Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:50:14.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential Metabolism of Metribuzin by Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) and Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel L. Devlin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
David R. Gealy
Affiliation:
USDA, Agric. Res. Serv., 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Larry A. Morrow
Affiliation:
USDA, Agric. Res. Serv., 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164

Abstract

At both 15 and 25 C, following a 24-h root absorption period, absorbed 14C-metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] was metabolized approximately 30% more rapidly to water-soluble and terminal fiber metabolites by winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) than by downy brome (Bromus tectorum L. # BROTE). Both species metabolized a greater proportion of metribuzin in leaf sheaths and roots than in the leaf blades. This was attributed to the increased incorporation of metribuzin into fiber. After an initial leaf extraction, metribuzin and the metabolites deaminated metribuzin (DA), deaminated diketo metribuzin (DADK), and diketo metribuzin (DK) partitioned into a chloroform fraction and five unidentified water-soluble metabolites into an aqueous fraction. At both 15 and 25 C, downy brome absorbed approximately three times more metribuzin per fresh weight than did winter wheat. The mechanism of differential tolerance of downy brome and winter wheat to metribuzin was attributed to the ability of winter wheat to metabolize metribuzin more rapidly and absorb less metribuzin than downy brome.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Coble, H. D. and Schrader, J. W. 1973. Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 21:308309.Google Scholar
2. Devlin, D. L., Gealy, D. R., and Morrow, L. A. 1987. Differential absorption and translocation of metribuzin by downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:15.Google Scholar
3. Fortino, J. Jr. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460463.Google Scholar
4. Frear, D. S., Swanson, H. R., and Mansager, E. R. 1985. Alternate pathways of metirubzin metabolism in soybean: formation of N-glucoside and homoglutathione conjugate. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 23:5665.Google Scholar
5. Frear, D. S., Swanson, H. R., and Mansager, E. R. 1982. Metribuzin metabolism in tomato: isolation and identification of N-glucoside conjugates. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 19:270281.Google Scholar
6. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callihan, R. H., and Gawronski, H. 1986. Mechanism of metribuzin tolerance: herbicide metabolism as a basis for tolerance in potatoes. Weed Res. 26: 18.Google Scholar
7. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin absorption and translocation in barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars. Weed Sci. 34:491495.Google Scholar
8. Hargroder, T. G. and Rogers, R. L. 1974. Behavior and fate of metribuzin in soybeans and hemp sesbania. Weed Sci. 22: 238245.Google Scholar
9. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The waiter culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
10. Mangeot, B. L., Slife, F. E., and Rieck, C. E. 1979. Differential metabolism of metribuzin by two soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Weed Sci. 27:267269.Google Scholar
11. Maun, M. A. and McLeod, W. J. 1978. Absorption and metabolism of metribuzin in barnyardgrass and American nightshade. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:485491.Google Scholar
12. Phatak, S. C. and Stephenson, G. R. 1973. Influence of light and temperature on metribuzin phytotoxicity to tomato. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:843847.Google Scholar
13. Rydrych, D. J. and Muzik, T. J. 1968. Downy brome competition and control in dryland wheat. Agron. J. 601:279280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161165.Google Scholar
15. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Champaign, IL. 515 pp.Google Scholar