Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T23:42:51.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanism of Antagonism of Mesotrione on Sulfonylurea Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher L. Schuster ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
J. Anita Dille
Christopher L. Schuster
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
J. Anita Dille
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine if altered absorption, translocation, or metabolism were the basis for the reduction in sulfonylurea herbicide efficacy on foxtail species when mesotrione was mixed with a sulfonylurea herbicide. Green foxtail and yellow foxtail plants were grown in the greenhouse and treated at the four-leaf stage with 14C-labeled nicosulfuron or rimsulfuron, applied alone or with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine. Absorption of nicosulfuron was greater in green foxtail and yellow foxtail 7 d after treatment (DAT) when applied alone, compared with absorption when mixing the herbicide with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine. When nicosulfuron was applied alone, 9% more of the nicosulfuron in green foxtail was translocated at 7 DAT, as compared with when nicosulfuron was applied in combination with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine. Translocation of nicosulfuron in yellow foxtail, however, was similar when nicosulfuron was applied alone or in combination with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine. The addition of mixing rimsulfuron with mesotrione did not reduce the absorption of rimsulfuron in green foxtail 7 DAT, but the addition of mesotrione + atrazine resulted in a 20% decrease in rimsulfuron absorption 7 DAT compared with absorption of rimsulfuron applied alone. Yellow foxtail absorption of rimsulfuron at 7 DAT was decreased by 11 or 20% when mixed with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine, respectively. Application of rimsulfuron alone resulted in 6% more herbicide being translocated to the treated tiller in green foxtail at 7 DAT, compared with an application of mesotrione + atrazine and rimsulfuron. Translocation of rimsulfuron in yellow foxtail was similar when applied alone or in combination with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine. Nicosulfuron and rimsulfuron metabolism in foxtail species was similar when applied alone or in combination with mesotrione or mesotrione + atrazine.

Keywords

Atrazinemesotrionenicosulfuronrimsulfurongreen foxtailSetaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIyellow foxtailSetaria glauca (L.) Beauv. SETLUAntagonismHPPD-inhibiting herbicidestriketone herbicides
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 429 - 434
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

Babczinski, P. and Zelinski, T. 1991. Mode of action of herbicidal ALS-inhibitors on acetolactate synthase from green plant cell cultures, yeast and Escherichia coli . Pestic. Sci. 31:305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J. D., Maness, E. M., Monks, D. W., and Robinson, D. K. 1992. Differential herbicide tolerance of Landmark and Merit sweet corn is due to different rates of metabolism. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:91.Google Scholar
Camacho, R. F., Moshier, L. J., Morishita, D. W., and Devlin, D. C. 1991. Rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron and nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 5:789–794.Google Scholar
Christopher, J. T., Preston, C., and Powles, S. B. 1994. Malathion antagonized metabolism-based chlorsulfuron resistance in Lolium rigidum . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 49:172–182.Google Scholar
Damalas, C. A. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2001. Dicamba and atrazine antagonism on sulfonylurea herbicides used for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:62–67.Google Scholar
Diehl, K. E., Mukaida, H., Liebl, R. A., and Stoller, E. W. 1993. Sensitivity mechanism in an ALS-susceptible corn hybrid. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:191.Google Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.Google Scholar
Franssen, A. S., Skinner, D. Z., Al-Khatib, K., Horak, M. J., and Kulakow, P. A. 2001. Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 49:598–606.Google Scholar
Frear, D. S., Swanson, H. E., and Thalacker, F. W. 1991. Induced microsomal oxidation of diclofop, triasulfuron, chlorsulfuron, and linuron in wheat. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 41:274–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1993. Response of corn (Zea mays L.) inbreds and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:162–167.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Available online at http://www.weedscience.com. Acessed October 22, 2006.Google Scholar
Kreuz, K. and Fonne-Pfister, R. 1992. Herbicide–insecticide interaction in maize: malathion inhibits cytochrome p450-dependent primisulfuron metabolism. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 43:232–240.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C., Hendrickson, P., and Muller-Warrant, G. 1999. Cross-resistance of primisulfuron-resistant Bromus tectorum L. (downy brome) to sulfosulfuron. Weed Sci. 47:256–257.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., Bartlett, D. W., Fraser, T. E. M., Hawkes, T. R., Holt, D. C., Townson, J. K., and Wichert, R. A. 2001. Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:120–128.Google Scholar
Mougin, C., Polge, N., Scalla, R., and Cabanne, F. 1991. Interactions of various agrochemicals with cytochrome P-450-dependent monooxygenases of wheat cells. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 40:1–11.Google Scholar
Neighbors, S. and Privalle, L. S. 1990. Metabolism of primisulfuron by barnyardgrass. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 37:145–153.Google Scholar
Norris, S. R., Shen, X., and DellaPenna, D. 1998. Complementation of the Arabidopsis pds1 mutant with the gene encoding p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Plant Physiol. 117:1317–1323.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A. Jr. and Kendig, J. A. 1999. Inheritance of an ALS-cross-resistant common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotype. Weed Technol. 13:100–103.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron: inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Al-Khatib, K., and Dille, J. A. 2004. Interactions between mesotrione and sulfonylurea herbicides. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 59:62.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, H., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10:288–294.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Foliar and root absorption of atrazine applied postemergence to giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 17:251–256.Google Scholar
Umbarger, H. E. 1969. Regulation of amino metabolism. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 38:323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2006. Agricultural Chemical Usage, Field Crops Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economics Research Service. Available online at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass.com. Accessed October 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Vencil, W. K. 2002. Data on herbicides and herbicide modifiers. in. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 125–128. and. 288–289.Google Scholar
White, A. D., Owen, M. D. K., Hartzler, R. G., and Cardina, J. 2002. Common sunflower resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 50:432–437.Google Scholar