Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:17:45.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thiencarbazone-Methyl Efficacy, Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism in Vining Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Willeke Leonie ,
Hansjörg Krähmer ,
Hans-Joachim Santel ,
Wilhelm Claupein  and
Roland Gerhards
Willeke Leonie
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytomedicine, Department of Weed Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Hansjörg Krähmer
Affiliation:
Bayer CropScience; Industrial Park, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Hans-Joachim Santel
Affiliation:
Bayer CropScience; Industrial Park, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Wilhelm Claupein
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
Roland Gerhards*
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytomedicine, Department of Weed Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacy, absorption, translocation, and metabolism of thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM) in hedge bindweed, field bindweed, ivyleaf morningglory, tall morningglory, and wild buckwheat were evaluated in greenhouse experiments and field trials. Forty-eight hours after foliar microapplication, 14C-TCM absorption was highest in ivyleaf morningglory (60%), followed by field bindweed (50%), wild buckwheat (35%), tall morningglory (17%), and hedge bindweed (9%). In all species, 14C-TCM was translocated systemically. By 24 h after application, 14C-TCM was detected in all parts of the plants. The translocation pattern is species-specific, with more translocation in tall morningglory and wild buckwheat. In all vining weeds 14C-TCM was almost not metabolized whereas corn metabolized almost all 14C-TCM 48 h after application. The efficacy of TCM was analyzed using dose–response curves. Wild buckwheat had the lowest value for the dose at which 50% of the activity occurs (2.1 g ai ha−1 TCM), followed by hedge bindweed and ivyleaf morningglory. Field studies confirmed the high control of wild buckwheat with TCM. Even at the lowest tested concentration of TCM, wild buckwheat was controlled by over 90%. In contrast, efficacy of TCM in field trials against perennial vining weeds was very low, 25% for field bindweed and 65% against hedge bindweed. Control efficacy could be well explained by the translocation pattern of TCM in vining weeds.

Keywords

Thiencarbazone-methylfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARhedge bindweed, Calystegia sepium (L.) R. Br. CAGSEivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. IPOHEtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUwild buckwheat, Polygonum convolvulus L. POLCOcorn, Zea mays L. ZEAMA.Cornmode of action of herbicidevining weedsweed control
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 512 - 519
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

Bull, AT (1968) Liquid scintillation counting techniques for radiolassay of [14C] melanin. J Label Compd Radiopharm 4:181–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D, Reddy, KN, Elmore, CD (2001) Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smalflower morningglory. Weed Sci 49:628–634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, AH, Reade, JPH eds (2010) Herbicide and Plant Physiology. 1st edn. Oxford, UK Wiley-Blackwell. Pp 50–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, WS, Handwerk, K, Lingenfelter, DD (2002) Temporal weed dynamics as influenced by corn and soybean herbicides. Page 2 in Proceedings of the 42nd Symposium of the Weed Science Society of America. Corvallis, OR Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Davison, JG (1976) Control of the bindweeds Convolvulus arvensis and Calystegia sepium in fruit crops. Pestic Sci 7:429–435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Healy, EA eds (2007) Weeds of California and Other Western States. Volume 1. Oakland, CA University of California Publication 3488. 835 pGoogle Scholar
Heldt, HW ed (2003) Pflanzenbiochemie. 1st edn. Heidelberg and Berlin, Germany Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. 310 pGoogle Scholar
Hilgenfeld, KL, Martin, AR, Mortensen, DA (2004) Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean: weed emergence patterns in relation to glyphosate treatment timing. Weed Technol 18:277–283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, LG, Plunknett, DL, Pancho, JV eds (1977) The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. 1st edn. Honolulu, HI University Press of Hawaii. Pp 98–104 Google Scholar
Kraehmer, H, Baur, P eds (2013) Weed Anatomy. Volume 1. Oxford, UK Wiley-Blackwell. Pp 279–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, RF, Kapusta, G, Matthews, JL (1996) Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol 10:957–962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, RB, Scott, JN, Westra, PP, Shaner, DL, Brunk, G (2013) Translocation and metabolism in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 61:63–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, MW, Al-Khatib, K, Maddux, L (2000) Impact of continuous glyphosate use on weed populations in a corn-soybean rotation. Page 2122 in Proceedings of the 40th Symposium of the Weed Science Society of America. Minneapoli, MN Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Mathis, WD, Oliver, LR (1980) Control of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 28:409–415 Google Scholar
Mehrtens, J, Schulte, M, Hurle, K (2005) Unkrautflora in Mais [Weed flora in corn]. Gesunde Pflanzen 57:206–218 Google Scholar
Murray, DS, Crowley, RH (1977) Relationship of weed size and susceptibility to postemergence applied herbicides. Page 178 in Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Weed Science Society of America. San Francisco, CA Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Philbrook, BD, Santel, H-J (2007) Thiencarbazone-methyl: a new molecule for pre- and postemergence weed control in corn. Page 62 in Proceedings of the 62nd Symposium of the North Central Weed Science Society of America. Lincoln, NE North Central Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Radosevich, SR, Holt, JS, Ghersa, CM eds (2007) Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants. Relationship to Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ J. Wiley. 454 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rask, AM, Andreasen, C (2007) Influence of mechanical rhizome cutting, rhizome drying and burial at different developmental stages on the regrowth of Calystegia sepium . Weed Res 47:84–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed June 10, 2013Google Scholar
Sandberg, CL, Megitt, WF, Penner, D (1980) Absorption, translocation and metabolism of C-gIyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res 20:195–200 Google Scholar
Santel, H (2012) Thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM) and cyprosulfamide (CSA)—a new herbicide and a new safener for use in corn, Pages 499–505 in Proceeding of the 25th German Conference on Weed Biology and Weed Control. Braunschweig, Germany Julius-Kuehn Archiv Google Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Hart, SE (1997) Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci 45:378–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, JC, Rudemo, M, Jensen, JE (1993) Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55 in Streibig JC, ed. Herbicide Bioassays. 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL CRC Google Scholar
Wehtje, G, Walker, RH (1997) Interaction of glyphosate and 2,4-D for the control of selected morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species. Weed Technol 11:152–156 Google Scholar
Westra, P, Barton, MJ (1992) Field bindweed management between small-grain crops with picloram herbicide. Down Earth 471:1–4 Google Scholar
Wiese, AF, Lavake, DE (1986) Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 34:77–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar