Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:55:42.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism of Metribuzin in Diploid and Tetraploid Soybean (Glycine max) Plants and Cell Cultures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ezzaldin O. Abusteit ,
Frederick T. Corbin ,
Donald P. Schmitt ,
Joe W. Burton ,
A. Douglas Worsham  and
Lafayette Thompson Jr.
Ezzaldin O. Abusteit
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Frederick T. Corbin
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Donald P. Schmitt
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Joe W. Burton
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
A. Douglas Worsham
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Cary, NC 27511
Lafayette Thompson Jr.
Affiliation:
Am. Agric. Serv. Inc., Cary, NC 27511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments established that tetraploid soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plants were relatively tolerant while diploid plants were highly susceptible to metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5(4H)-one] applied both preemergence and postemergence. Sensitivity of diploids and tolerance of tetraploids was also found in growth chamber experiments. Autoradiographs prepared 4 days after 14C-metribuzin application showed a high level of 14C-translocation to all parts of diploid plants including meristems. In contrast, only low levels of 14C were translocated in tetraploid plants, with no 14C-movement into meristems. Tetraploid plants rapidly transformed absorbed metribuzin to nontoxic products. Diploids were incapable of inactivating absorbed metribuzin at a rate sufficient to prevent injury. Differences in absorption, translocation, and metabolism of metribuzin appeared to be the main factors in the diploid and tetraploid differential response in field and growth chamber experiments. Differences in the rate of metribuzin metabolism appeared to be the factor responsible for the differential response in diploid and tetraploid cell suspension cultures. The primary polar metabolites were conjugates of metribuzin and deaminated metribuzin [6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] with a ratio of 8:1, respectively.

Keywords

Herbicide selectivityherbicide tolerancetissue culturedeaminated metribuzindiketo metribuzin
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , September 1985 , pp. 618 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Ashley, R. A. 1974. Varietal susceptibility of transplanted tomatoes to metribuzin injuries. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 28:249–252.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68: 351–353.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L., Hartwig, E. E., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Kilen, T. C. 1982. Tolerance of three soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:334–348.Google Scholar
4. De Villiers, O. T. and Van der Merwe, M. J. 1978. A study of the mode of action of methabenzthiazuron and metribuzin in isolated cells of Phaseolus vulgaris (beans). S. Afr. J. Sci. 74:440–442.Google Scholar
5. De Villiers, O. T. and Van der Merwe, M. J. 1979. Comparative effects of methabenzthiazuron and metribuzin on photosystem II and ATPase activity of Phaseolus vulgaris (beans). S. Afr. J. Sci. 75:315–316.Google Scholar
6. Duke, W. B., Schluter, M. M., Jordan, G. L., Hunt, J. F., and Van Natta, M. W. 1976. The effect of metribuzin on ten soybean cultivars. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 30:13–17.Google Scholar
7. Eastin, E. F., Sij, J. W., and Graigmiles, J. P. 1980. Tolerance of soybean genotypes to metribuzin. Agron. J. 72:167–168.Google Scholar
8. Edwards, C. J. Jr., Barrentine, W. L., and Kilen, T. C. 1976. Inheritance of sensitivity to metribuzin in soybean varieties. Crop Sci. 16:119–120.Google Scholar
9. Frear, D. S., Mansager, E. R., Swanson, H. R., and Tanaka, F. S. 1983. Metribuzin metabolism in tomato: Isolation and identification of N-glucoside conjugates. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 19:270–281.Google Scholar
10. Gamborg, O. L., Miller, R. A., and Ozima, K. 1968. Nutrient requirement of suspension cultures of soybean root cells. Exp. Cell Res. 50:151–158.Google Scholar
11. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.Google Scholar
12. Hardcastle, W. S. 1975. Differences in susceptibility of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Pestic. Sci. 6:589–594.Google Scholar
13. Hardcastle, W. S. 1979. Soybean cultivar response to metribuzin in solution culture. Weed Sci. 27:278–279.Google Scholar
14. Hargroder, T. G. and Rogers, R. L. 1974. Behavior and fate of metribuzin in soybeans and hemp sesbania. Weed Sci. 22: 238–245.Google Scholar
15. Henne, R. C. 1975. Tomato variety response to metribuzin phytotoxicity. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 29:225–229.Google Scholar
16. Hilton, H. W., Nomura, N. S., Yanger, W. L. Jr., and Kameda, S. S. 1974. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of metribuzin (BAY-94337) in sugarcane. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22:578–582.Google Scholar
17. Littlejohns, D. A., Allen, W. R., and Pilblado, R. E. 1977. Effects of metribuzin on the performance of soybean cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:551–554.Google Scholar
18. Mangot, B. S. and Slife, F. W. 1979. Differential metabolism of metribuzin by two soybean cultivars. Weed Sci. 27:267–269.Google Scholar
19. Maun, M. A. and McLeod, W. J. 1978. Absorption and metabolism of metribuzin in barnyardgrass and American nightshade. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Oswald, T. H., Smith, A. E., and Phillips, D. V. 1978. Phytotoxicity and detoxification of metribuzin in dark-grown suspension cultures of soybean. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 8:73–83.Google Scholar
21. Payne, R. C. and Koszykowski, T. J. 1977. Differentiation of soybean cultivars by metribuzin sensitivity. J. Seed Technol. 2:1–10.Google Scholar
22. Ramthun, L. E. and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Differences in response of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:203.Google Scholar
23. Sieczka, J. B. 1975. The effect of postemergence applications of metribuzin on six potato cultivars. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 29:308–315.Google Scholar
24. Souza Machado, V., Phatak, S. C., and Nonnecke, I. L. 1982. Inheritance of the tomato to metribuzin herbicide. Euphytica 31:129–138.Google Scholar
25. Thornton, J. S. and Stanley, C. W. 1977. Gas chromatographic determination of Sencor and metabolites in crops and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25:380–386.Google Scholar
26. Webster, G.R.B., Macdonald, S. R., and Sarna, L. P., 1975. Gas liquid chromatographic determination of Sencor (metribuzin) and major metabolites and photoproduct. Carryover toxicity to economic crops following original use of the herbicide. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23:74–76.Google Scholar