Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:45:23.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CGA-362622: Soil Behavior and Foliar Versus Root Absorption by Torpedograss (Panicum repens)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walker Williams ,
Glenn Wehtje  and
Robert H. Walker
Walker Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849-5412
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849-5412
Robert H. Walker*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849-5412
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rwalker@acesag.auburn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selective placement studies were conducted under greenhouse conditions to determine the relative importance of root vs. foliar absorption of postemergence-applied CGA-362622 by torpedograss. All application methods were equally effective in reducing torpedograss foliage as measured 4 wk after treatment. However, foliar + soil and soil-only were more effective than foliar-only in suppressing regrowth at 10 wk after treatment. Foliar absorption by torpedograss and subsequent translocation was determined with radiotracer techniques. After 72 h, 29% of the applied CGA-362622 had been absorbed, and 2 and 7% of the amount applied had accumulated in developing rhizomes and roots, respectively. CGA-362622 was more readily absorbed and translocated by the root. Hydroponically grown plants were transferred to a hydroponic solution spiked with CGA-362622 at 200 ppb. After 6 h, whole plant concentration was 113.1 ng/plant. Only 56% of amount absorbed remained in the roots, the remainder having been translocated to other tissues. The youngest leaf and the immature rhizomes accumulated 2 and 15%, respectively. CGA-362622 soil adsorption was slightly influenced by CGA-362622 concentration and greatly influenced by soil pH. Average percent recovered in the soil solution (i.e., not absorbed) was 15.3 and 27.4% at pH 5.7 and 6.7, respectively. Soil mobility was also pH dependent. Soil solution and soil mobility data support the observation that soil application followed by root entry is more effective in delivering phytotoxic concentrations to the regenerative tissues of torpedograss than foliar application.

Keywords

CGA-362622torpedograss, Panicum repens L. #3 PANREHerbicide translocationsoil mobilitysoil pHsoil sorptionWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 366 - 372
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

Adams, F., Burmester, C., Hue, N. V., and Long, L. F. 1982. A comparison of column displacement and centrifugation methods of obtaining soil solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 44: 733–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50: 292–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloodworth, K. M., Reynolds, D. B., Holloway, J. C., and Cobill, R. M. 2000. Cotton weed control in Mississippi with CGA-362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 28.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37: 428–433.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34: 788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils. I. Parameters of thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35: 732–737.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growth in plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Cir. No. 347.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. W., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press. 609 p.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA-362622, a new low rate Norvartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 163.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B., Higgins, J. M., and Colvin, D. L. 1993. Selective torpedograss (Panicum repens) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) turf. Weed Technol. 7: 911–915.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50: 642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free response of seven cotton cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16: 180–183.Google Scholar
Rawls, E. K., Wells, J. W., Hudetz, M., Jain, R., and Ulloa, M. F. 2000. CGA-362622: a new herbicide for weed control in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 163.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed response to CGA-362622 alone and in combination with bromoxynil, glyphosate and pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 58.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1992. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1082 p.Google Scholar
Tenpenny, R. M., Sutton, D. L., and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. Vegetative reproduction of torpedograss. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 132.Google Scholar
Teuton, T. C., Brecke, B. J., Unruh, J. B., MacDonald, G. E., and Tredaway, J. A. 2001. CGA-362622 for perennial weed management in warm season turfgrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 69.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 8th ed, Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 438–439.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., and Jones, C. A. 2001. New herbicide chemistries for weed control in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 190.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Porterfield, D. 2000. Weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton with CGA-362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 57.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Dute, R. R., Truelove, B., and Davis, D. E. 1988. Factors limiting the distribution of cogongrass, Imperata cylindrca, and torpedograss, Panicum repens . Weed Sci. 36: 577–582.Google Scholar