Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:20:46.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytotoxic Interaction of Tridiphane and Metribuzin in Metribuzin Sensitive and Tolerant Soybean (Glycine max) and Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sonia O. Gaul ,
Gerald R. Stephenson  and
Keith R. Solomon
Sonia O. Gaul
Affiliation:
Univ. Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Gerald R. Stephenson
Affiliation:
Univ. Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Keith R. Solomon
Affiliation:
Univ. Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The joint action of metribuzin and tridiphane was investigated in metribuzin-tolerant (T) and metribuzin-susceptible (S) soybean and tomato cultivars within species, respectively, under growth room studies. Maple Arrow (T) and Maple Amber (S) exhibited similar tolerance to tridiphane applied at soybean emergence. Vision (T) tomato was more sensitive to tridiphane than was Springset (S) tomato, the reverse of the relative tolerance to metribuzin. A phytotoxic interaction was demonstrated following application of tridiphane and metribuzin at the respective rates (kg ai ha−1) of 0.1 and 1.1 in Maple Arrow (T) soybeans, 0.05 and 0.25 in Maple Amber (S) soybeans, and 0.25 and 0.2 in Springset (S) tomato. Tridiphane applied 1 or 4 h before metribuzin caused the greatest phytotoxicity in Maple Amber (S) soybeans. Soybean field results generally supported those of growth-room studies. Foliar spray pretreatment with tridiphane increased total radioactivity in Springset (S), decreased the total root radioactivity and increased total shoot radioactivity in both Vision (T) and Springset (S) and decreased metabolism of metribuzin to water soluble conjugates in Springset (S) roots over 24 h following 14C-metribuzin application to roots of intact tomato seedlings. The increased uptake, translocation to the shoots, and decreased root metabolism of metribuzin in Springset when pretreated with tridiphane could explain the phytotoxic interaction (which was unexpected, based only on the glucose detoxification pathway of metribuzin in tomato).

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one), tridiphane, 2-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2,2,2-trichloroethyl)oxiranesoybean, [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] ‘Maple Arrow’ and ‘Maple Amber’tomato [Lycopersicon esculentum (L.)] ‘Vision’ and ‘Springset.’Synergismdose responsejoint actionED50uptaketranslocationmetabolism
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 358 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Boydston, R. A. and Slife, F. W. 1986. Alteration of atrazine uptake and metabolism by tridiphane in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:850–858.Google Scholar
2. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antogonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
3. Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., Hall, C., and VandenBorn, W. H. 1984. Leaf wash techniques for estimation of foliar absorption of herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Ezra, G., Dekker, J. H., and Stephenson, G. R. 1985. Tridiphane as a synergist for herbicides in corn (Zea mays) and Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 33:287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Falb, L. N. and Smith, A. E. Jr. 1984. Metribuzin metabolism in soybeans. Characterization of the intraspecific differential tolerance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32:1425–1428.Google Scholar
6. Fedke, C. and Schmidt, R. R. 1983. Behavior of metribuzin in tolerant and susceptible soybean varieties. Page 177–182 in Proc. V Int. Congr. Pestic. Chem. (IUPAC), vol. 3., Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
7. Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1980. Stages of soybean development. Special Report 80. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011.Google Scholar
8. Frear, D. S., Mansager, E. R., Swanson, H. R., and Tanaka, F. S. 1983. Metribuzin metabolism in tomato: isolation and identification of N-glucoside conjugates. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 19:270–281.Google Scholar
9. Frear, D. S., Swanson, H. R., and Mansager, E. R. 1985. Alternate pathways of metribuzin metabolism in soybean: formation of N-glucoside and homoglutathione conjugates. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 23:56–65.Google Scholar
10. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1986. Tolerance of early maturing soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:125–130.Google Scholar
11. 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. 26:307–314.Google Scholar
12. Gawronski, S. W. 1983. Tolerance of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 31:525–527.Google Scholar
13. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
14. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn., Berkeley. Circ. 347.Google Scholar
15. Lamoureux, G. L. and Rusness, D. G. 1986. [2-(3,5-dichloro-phenyl)-2-(2,2,2-trichloroethyl)oxirane] an atrazine synergist: enzymatic conversion to a potent glutathione-S-transferase inhibitor. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 26:323–342.Google Scholar
16. MacQuarrie, P., McLeod, J. E., Horton, R., and Stephenson, G. R. 1985. The influence of plant age on tomato tolerance to metribuzin. 1985 British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds 1179–1185.Google Scholar
17. Mangeot, B. L., Slife, F. L., and Rieck, C. E. 1979. Differential metabolism of metribuzin by two soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Weed Sci. 27:267–269.Google Scholar
18. Martin, R. A. and Edgington, L. V. 1981. Comparative systemic translocation of several xenobiotics and sucrose. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 16:87–96.Google Scholar
19. Moreland, D. E., Novitzky, W. P., and Levi, P. E. 1989. Selective inhibition of cytochrome P450 isozymes by the herbicide synergist tridiphane. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 35:42–49.Google Scholar
20. Oettmeier, W., Masson, K., Fedke, C., Konze, J., and Schmidt, R. R. 1982. Effect of different photosystem II inhibitors on chloroplasts isolated from species either susceptible or resistant toward s-triazine herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18:357–367.Google Scholar
21. Ontario Weed Committee. 1994. 1994 Guide to Chemical Weed Control. Publication 75. OMAF, Toronto ON.Google Scholar
22. Payne, R. W. 1987. Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
23. Ross, G.J.S. 1987. MLP. Maximum likelihood Program Version 3.08. National Algorithms Group, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
24. Ryder, J. C., Saunders, E. S., Vatne, R. D., and Wright, W. G. 1983. Tandem* and DOWCO 453 ME—postemergence grass herbicides of the future. Down to Earth. 39:1–4.Google Scholar
25. SAS Institute. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Basics, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
26. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Pages 385–388 in Statistical Methods, 7th ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
27. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980b. Pages 291–292 in Statistical Methods, 7th ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
28. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar
29. Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bernard, R. L. 1976. Differential response of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:484–486.Google Scholar
30. Zorner, P. S., Stafford, L. E., and McCall, P. J. 1984. Physiological interactions between tridiphane and atrazine in panacoid grasses. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:362.Google Scholar