Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:08:23.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price,
Wendy A. Pline,
John W. Wilcut,
John R. Cranmer and
David Danehower
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John R. Cranmer
Affiliation:
Valent USA Corporation, Suite 250-3, 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Cary, NC 27511
David Danehower
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research has shown that flumioxazin, a herbicide being developed as a postemergence-directed spray (PDS) in cotton, has the potential to injure cotton less than 30 cm tall if the herbicide contacts green stem tissue by rain splash or misapplication. In response to this concern, five-leaf cotton plants with chlorophyllous stems and older cotton, 16-leaf cotton plants, with bark on the lower stem were treated with a PDS containing flumioxazin plus crop oil concentrate (COC) or nonionic surfactant (NIS). Stems of treated plants and untreated plants at the respective growth stage were cross-sectioned and then magnified and photographed using bright-field microscopy techniques. More visible injury consisting of necrosis and desiccation was evident in younger cotton. Also, there was a decrease in treated-stem diameter and an increase in visible injury with COC compared with NIS in younger cotton. The effects of plant growth stage and harvest time on absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-flumioxazin in cotton were also investigated. Total 14C absorbed at 72 h after treatment (HAT) was 77, 76, and 94% of applied at 4-, 8-, and 12-leaf growth stages, respectively. Cotton at the 12-leaf stage absorbed more 14C within 48 HAT than was absorbed by four- or eight-leaf cotton by 72 HAT. A majority (31 to 57%) of applied 14C remained in the treated stem for all growth stages and harvest times. Treated cotton stems at all growth stages and harvest times contained higher concentrations (Bq g−1) of 14C than any other tissues. Flumioxazin metabolites made up less than 5% of the radioactivity found in the treated stem. Because of the undetectable levels of metabolites in other tissues when flumioxazin was applied PDS, flumioxazin was foliar applied to determine whether flumioxazin transported to the leaves may have been metabolized. In foliar-treated cotton, flumioxazin metabolites in the treated leaf of four-leaf cotton totaled 4% of the recovered 14C 72 HAT. Flumioxazin metabolites in the treated leaf of 12-leaf cotton totaled 35% of the recovered 14C 48 HAT. These data suggest that differential absorption, translocation, and metabolism at various growth stages, as well as the development of a bark layer, are the bases for differential tolerances of cotton to flumioxazin applied PDS.

Keywords

Flumioxazincotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Absorptiontranslocationmetabolism

Information

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 2004, pp. 1 - 7
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Altom, J. V., Cranmer, J. R., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide—the new standard for layby applications in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:158–159.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1988. Flumioxazin. Pages 29–31 in Hatzios, K. K. ed. WSSA Herbicide Handbook—Supplement to 7th Edition. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Flumioxazin product label. Valent USA 94596-8025. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol 16:184–190.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:158.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci 44:12–17.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lydon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Nandihalli, U. B., Lee, H. J., and Duke, M. V. 1974–1994. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase as the optimal site in the porphyrin pathway. Pages 191–204 in Duke, S. O. and Reheiz, C. A. eds. ACS Symposium Series. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Corbin, F. T., Carter, G. E. Jr., and Hill, H. S. Jr. 1988. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of acifluorfen and lactofen in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea). Weed Sci 36:141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 2000. Physiological basis for the differential tolerance of Glycine max to sulfentrazone during seed germination. Weed Sci 48:281–285.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., and Altom, J. V. 2000. Evaluation of flumioxazin for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) layby weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:220–221.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin preplant burndown weed management in strip-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) planted into wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 16:762–767.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1981. Penetration, translocation, and metabolism of acifluorfen in soybean (Glycine max), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). Weed Sci 29:474–480.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. R. 2000. Valor™: a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:159–160.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1978. Factors affecting toxicity and translocation of glyphosate in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 26:509–513.Google Scholar
Yu, C. and Masiunas, J. B. 1992. Characterization of acifluorfen tolerance in selected somaclones of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci 40:408–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar