Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:25:58.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Uptake and Phytotoxicity of Tebuthiuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W.G. Steinert
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074
J.F. Stritzke
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074

Abstract

Differences in the phytotoxicity of tebuthiuron (N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimehtylurea) to nine plant species were observed on the basis of calculated GR50 values. Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus Thunb.) with a GR50 value of 0.016 ppmw was the most susceptible and corn (Zea mays L. ‘Gold Rush’) with a GR50 value of 0.436 ppmw the least susceptible. There was some growth suppression with foliar application but primary activity on all species was attributed to root uptake. The most significant translocation of labeled tebuthiuron was to the tops of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) plants treated through the nutrient solution where 24.5% of the total amount recovered was detected after 24 h. Only 7.3% of the total amount recovered was detected in the top of rye (Secale cereale L. ‘Elbon’) plants with the same treatment. With both species, more than 90% of the radioactivity recovered following foliar treatments was still in the treated leaf after 24 h. Less than 5.5% of the recovered activity for both species was in the tops, less than 3% in the roots, and less than 1.5% was in the nutrient solution.

Type
Research Article
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. Ashton, Floyd M. and Crafts, Alden S. 1973. Ureas. Pages 367393 in Mode of Action of Herbicides. Wiley Interscience Publications, New York.Google Scholar
2. Baur, J.R. and Bovey, R.W. 1975. Herbicidal effects of tebuthiuron and glyphosate. Agron. J. 67:547553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bayer, D.E. and Yamaguchi, S. 1965. Absorption and distribution of diuron-C14 . Weeds 13:232235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Carlson, W.C., Lignowski, E.M., and Hopen, H.J. 1975. Uptake, translocation, and adsorption of pronamide. Weed Sci. 23:148154.Google Scholar
5. Eastin, E.F. and Basler, E. 1971. Adsorption, Translocation, and Fate of Herbicides. Pages 103120 in Research Methods in Weed Science. Published by South. Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar
6. Kuratle, H., Rhan, E.M., and Woodmansee, C.W. 1969. Basis for selectivity of linuron on carrot and common ragweed. Weed Sci. 17:216219.Google Scholar
7. Nishimoto, R.K. and Warren, G.F. 1971. Shoot zone uptake and translocation of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:156161.Google Scholar
8. Smith, J.W. and Sheets, T.J. 1967. Uptake, distribution, and metabolism of monuron and diuron by several plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:577581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Stritzke, J.F. 1976. Use of tebuthiuron for control of undesirable vegetation in pastures and range. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. of Am. p. 38.Google Scholar
10. Walker, J.C., Jones, M.L., and Shaw, J.E. 1973. Total vegetation control with tebuthiuron – A new broad spectrum herbicide. Proc. North Cent. Weed Conrol Conf. 28:39.Google Scholar
11. Weber, J.B., and Wilkinson, R.E. 1972. Chemical Analyses of Herbicides. Pages 121144 in Research Methods in Weed Science. Published by South. Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar