Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:10:09.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cloransulam absorption, translocation, and efficacy on common broadleaf weed species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeff W. Barnes  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate herbicide efficacy, absorption, and translocation of cloransulam within broadleaf weeds. Control of morningglory species and velvetleaf with cloransulam was dependent upon application rate and timing. A reduced rate of cloransulam (9 g ai ha−1) was as effective as the labeled rate (18 g ha−1), when applications were targeted to small to midsize morningglory and velvetleaf. Prickly sida, hemp sesbania, and sicklepod were suppressed by cloransulam. Contour maps predicted accurately weed control for all species except tall morningglory. Cloransulam absorption and translocation provided some information about tolerance mechanisms. Susceptible species, entireleaf morningglory and velvetleaf, both rapidly absorbed 14C-cloransulam. Absorption in the more tolerant velvetleaf was 20% lower than entireleaf morningglory at all harvest times. Absorption of 14C-cloransulam in prickly sida was only 26% 6 h after treatment, and absorption did not increase with time. Differences in cloransulam absorption and translocation partially explained differences in susceptibility among some weed species but not others.

Keywords

Cloransulamentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray IPOHGhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf) Rydb. ex A. W. Hill SEBEXprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. SIDSPtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. CASOBvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHContour plotsapplication timingherbicide efficacyreduced rates
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 634 - 641
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Soybeans. Pages 286–291 in Weed Science Principles and Applications. New York: West.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. J., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam. Weed Technol 13:276–282.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., Kushwaha, S., and Mitra, S. 1999. Response of various weed species and corn (Zea mays) to RPA 201772. Weed Technol 13:504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 37:365–374.Google Scholar
Franey, R. J. and Hart, S. E. 1998. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of cloransulam methyl in three weed species. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 38:48.Google Scholar
Franey, R. J. and Hart, S. E. 1999. Time of application of cloransulam for giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:825–828.Google Scholar
Franey, R. J., Hart, S. E., and Simmons, W. 1997. Weed management systems with cloransulam methyl in soybean. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 52:129–130.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:354–360.Google Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric 4:407–410.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 herderacea). Weed Sci 36:141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1938. The Water-culture Method for Growing Plants without Soils. University of California Agricultural Research Station Circ 347:1–39.Google Scholar
Jachetta, J. J., Van Heertum, J. C., and Gerwick, B. C. 1994. Cloransulam: a new herbicide for soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 49:122–123.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy on glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Application rate and timing of acifluorfen, bentazon, chlorimuron, and imazaquin. Weed Technol 6:526–534.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Postemergence weed control with CGA-277476 and cloransulam in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:293–299.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R., Gander, J. R., and Barrentine, J. L. 1997. Morningglory spectrum for cloransulam (FirstRate). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 37:2.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2000. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with cloransulam and diclosulam. Weed Technol 14:293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1991. Efficacy of imazaquin on various weed species. Weed Sci 39:243–250.Google Scholar
[SAS] Stastical Analysis Systems. 1999–2000. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 8.01 ed. Cary, NC: Stastical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Bennett, A. C., and Grant, D. L. 1999. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with flumetsulam, cloransulam, and diclosulam. Weed Technol 13:791–798.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., and Caylor, J. P. 2000. Utility of Firstrate (cloransulam) in soybean weed control programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:236–237.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Wittenbach, V. A. and Abell, L. M. 1999. Inhibitors of valine, leucine, and isoleucine biosynthesis. Pages 385–416 in Singh, B. K. ed. Plant Amino Acids Biochemistry and Biotechnology. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
WSSA. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement. Lawrence, KS: WSSA— Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1993. Herbicides and plants. Pages 271–294 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. New York: Academic.Google Scholar