.M. and Crafts, A.S. 1973. Mode of action of herbicides. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 504 pp.Google Scholar
7. Banerjee, S., Kelleher, J.K., and Margulis, L. 1975. The herbicide trifluralin is active against microtubule-based oral morphogensis in Sentor coeruleus . Cytobios (in press).Google Scholar
8. Barrentine, W.L. and Warren, G.F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Barrentine, W.L. and Warren, G.F. 1971. Shoot zone activity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19:37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Bartels, P.G. and Hilton, J.L. 1973. Comparison of trifluralin, oryzalin, pronamide, propham, and colchicine treatments on microtubules. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 3:462–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Bayer, D.E., Foy, C.L., Mallroy, T.E., and Cutter, E.G. 1967. Morphological and histological effects of trifluralin on root development. Am. J. Bot. 54:945–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Biswas, P.K. and Hamilton, W. Jr. 1969. Metabolism of trifluralin in peanuts and sweet potatoes. Weed Sci. 17:206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Boulware, M.A. and Camper, N.D. 1972. Effects of selected herbicides on plant protoplasts. Physiol. Plant. 26:313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Boulware, M.A. and Camper, N.D. 1973. Sorption of some 14C herbicides by isolated plant cells and protoplasts. Weed Sci. 21:145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Burnside, O.C. 1971. Effect of herbicides on seedling emergence force. Weed Sci. 19:182–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Christiansen, N.M. and Hilton, J.L. 1974. Prevention of trifluralin effects on cotton with soil applied lipids. Crop Sci. 14:489–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Condray, J.L. and Russ, O.R. 1967. Emergence of velvet leaf and wild cane from different seed depths and the site of uptake of various chemicals. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 22:44.Google Scholar
18. Dallyn, S.L. and Sawyer, R.L. 1963. Results of herbicide trials on onions, tomatoes, and strawberries. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 17:98–103.Google Scholar
19. Dukes, I.E. and Biswas, P.K. 1967. The effects of trifluralin on the nucleic acids and carbohydrates content of sweet potatoes and peanuts. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 59.Google Scholar
20. Feeny, R.W. 1966. Effect of trifluralin on the growth of oat seedlings and respiration of excised oat roots. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 20:595–603.Google Scholar
21. Fischer, B.B. 1966. Trifluralin for selective weed control in cotton. Calif. Agr. 20:10–11.Google Scholar
22. Fischer, B.B. 1966. The effect of trifluralin on the root development of seedling cotton. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 6:214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Gentner, W.A. 1970. A technique to assay herbicide translocation and effect on root growth. Weed Sci. 18:715–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Gentner, W.A. and Burk, L.G. 1968. Gross morphological and cytological effects of nitralin on corn roots. Weed Sci. 16:259–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Golab, T., Herberg, R.J., Parka, S.J., and Tepe, J.B. 1967. Metabolism of carbon-14 trifluralin in carrots. J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Golab, T., Herberg, R.J., Gramlich, J.V., Raun, A.P., and Probst, G.W. 1970. Fate of benefin in soils, plants, artificial rumen fluid and the ruminant animal. J. Agric. Food Chem. 18:838–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Golab, T., Bishop, C.E., Donoho, A.L., Manthey, J.A., and Zornes, L.L. 1975. Behavior of 14C oryzalin in soil and plants. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Golab, T. and Althaus, W.A. 1975. Transformation of isopropalin in soil and plants. Weed Sci. 23:165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Gruenhagen, R.E. and Moreland, D.E. 1971. Effects of herbicides on ATP levels in excised soybean hypocotyls. Weed Sci. 19:319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Hacskaylo, J. and Amato, V.A. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Sci. 16:513–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Hassawy, G.S. and Hamilton, K.C. 1971. Effects of trifluralin and organophosphorus compounds on cotton seedlings. Weed Sci. 19:166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Hassawy, G.S. and Hamilton, K.C. 1971. Effects of IAA, kinetin, and trifluralin on cotton seedlings. Weed Sci. 19:265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Hawxby, K., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P.W. 1972. Temperature effects on absorption and translocation of trifluralin and methazole in peanuts. Weed Sci. 20:285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Hepler, P.K. and Palevitz, B.A. 1974. Microtubules and microfilaments. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 25:309–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Hess, D. and Bayer, D. 1974. The effect of trifluralin on the ultrastructure of dividing cells of the root meristems of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Acala 4–42’). J. Cell Sci. 15:429–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Hilton, J.L. and Christiansen, M.N. 1972. Lipid contribution to selective action of trifluralin. Weed Sci. 20:290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Hughes, W.J. and Schiferstein, R.H. 1966. SD11831 (PlanavinTM)- A new herbicide from Shell. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 19:170–173.Google Scholar
38. Jackson, W.T. and Stetler, D.A. 1973. Regulation of mitosis. IV. An in vitro and ultrastructural study of effects of trifluralin. Can. J. Bot. 51:1513–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Jones, D.W. and Foy, C.L. 1971. Herbicidal inhibition of GA-induced synthesis of α-amylase. Weed Sci. 19:595–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Kechersid, M.L., Boswell, T.E., and Merkle, M.G. 1969. Uptake and translocation of substituted aniline herbicides in peanut seedlings. Agron. J. 61:185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Knake, E.L., Appleby, A.P., and Furtick, W.R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 15:228–232.Google Scholar
42. Knake, E.L. and Wax, L.M. 1968. The importance of the shoot of giant foxtail for uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Kust, C.A. and Struckmeyer, B.E. 1971. Effects of trifluralin on growth, nodulation, and anatomy of soybeans. Weed Sci. 19:147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Lapade, B.E. and Mercado, B.L. 1971. Morphological and physiological responses of crops and weeds to trifluralin. VI. Free amino-acid content of the rice seedling. Philipp. Agric. 55:239–246.Google Scholar
45. Lignowski, E.M. 1970. The mechanism of action of α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N,-dipropyl-p-toluidine. Diss. Abstr. B. 31:992–993.Google Scholar
46. Lignowski, E.M. and Scott, E.G. 1971. Trifluralin and root growth. Plant Cell Physiol. 12:701–708.Google Scholar
47. Lignowski, E.M. and Scott, E.G. 1972. Effect of trifluralin on mitosis. Weed Sci. 20:267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Lund, Z.F., Pearson, R.W., and Buchanan, G.A. 1970. An implanted soil mass technique to study herbicide effects on root growth. Weed Sci. 18:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Long, J.W., Thompson, L.T. Jr., and Rieck, C.E. 1974. Absorption, accumulation, and metabolism of benefin, diphenamid, and pebulate by tobacco seedlings. Weed Sci. 22:42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Maftoun, M. and Bassiri, A. 1975. Effect of phosphorus and RYZELAN on the growth and mineral composition of chickpeas. Agron. J. 67:556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Mallory, T.E. and Bayer, D.E. 1972. The effect of trifluralin on the growth and development of cotton and safflower roots. Bot. Gaz. 133:96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Mann, J.D., Jordan, L.S., and Day, B.E. 1965. A survey of herbicides for their effect on protein synthesis. Plant Physiol. 40: 840–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Mann, J.D. and Pu, M. 1968. Inhibition of lipid synthesis by certain herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:197–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Mercado, B.L. and Sierra, J.N. 1970. Respiration in resistant and susceptible seedlings treated with trifluralin. Philipp. Agric. 54:115–119.Google Scholar
55. Mercado, B.L. and Talatala, R.L. 1971. Morphological and physiological responses of crops and weeds to trifluralin. III. Anatomical effects of trifluralin on the root of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Philipp. Agric. 54:375–383.Google Scholar
56. Mercado, B.L. and Baltazar, A.M. 1971. Morphological and physiological responses of crops and weeds to trifluralin. IV. Amino acids-trifluralin interaction in mungbean (Phaseolus aureus). Philipp. Agric. 54:384–389.Google Scholar
57. Moreland, D.E., Malkotra, S.S., Gruenhagen, R.D., and Shokraii, E.H. 1969. Effect of herbicides on RNA and protein synthesis. Weed Sci. 17:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Moreland, D.E., Farmer, F.S., and Hussey, G.G. 1972. Inhibition of photosynthesis and respiration by substituted 2,6-dinitroaniline herbicides. I. Effects of chloroplast and mitochondrial activities. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2:342–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Moreland, D.E., Farmer, F.S., and Hussey, G.G. 1972. Inhibition of photosynthesis and respiration by substituted 2,6-dinitroaniline herbicides. II. Effects on responses in excised plant tissues and treated seedlings. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2:354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Negi, N.S., Funderburk, H.H. Jr., Schultz, D.P., and Davis, D.E. 1968. Effect of trifluralin and nitralin on mitochondrial activities. Weed Sci. 16:83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Normand, W.C., Rizk, T.Y., and Thomas, C.H. 1968. Some responses of excised cotton roots to treatment with trifluralin or nitralin. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 21:344.Google Scholar
62. Nishimoto, R.K. and Warren, G.F. 1971. Shoot zone uptake and translocation of soil applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63. Oliver, L.R. and Frans, R.E. 1965. Influence of trifluralin rate and depth of incorporation on cotton and soybean lateral root development. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 18:85–91.Google Scholar
64. Oliver, L.R. and Frans, R.E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weed Sci. 14:117–121.Google Scholar
66. Penner, D. 1970. Herbicide and inorganic phosphate influence on phytase in seedlings. Weed Sci. 18:360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Penner, D. and Meggitt, W.F. 1970. Herbicide effects in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] seed lipids. Crop Sci. 10:553–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Penner, D. and Early, R.W. 1972. Action of trifluralin on chromatin activity in corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:364–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69. Prendeville, G.N. 1968. Shoot zone uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 8:106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Prendeville, G.N., Eshel, Y., Schreiber, M.M., and Warren, G.F. 1967. Site of uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Probst, G.W., Golab, T., and Wright, W.L. 1975. Dinitroanilines. Pages 453–495 in Kearney, P.C. and Kaufman, D.D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, degradation and mode of action. Vol. 1. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y. Google Scholar
72. Probst, G.W., Golab, T., Herberg, R.J., Holzer, F.J., Parka, S.J., Van der Schans, C., and Tepe, J.B. 1967. Fate of trifluralin in soils and plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 14:592–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73. Rahman, A. and Ashford, R. 1970. Selective action of trifluralin for control of green foxtail in wheat. Weed Sci. 18:754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. Robles, R.P. and Mercado, B.L. 1971. Morphological and physiological responses of crops and weeds to trifluralin. V. Amylase activity in rice seedlings. Philipp. Agric. 55:232–238.Google Scholar
75. Sawamura, S. and Jackson, W.T. 1968. Cytological studies in vivo of picloram, pyriclor, trifluralin, 2,3,6-TBA, 2,3,5,6-TBA, and nitralin. Cytologia (Tokyo) 33:545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76. Schultz, D.P., Funderburk, H.H., and Negi, N.S. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on growth, morphology, and nucleic acid synthesis. Plant Physiol. 43:265–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77. Schweizer, E.E. 1970. Aberrations in sugarbeet roots as induced by trifluralin. Weed Sci. 18:131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78. Shahied, S.I. 1971. Cytological and biochemical effects of the herbicide trifluralin on plant roots. Diss. Abstr. B. 31:4457.Google Scholar
79. Shahied, S.I. and Giddens, J. 1970. Effect of cysteine on the action of trifluralin on lateral roots of cotton and corn. Agron. J. 62:306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80. Standifer, L.C. and Thomas, C.H. 1965. Response of johnsongrass to soil incorporated trifluralin. Weed Sci. 13:302–308.Google Scholar
81. Strang, R.H. and Rogers, R.L. 1971. A microradioautographic study of 14C-trifluralin absorption. Weed Sci. 19:363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Swann, C.W. and Behrens, R. 1972. Phytotoxicity of trifluralin vapors from soil. Weed Sci. 20:143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83. Swanson, C.R. 1972. Dinitroaniline herbicides; biological activity, structure relationships, and mode of action. Pages 87–112 in Tahori, A.S., ed. Herbicides, fungicides, formulation chemistry. Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
84. Tsay, R. and Ashton, F.M. 1971. Effect of several herbicides on dipeptidase activity of squash cotyledons. Weed Sci. 19:682–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85. Wang, B., Grooms, S., and Frans, R.E. 1974. Response of soybean mitochondria to substituted dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22:64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86. Wilson, H.P. and Steward, F.B. 1973. Relationship between trifluralin and phosphorus on transplanted tomatoes. Weed Sci. 21:150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar