Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:54:43.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Uptake, Translocation, and Metabolism of Thiobencarb in Two Lettuce, Lactuca sativa, Cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen Reiners
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Stanley F. Gorski
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
J. J. Victor Desouza
Affiliation:
The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210

Abstract

Two lettuce cultivars exhibiting differential levels of tolerance to thiobencarb in soil and nutrient solution assays were examined. Seedlings of ‘Dark Green Boston’ (BOS), a susceptible cultivar, were found to show significant inhibitions in foliar growth compared to the tolerant ‘Great Lakes 366’ (GLA). Reductions of 57% occurred in BOS leaf dry weights at rates of 3 μM thiobencarb as soon as 4 days after treatment. In addition, growth abnormalities including fused leaves were observed in the BOS cultivar, indicating inhibition early in leaf development at the meristem. Twenty-nine and 22% of applied 14C-thiobencarb was absorbed from nutrient solution by BOS and GLA, respectively. This difference is probably due to BOS having a 50% greater root system at the time of treatment. Greater absorption and accumulation of radioactivity in the leaves, as well as significantly greater amounts of parent 14C-thiobencarb in the foliage of BOS compared to GLA (30 and 19%, respectively) may account for the selectivity observed. Metabolism of 14C-thiobencarb occurred within 1 day in both cultivars, with the apparent production of herbicide conjugates accounting for more than 90% of the extracted radiolabel 12 days after treatment. A thiobencarb sulfoxide metabolite was not identified in these studies, indicating sulfoxide production is not a mechanism of selectivity in lettuce.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Akinyemiju, O. A., Dickman, D. I., and Leavitt, R. A. 1983. Distribution and metabolism of simazine and simazine-tolerant and intolerant poplar clones. Weed Sci. 31:775778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
3. Bewick, T. A. and Binning, L. K. 1986. Weed control in lettuce with thiobencarb. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:12.Google Scholar
4. Blair, L. C., Slife, F. W., Felsot, A., and Plewa, M. J. 1984. Rates of sulfide oxidation in cotton, carrot, and tobacco cultured plant cells measured with a model aromatic alkyl-sulfide. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 21:291300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Casida, J. E., Gray, R. A., and Tilles, H. 1974. Thiocarbamate sulfoxides: potent, selective and biodegradable herbicides. Science 184:573574.Google Scholar
6. Gorski, S. F., Ruizzo, M. A., and Hassell, R. H. 1985. Lettuce and endive cultivar response to thiobencarb. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Circ. 288. Pages 24.Google Scholar
7. Gorter, C. J. and Zweep, W.V.D. 1984. Morphogenic effects of herbicides. Pages 127161 in Audus, L. J., ed., Herbicides, Physiology, Biochemistry and Ecology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Hubbell, J. P. and Casida, E. 1977. Metabolic fate of the N,N-Dialkylcarbamoyl moiety of thiocarbamate herbicides in rats and corn. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25:404413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ishikawa, K., Nakamura, Y., and Kuwatsuka, S. 1976. Degradation of benthiocarb herbicide in the soil. Pestic. Sci. 1:4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Ishikawa, K., Nakamura, Y., and Kuwatsuka, S. 1973. Metabolism of benthiocarb (4-chlorobenzyl N,N-Diethylthiocarbamate) in mice. Agric. Biol. Chem. 37:165173.Google Scholar
11. Machado, S. V., Nonecke, I. L., and Phatak, S. C. 1978. Bioassay to screen tomato seedlings for relative tolerance to metribuzin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:823828.Google Scholar
12. Nakamura, Y., Ishikawa, K., and Kuwatsuka, S. 1977. Metabolic fate of benthiocarb herbicide in plants. Agric. Biol. Chem. 41:16131620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Nakamura, Y., Ishikawa, K., and Kuwatsuka, S. 1974. Uptake and translocation of benthiocarb herbicide by plants. Agric. Biol. Chem. 38:11291135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Oliver, L. R., Prendeville, G. N., and Schreiber, M. W. 1968. Species differences in site of root uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:534537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Prendeville, G. N., Oliver, L. R., and Schreiber, M. M. 1968. Species differences in site of shoot uptake and tolerance to EPTC. Weed Sci. 16:538540.Google Scholar
16. Robert, J., Leavitt, C., and Penner, D. 1979. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxides and the action of herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533536.Google Scholar
17. Shibayama, H. and Worley, J. F. 1976. Growth response of barnyardgrass and bearded sprangletop to benthiocarb. Weed Sci. 24:276281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Smith, J. A. and Wilkinson, R. E. 1974. Metribuzin uptake, movement and metabolism in soybeans. Physiol. Plant. 32:253257.Google Scholar
19. Vetanovetz, R. P. and Peterson, J. C. 1983. NFT, a hydroponic technique requring exacting accuracy. Grnhse. Mgr. 20:7292.Google Scholar
20. Werner, G. M. and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Differential atrazine tolerance within cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci. 28:142148.Google Scholar