Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:54:11.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foliar vs. Root Sensitivity of Hairy Bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) to Isoxaben

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
Charles H. Gilliam ,
Michael E. Miller  and
James E. Altland
Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Department of Horticulture, and Department of Biological Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Department of Horticulture, and Department of Biological Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Michael E. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Department of Horticulture, and Department of Biological Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
James E. Altland
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, 15210 Northeast Miley Road, Aurora, OR 97002
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been previously reported that POST-applied isoxaben can effectively control established hairy bittercress. Experiments were conducted to determine the relative importance of root vs. foliar entry of POST-applied isoxaben. At a common isoxaben rate of 0.56 kg/ha, foliar-only and foliar plus soil applications provided 10.5 and 23.3% control, respectively, as determined by fresh weight reduction. In contrast, soil-only application provided 47.0% control. Hairy bittercress foliar absorption of 14C–isoxaben did not exceed 15% of the amount applied after 72 h. Therefore, the comparatively less effectiveness of foliar-only applications may be attributed primarily to limited absorption. Minimal isoxaben concentration required to inhibit root growth of hydroponically grown hairy bittercress was 0.0025 mg/L. Higher concentrations were required to produce a response in the foliage. Sorption of isoxaben by pine bark rooting substrate, typical of what is used in container nursery production, exceeded 99% of amount applied after 36 h. Even with 99% sorption, the probable concentration within the aqueous phase remains sufficient to inhibit hairy bittercress root growth. Additional studies with 14C–isoxaben established that approximately 35% of the root-absorbed isoxaben was translocated into the foliage. Translocation from the roots into the foliage was reduced to 16% when the experiment was repeated during environmental conditions less favorable for vegetative growth (i.e., longer day length and higher temperature). Results indicate that the control of hairy bittercress with POST-applied isoxaben is likely the result of root absorption and root-growth inhibition. Expression of phytotoxicity within the foliage is also a component, but is dependent upon the root-absorbed isoxaben being translocated into the foliage. Extent of this translocation is dependent upon plant maturity and prevalent environmental conditions.

Keywords

Isoxabenhairy bittercress, Cardamine hirsuta L. # CARHIHerbicide sorptionhydroponicsorganic rooting substratesKddistribution coefficient
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 326 - 333
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

Adams, F., Burmester, C., Hue, N. V., and Long, L. F. 1982. A comparison of column displacement and centrifugation methods of obtaining soil solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 44:733–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altland, J. E., Gilliam, C. H., Edwards, J. H., Keever, G. J., Kessler, J. R. Jr., and Eakes, D. J. 2000a. Postemergence control of bittercress in container-grown crops. J. Environ. Hortic. 18:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altland, J. E., Gilliam, C. H., Edwards, J. H., Keever, G. J., Kessler, J. R. Jr., and Eakes, D. J. 2000b. Effect of bittercress size and Gallery rate on postemergence bittercress control. J. Environ. Hortic. 18:128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37:428–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, D. R., Skomp, J. R., Tschabold, E. E., and Larrinua, I. M. 1990. Isoxaben inhibits the synthesis of acid insoluble cell wall materials in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. 93:695–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growth in plants without soil. Davis, CA: Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 347.Google Scholar
Mervosh, T. L. 2003. Sorption of the herbicides isoxaben and oryzalin to soils and container media. J. Environ. Hortic. 21:11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11:384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salihu, S., Derr, J. F., and Hatzios, K. K. 1999. Differential responses of ajuga (Ajuga reptans), wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), and dwarf burning bush (Euonymus alatus) to root- and shoot-applied isoxaben. Weed Technol. 13:685–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salihu, S., Hatzios, K. K., and Derr, J. F. 1998. Comparable uptake, translocation and metabolism of root-applied isoxaben in ajuga and two ornamental Euonymus species. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 60:119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. R. and Pestemer, W. 1980. Plant availability and uptake of herbicides from soil. in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions between Herbicides and the Soil. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 179–202.Google Scholar
Schneegurt, M. A., Roberts, J. L., Bjelk, L. A., and Gerwick, B. C. 1994. Postemergence activity of isoxaben. Weed Technol. 8:183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 438–439.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1993. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oxadiazon in container media and soil. Hortscience 28:126–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1994. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oryzalin in container media and soil. Hortscience 29:824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar