Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:59:35.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Napropamide Uptake, Transport, and Metabolism in Corn (Zea mays) and Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Michael Barrett  and
Floyd M. Ashton
Michael Barrett
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. of California., Davis, CA 95616
Floyd M. Ashton
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. of California., Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Napropamide [2-(α-napthoxy)-N,N-diethylpropionamide] inhibited root and shoot growth in corn (Zea mays L. ‘NC+ 59’) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Niagara VF315’) seedlings. Shoot growth was reduced less than root growth in both species. Corn roots were approximately 10 times more sensitive to napropamide than were tomato roots. Translocation of napropamide from the roots to the shoot of tomato occurred within 0.5 h and followed an apoplastic pattern. Little movement of napropamide from the roots to the shoots occurred in corn. Metabolism of napropamide was not evident in either species during an 8-h exposure. Absorption studies showed that total napropamide levels were 60% higher in corn root tissue than in tomato root tissue. The greater napropamide content in the corn roots was associated with a tightly bound fraction of the total napropamide influx.

Keywords

Absorptionphytotoxicityselectivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , November 1981 , pp. 697 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1973. Mode of Action of Herbicides. Wiley and Sons, New York. 504 pp.Google Scholar
2. Donaldson, T. W., Bayer, D. E., and Leonard, O. A. 1973. Absorption of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 3-(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (monuron) by barley roots. Plant Physiol. 52:638–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Eshel, Y., Katan, J., and Palevitch, D. 1973. Selective action of diphenamid and napropamide in pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) and weeds. Weed Res. 13:379–384.Google Scholar
4. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. Berkeley. 32 pp.Google Scholar
5. Jachetta, J. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Elmore, C. L. 1979. Differential susceptibility of two pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) species to napropamide. Weed Sci. 27:189–191.Google Scholar
6. Murphy, J. J., Didriksen, J., and Gray, R. A. 1973. Metabolism of 2-(α-napthoxy)-N,N-diethylpropionamide in tomato. Weed Sci. 21:11–15.Google Scholar
7. Orwick, P. L., Schreiber, M. M., and Hodges, T. K. 1976. Absorption and efflux of chloro-s-triazines by Setaria roots. Weed Res. 16:139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Radosevich, S. R., Steinbeck, K. E., Arntzen, C. J. 1979. Effect of photosystem II inhibitors on thylakoid membranes of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 27: 216–218.Google Scholar
9. Wu, C. H., Buehring, N., and Santelmann, P. W. 1974. Site of uptake and mobility of napropamide. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:336.Google Scholar
10. Zilkah, S., Bocion, P. F., and Gressel, J. 1978. Target tissue for napropamide inhibition: Effects of green and white callus cultures and seedlings. Weed Sci. 26:711–713.Google Scholar