Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-llglr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T05:00:13.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism of Imazethapyr in Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas O. Ballard ,
Michael E. Foley  and
Thomas T. Bauman
Thomas O. Ballard
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Michael E. Foley
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Thomas T. Bauman
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common and giant ragweed are important weeds of soybeans in Indiana. These two weeds respond differently to imazethapyr POST treatments with common ragweed demonstrating more tolerance than giant ragweed. Both plants show initial susceptibility to imazethapyr, but common ragweed can regrow 10 to 14 days following herbicide application. Laboratory studies were conducted to determine the factors that contribute to the differential control of common and giant ragweed with imazethapyr. Differential absorption was observed at 72 h, with common ragweed absorbing 52% of the applied 14C-imazethapyr and giant ragweed absorbing 39%. The absorption of radioactivity was the same for both species by 672 h. Imazethapyr exhibited both xylem and phloem mobility by translocating both acropetally and basipetally from a treated leaf in giant and common ragweed. A higher percentage of the absorbed radioactivity accumulated in the lower foliage and roots of giant ragweed than common ragweed by 336 h. The rate of imazethapyr metabolism in common ragweed was greater than in giant ragweed. At 336 h, 81 and 68% of the identified radioactivity in the treated leaf was imazethapyr metabolites in common and giant ragweed, respectively. A higher level of the inactive glucose conjugate metabolite was found in the lower plant and root tissues of common ragweed than in giant ragweed. The differential control of common and giant ragweed with foliar applications of imazethapyr was attributed to differences in both translocation and metabolism.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. #3 AMBELgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRAMBELAMBTR
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 572 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Anderson, P. C. and Hibberd, K. A. 1985. Evidence for the interaction of an imidazolinone herbicide with leucine, valine, and isoleucine metabolism. Weed Sci. 33:479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bucholtz, D. L. and Hess, F. D. 1988. An atomizer for application of very low volumes of herbicide solutions. Weed Sci. 36:406–409.Google Scholar
3. Ballard, T.O. 1994. Common and giant ragweed control with imazethapyr. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN. 105 pages.Google Scholar
4. Cole, T. A., Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Behavior of imazethapyr in soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:639–644.Google Scholar
5. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
6. Ray, T. B. 1982. The mode of action of chlorsulfuron: A new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:10–17.Google Scholar
7. Rhodes, D., Hogan, A. L., Deal, L., Jamieson, G. C., and Haworth, P. 1987. Amino acid metabolism of Lemna minor L. Il. Responses to chlorsulfuron. Plant Physiol. 84:775–780.Google Scholar
8. Schloss, J. V., Ciskanik, L. M., and Van Dyk, D. E. 1988. Origin of the herbicide binding site of acetolactate synthase. Nature 331:360–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones. Potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Shaner, D. L. and Mallipudi, N. M. 1991. Mechanisms of selectivity of the imidazolinones. Pages 91–102 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., ed. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
11. Shaner, D. L. and Reider, M. L. 1986. Physiological responses of corn (Zea mays) to AC 243,997 in combination with valine, leucine, and isoleucine. Pestic. Biochem, Physiol. 25:248–257.Google Scholar
12. Shaner, D. L. and Robson, P. A. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC 252,214 in soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 33:469–471.Google Scholar
13. Shaner, D. L., Singh, B. K., and Stidham, M. A. 1990. Interaction of imidazolinones with plant acetohydroxy acid synthase: Evidence for in vivo binding and competition with sulfometuron methyl. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38:1279–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar