Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:29:09.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Bell Pepper (Capsicum annum) to Clomazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Leslie A. Weston
Affiliation:
Dep's. Horde, and Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Michael Barrett
Affiliation:
Dep's. Horde, and Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546

Abstract

Pronounced differences in the tolerance of tomatoes and bell peppers to clomazone observed in field studies were confirmed in a greenhouse experiment. In greenhouse studies, preemergence clomazone rates causing 50% visible injury on bell pepper and tomato seedlings 10 days after application were 9.4 and 0.1 kg/ha, respectively. Based on growth inhibition, bell peppers were 40-fold more tolerant of clomazone than tomatoes 20 days after clomazone application. In laboratory studies investigating the basis for differential clomazone tolerance, no differences in uptake of 14C-clomazone from nutrient solutions between tomato and bell pepper plants were observed after 24 h. Minor differences were observed in the distribution of 14C label within plants; a higher percentage of 14C was recovered in bell pepper roots than in tomato roots, while the opposite was true for the shoots. Clomazone was metabolized to two products in roots of both bell peppers and tomatoes within 48 h after treatment. Tomato shoots were more active in converting clomazone to these metabolites than were tomato roots. Bell pepper roots converted more clomazone to metabolites than did tomato roots 24 h after treatment. However, by 72 h, differences in clomazone metabolite levels between species were negligible in both roots and shoots. Enzymatic and acid hydrolysis of soluble, polaf clomazone metabolites indicated that these metabolites may be sugar conjugates of clomazone.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Barrett, M. 1989. Reduction of imazaquin injury to corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with antidotes. Weed Sci. 37:3441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Carlson, D. B. 1985. Command herbicide — technical data. FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
3. Duke, S. O., Kenyon, W. H., and Paul, R. N. 1985. FMC 57020 effects on chloroplast development in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) cotyledons. Weed Sci. 33:786794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Duke, S. O. and Paul, R. N. 1986. Effects of dimethazone (FMC 57020) on chloroplast development. I. Structural effects in cowpea (Vigna urguiculata L.) primary leaves. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 25:110.Google Scholar
5. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1982. Metabolism of Herbicides in Higher Plants. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN. Pages 152158.Google Scholar
6. Hoagland, O. R. and Arnon, D. E. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
7. Sandmann, G. and Böger, P. 1987. Inhibition of prenyl-lipid biosynthesis by dimethazone. Weed Sci. Abstr. 175:65.Google Scholar
8. Shimabukuro, R. H., Walsh, W. C., and Hoerouf, R. A. 1979. Metabolism and selectivity of diclofop-methyl in wild oat and wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27(3):615623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Sumner, J. B. and Myrback, K. 1950. The Enzymes — Chemistry and Mechanism of Action. Vol. I. Academic Press, New York. Pages 551620.Google Scholar
10. Warfield, T. R., Carlson, D. B., Bellman, S. K., and Guscar, H. L. 1985. Weed control in soybeans using Command. Weed Sci. Abstr. 25:105.Google Scholar
11. Weston, L. A. and Jones, R. T. 1987. Preemergence herbicides for annual weed control in processing peppers. Weed Sci. Abstr. 57:21.Google Scholar