Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T11:45:44.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James H. Westwood ,
Carla N. Yerkes ,
Francis P. DeGennaro  and
Stephen C. Weller
James H. Westwood
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Carla N. Yerkes
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Francis P. DeGennaro
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Stephen C. Weller*
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
steveweller@hort.purdue.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field bindweed biotypes varying in susceptibility to glyphosate were studied to determine the role of glyphosate absorption and translocation in susceptibility differences. Absorption and translocation of radiolabeled glyphosate were measured after application to leaves of glyphosate-tolerant and -sensitive field bindweed biotypes grown under ambient, low, or high relative humidity (RH). Glyphosate injury and cuticle mass were also determined at both low and high RH. To avoid potential differences in susceptibility due to differential foliar absorption, glyphosate was fed to roots of hydroponically grown plants, and uptake, translocation, and injury patterns were also determined. Under ambient RH, no differences in foliar-applied glyphosate absorption or translocation were detected between field bindweed biotypes. The RH under which plants were grown influenced cuticle amounts, glyphosate absorption, and injury. Plants of both biotypes had less cuticular material when grown at high RH (80%) than at low RH (30%); however, more radioactivity was absorbed by the susceptible biotype at low RH. Regardless of RH regime, glyphosate injury was greater in the susceptible biotype than in the tolerant biotype. Glyphosate fed to roots of hydroponically grown plants was absorbed and translocated equally in the biotypes, yet relative differential glyphosate sensitivities were retained. These results suggest that differences in glyphosate susceptibility between field bindweed biotypes cannot be fully accounted for by differences in glyphosate absorption or translocation.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinefield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARRelative humidityherbicide toleranceCONAR
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , October 1997 , pp. 658 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Footnotes

J. Paper No. 15176 of the Purdue Agric. Exp. St.

References

Literature Cited

Brown, E. O. 1945. Notes on some variations in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Iowa State J. Sci. 20: 269–276.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, D. L. and Hess, F. D. 1983. An inexpensive combustion apparatus for preparation of radioactive samples. Weed Sci. 31: 159–162.Google Scholar
Bukovac, M. J. 1976. Herbicide entry into plants. in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. Volume 1, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 335–364.Google Scholar
Chase, R. L. and Appleby, A. P. 1979. Effects of humidity and moisture stress on glyphosate control of Cyperus rotundus L. Weed Res. 19: 241–246.Google Scholar
Dall&Armellina, A. A. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1989. Effect of watering frequency, drought, and glyphosate on growth of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 37: 314–318.Google Scholar
D&Anieri, P., Zedaker, S. M., Seiler, J. R., and Kreh, R. E. 1990. Glyphosate translocation and efficacy relationships in red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine seedlings. For. Sci. 36: 438–447.Google Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984a. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32: 472–476.Google Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984b. Growth and reproductive characteristics of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes. Weed Sci. 32: 525–528.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. N. and Weller, S. C. 1987. Heritability of glyphosate susceptibility among biotypes of field bindweed. J. Hered. 78: 257–260.Google Scholar
Garcia-Baudin, J. M. and Darmency, H. 1979. Differences intraspecifiques chez Convolvulus arvensis L. Weed Res. 19: 219–224.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The Water Culture Method for Growing Plants Without Soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circ. 347. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 32 p.Google Scholar
Holloway, P. J. and Baker, E. A. 1968. Isolation of plant cuticles with zinc chloride-hydrochloric acid solution. Plant Physiol. 43: 1878–1879.Google Scholar
Hull, H. M., Morton, H. L., and Wharrie, J. R. 1975. Environmental influences on cuticle development and resultant foliar penetration. Bot. Rev. 41: 421–452.Google Scholar
Kiss, A. 1973. Morphological variations and herbicide sensitivity of Convolvulus arvensis L. in the wine district of Mór. Acta Agron. Acad. Sci. Hung. 22: 222–225.Google Scholar
Misra, S. and Ghosh, A. 1991. Analysis of epicuticular waxes. in Linskens, H. F. and Jackson, J. F., eds. Modern Methods of Plant Analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 205–229.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. and Slife, F. W. 1979. In vivo and in vitro characterization of the foliar entry of glyphosate in hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum). Weed Sci. 27: 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res. 20: 195–200.Google Scholar
Santier, S. and Chamel, A. 1992. Penetration of glyphosate and diuron into and through isolated plant cuticles. Weed Res. 32: 337–347.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986. Effects of adjuvants and environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and translocation in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34: 811–816.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Absorption, action, and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 23: 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Bot. 62: 461–472.Google Scholar
Whitworth, J. W. 1964. The reaction of strains of field bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 12: 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, J. W. and Muzik, T. J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 15: 275–280.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Lavake, D. E. 1985. Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar