Weed Science Society of America

Glufosinate Efficacy on Annual Weeds Is Influenced by Rate and Growth Stage

Author(s): Gregory J. Steckel, Loyd M. Wax, F. William Simmons and William H. Phillips, II
Source: Weed Technology, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 484-488
Published by: Weed Science Society of America and Allen Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3988425 .
Accessed: 13/02/2015 01:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Weed Science Society of America and Allen Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Weed Technology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Weed Technology. 1997. Volume 11:484-488

GlufosinateEfficacy on Annual Weeds Is Influencedby Rate and Growth Stage'

GREGORYJ. STECKEL,LOYD M. WAX, F WILLIAM SIMMONS, and WILLIAMH. PHILLIPS112
Abstract: Field experiments were conducted in 1993, 1994, and 1995 to determine the effects of
glufosinate rate and applicationtiming on giant foxtail, common lambsquarters,common cocklebur,
and Pennsylvania smartweedcontrol in absence of a crop. Glufosinate at 140 g ai/ha controlledless
than 80% of the weed species evaluated.When glufosinaterate was increasedto 420 g/ha and applied
to 10-cm giant foxtail, control was greater than 80% all 3 yr of the study. Applications made to
10-cm plants resulted in 80% or greater control for common cocklebur all 3 yr and Pennsylvania
smartweed2 of the 3 yr with 420 and 560 glha, respectively. Common lambsquarterswas the most
tolerant species evaluated and was not consistently controlled acceptably (> 80%), even with glufosinate at rates of 560 g/ha. Control with glufosinate at 420 or 560 g/ha was most effective when
applied at the 10-cm weed height comparedeither to the 5- or 15-cm weed height.
Nomenclature: Glufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic
acid; giant foxtail, Setariafaberi Herrm.# SETFA;common lambsquarters,Chenopodiumalbum L. # CHEAL ; common
cocklebur,XanthiumstrumariumL. # XANST; Pennsylvania smartweed,Polygonumpensylvanicum
L. # POLPY.
Additional index words: Setaria faberi, Chenopodiumalbum, Xanthiumstrumarium,Polygonum
pensylvanicum,SETFA, CHEAL, XANST, POLPY.
Abbreviations: DAT, days after treatment;GS, glutamine synthetase.

INTRODUCTION
Glufosinateis a nonselective postemergenceherbicide
used for weed control in orchards,vineyards, and prior
to no-till planting. Glufosinate inhibits glutamine synthetase (GS) enzyme in susceptible plants (Bellinder et
al. 1985; Logusch et al. 1991; Sauer et al. 1987; Wild
et al. 1987; Wild and Wendler 1993). The GS enzyme
catalyzes an essential reaction for nitrogen metabolism
in plants, the conversion of glutamate plus ammonia to
glutamine. Only 1 d after a glufosinate application, the
ammonia levels in treated leaves may increase as much
as 100-fold over the level in nontreatedtissue (Shelp et
al. 1991; Wild et al. 1987). The accumulation of ammonia is enhanced greatly in the presence of light and
ultimately results in membranedisruption,inhibition of
photosynthesis, and plant death (Bellinder et al. 1987;
Wendleret al. 1990).
Although glufosinate is considered a nonselective her' Received for publication June 13, 1996, and in revised form March 17,
1997.
2Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop Science, Research
Agronomist,USDA-ARS, Crop ProtectionResearch,Departmentof Crop Science, Associate Professor, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Research Specialist, Departmentof Crop Science, University
of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801.
3 Letters following this symbol are a WSSA-approvedcomputercode from
Composite List of Weeds, Revised 1989. Available from WSSA.

bicide, differentialresponse to glufosinate has been observed, even in sensitive species. Ridley and McNally
(1985) found greaterthan a 70-fold differencein the susceptibility of seven plant species to glufosinate, possibly
due to different ratios of the two isoenzymes of glutamine synthetase that can occur in plants. Mersey et al.
(1990) found that glufosinate absorptionand translocation differences accountedfor greatersensitivity in green
foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.] than in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), while very little metabolicdegradation
of glufosinate was detected in either of the species.
Environmentalconditions such as air temperatureand
relative humidityat applicationcan influencethe activity
of many postemergence herbicides (Prasad et al. 1967;
Ritter and Coble 1981; Wills 1984). Low relative humidity prior to, during, and after treatmentmay cause
the cuticle to be dehydrated,thus possibly reducing absorptionof water soluble herbicides such as glufosinate.
For example, the toleranceof green foxtail and barley to
glufosinate was significantly higher when relative humidity was maintainedat 40% comparedwith 95% (Anderson et al. 1993a). Air temperaturemay change the
permeabilityof both the cutin matrix and soluble membranesin some species. Activity of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] on johnsongrass [Sorghum hale-

484

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WEED TECHNOLOGY

Table 1. Growth stages of weeds at the time of glufosinate applications at

Urbana, IL.
1993
Species

5a

10

1994
15

10

Before application

1995
15

10

15

2
4
3
3

3
6
4
4

4
8
5
7

No. of leaves
Giant foxtail
Common lambsquarters
Common cocklebur
Pennsylvania smartweed

2
2
2
2

4
4
3
4

5
5
4
5

3
2
3
3

4
5
4
4

Table 2. Environmentalconditions before and after glufosinate applications

in 1993, 1994, and 1995.

5
6
4
5

Air temperatureb
Weed
heighta 1993 1994 1995
cm
5
10
15

Relative humidityc
Rainfalld
1993 1994 1995 1993 1994 1995

C
20
15
17

16
15
20

aWeed height at application time in centimeters.

%
11
17
22

65
51
59

77
61
59

mm
74
71
73

10
0
14

45
4
42

130
46
12

After application
cm

mm

pense (L.) Pers.] increased as temperaturewas raised

5
21
13
17
65
66
79
0
50
60
10
17
19
22
72
64
73
30
40
10
from 24 to 35 C (McWhorter1980).
15
15
20
23
65
57
62
60
5
0
Leaf age and developmentalstage of plants also influa Weed height at application.
ence herbicideabsorption.Herbicideratesrequiredfor conbMean air temperature7 d before and 7 d after application.
c Mean relative humidity 7 d before and 7 d after application.
trol often depend on the age of the weed at application
dCumulative rainfall 7 d before and 7 d after application.
(King and Oliver 1992). Young actively growing plants
usually have thinner,more permeablecuticles than older
plants. Thus, water soluble herbicidessuch as glufosinate
this field research were to determine the effects of glumay be more effective in penetratingthe cuticleof younger fosinate
application rate and growth stage on annual
plants,and less effective at laterapplicationtimings.Rapid weed
control.
absorptionis essentialfor herbicidessuch as glufosinateto
be effective. Rainfallwithin2 to 7 h afterapplicationgreatMATERIALS
AND METHODS
ly reducedefficacy of glufosinateon green foxtail at the
five- to six-leaf stage (Andersonet al. 1993b).
Field experimentswere conductedin 1993, 1994, and
Much research on glufosinate has focused on con1995 in Urbana, IL. Plots were 3 m wide by 8 m long,
trolling weeds that have emerged prior to planting in
and located in fields that were infested with giant foxtail,
reduced-tillage situations or weeds in noncrop areas
common cocklebur, common lambsquarters,and Penn(Wilson et al. 1985). Only limited informationis availsylvania smartweedthat were tilled the previous fall, but
able on the activity of glufosinate on troublesomeannual
not tilled in the spring of the year prior to application.
weed species that interferewith crop growth. Controlof
No crop was plantedin these fields; therefore,weed conhorseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.] in no-tilled
trol was not aided by the shading of a crop canopy. Glucorn with glufosinate was found to be equal or better
than glyphosate or paraquat(1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bypyri- fosinate treatmentswere applied with a CO2-pressurized
dinium ion). Superiorcontrol of common lambsquarters backpack sprayerat 280 kPa and delivered a spray volume of 187 L/ha. Treatmentswere applied within a 3-wk
was achieved with glufosinate (500 glha or higher) comwhen weeds were approximately5, 10, and 15
pared to glyphosate or paraquatat similar rates (Higgins period
in
et al. 1991; Wilson et al. 1985). Carlson and Burnside cm height. Leaf stages for the weed species at these
timings are given in Table 1. Weed densities were mod(1984) reportedthat glufosinate requiredfour times the
erate, with mininmaloverlap of leaf canopy. Glufosinate4
rate of glyphosate to produce similar phytotoxicity to
(prepackagedwith nonionic surfactant)was applied at
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). In previous studies, the
140, 280, 420, and 560 g/ha at each applicationtiming.
rates of glufosinate used ranged between 600 and 2,000
Average temperature,relative humidity, and cumulative
g/ha, which are uneconomical.
rainfall
for the 7 d before and 7 d after applicationare
Recent developments in gene transfer technology
in Table 2. Visual injury ratingswere taken 10
presented
have produced crop plants that are resistant to glufos21
and
after treatment(DAT), based on scale of 0
days
inate. The potential use of glufosinate as a postemer= no visible injury and 100 = plant death. Since the
gence weed control option for crop production will
full extent of plant injury was difficult to determine at
greatly expand the market of this compound. However,
10 DAT, only the 21 DAT evaluation data are presented.
there is little information on weed species controlled,
application timing effects, and use of lower rates or at
4 Ignite 1.67 EC in 1993, Liberty 200 SL in 1994 and 1995, AgrEvo USA
rates less than 600 glha. Therefore, the objectives of
Co., Little Falls Centre One, 2711 Centerville Road, Wilmington,DE 19808.
Volume 11, Issue 3 (July-September) 1997

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

485

STECKELET AL.: GLUFOSINATEEFFICACYON ANNUAL WEEDS IS INFLUENCEDBY RATE AND GROWTH STAGE

100 90

1993

100
90 - 1993
80 70 60 -

80HA

60

50_ -.403020 10 10

50 -_

40 30-

20 - =_

20

10]- 1994
90 -1
80 -

60 50

40

30 20
100
90 199
80
70 -1

60-1
40 20
5
303 -

1995
.-19

90

80 A

(g/ha)
_4

10 -v

100-kA
20
40
30140950
302010

200

r -

20
10

100-

60 A

100

100 - 1994
90 199
80 70 -

60

50

40j

3020
10
300

400

500

600

Glufosinate(glha)
Figure 1. Linearregressionand predictedvalues of mean giant foxtail control
at four rates of glufosinate,each appliedat weed heights of 5 (@), 10 (U) and
15 cm (A). Regression models and r2 are for each line where significanceis
representedby * and # for 5 and 10% level, respectively. The models fitted
were for 1993: 5 cm, y = 13 + O.lOx,r2 = 0.63; 10 cm, y = 14 + 0.15x, r2
= 0.81#; and 15 cm, y = 46 + 0.09x, r2 = 0.96*. For 1994: 5 cm, y = 18 +
0.15x, r2 = 0.81*; 10 cm, y = 34 + 0.12x, r2 = 0.77*;and 15 cm, y = 31 +
0.12x, r2 = 0.77*. For 1995: 5 cm, y = 44 + 0.09x, r2 = 0.84*; 10 cm, y =
73 + 0.05x, r2 = 0.98*; and 15 cm, y = 25 + 0.12x, r2 = 0.96*.

The experiment was established as a randomized complete block design with three blocks in a four by three
factorial arrangementof four glufosinate rates and three
application timings. Data were subjected to analysis of
variance (ANOVA) at the 5% level to determine significance of any interactions among main effects. The
ANOVA revealed a significant year by treatmentinteraction, resulting in a regression analysis conducted for
each year. The mean control data were regressed over
herbiciderate for each growth stage. Regressionlines are
presented with symbols representingpredictedvalues at
the three treatmentrates. Correlationanalyses were conducted on rainfall and control ratings at the 10% level.
While some correlations were significant, no overall
trends were apparent.

100

200

300

400

500

600

Glufosinate(glha)
Figure 2. Linear regression and predicted values of mean common lambsquarterscontrol at four rates of glufosinate, each applied at weed heights of
5 (@), 10 (U) and 15 cm (A). Regression models and r2 are for each line
where significance is representedby * and * for 5 and 10%level, respectively.
The models fitted were for 1993: 5 cm, y = -14 + O.lIx, r2 = 0.98*; 10
cm, y = 1.0 + O.lix, r2 = 0.94*; and 15 cm, y = 7.0 + 0.05x, r2 = 0.82#.
For 1994: 5 cm, y = -1.7 + 0.llx, r2 = 0.79#; 10 cm, y = 9.0 + 0.llx,
r2 = 0.76#; and 15 cm, y = 8.0 + 0.08x, r2 = 0.46. For 1995: 5 cm, y =
4.2 + O.lIx, r2 = 0.84*; 10 cm, y = 11 + 0.16x, r2 = 0.94*; and 15 cm,
y = 2.0 + O.lIx, r2 = 0.99*.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

sensitivity could be the result of increased glufosinate

absorption. Mersey et al. (1990) found that increasing
glufosinate absorptionwas the reason green foxtail was
more sensitive than barley. A rate response was exhibited for all three plant heights. Treatmentsapplied at
10-cm height had consistently high control ratings compared to those applied at 5 cm. However, control was
very erratic when glufosinate was applied at the 15-cm
growth stage. This lack of control may have been the
result of less than adequatecoverage. At the 10-cm application height, control was greatest in 1995. This increase in control may have been due to a higher rainfall
total in 1995 before and afterglufosinate application(Table 2). The linear response of weed height and rate demonstratesthat giant foxtail control with glufosinateis optimal at 420 and 560 g/ha when applied to 10-cm tall
plants.

Giant Foxtail. Across all species in this study, control

ratings were highest for giant foxtail regardless of rate
or plant size at application(Figures 1-4). This increased

Common Lambsquarters. Of all species in this study,

common lambsquarterswas the most tolerantof glufosmnate(Figure 2). This finding is contradictoryto those

486

Volume 11, Issue 3 (July-September) 1997

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WEED TECHNOLOGY

1oo

100

90 - 1993
80 70 60- 50 403020 10

90 - 1993
80 70 60 40 30 20 10 -

[~

0-

100
1900- 1994
80 A

100
10090

1994

80 7
3060 10 -

60 -

-40
40
30 l0O-20
10

40
-4
,01,3020-

100
100 -

100199
90 1995

90 - 1995

80 A

80 70 60 50 4030 20 10 -

10 60 -i

40 30
120-

kA

0 -

100

200

300

400

500

600

Glufosinate(g/ha)

100

200

300

400

500

600

Glufosinate(glha)

Figure 3. Linear regression and predictedvalues of mean common cocklebur

control at four rates of glufosinate, each applied at weed heights of 5 (0),
10 (U) and 15 cm (A). Regression models and r2 are for each line where
significance is representedby * and * for 5 and 10% level, respectively. The
models fitted were for 1993: 5 cm, y = 12 + 0.09x, r2 = 0.68; 10 cm, y =
46 + 0.09x, r2 = 0.68; and 15 cm, y = 5 + 0.08x, r2 = 0.94*. For 1994:
5 cm, y = 3.0 + 0.14x, r2 = 0.95*; 10 cm, y = 20 + O.lix, r2 = 0.88*;
and 15 cm, y = 63 + O.Olx,r2 = 0.07. For 1995: 5 cm, y = 13 + 0.08x,
r2 = 0.81*; 10 cm, y = 49 + 0.09x, r2 = 0.78#; and 15 cm, y = 25 + 0.09x,
r2 = 0.80#.

Figure 4. Linearregressionand predictedvalues of mean Pennsylvaniasmartweed control at four rates of glufosinate, each applied at weed heights of 5
(0), 10 (U) and 15 cm (A). Regression models and r2are for each line where
significance is representedby * and for 5 and 10% level, respectively. The
models fitted were for 1993: 5 cm, y = 3.0 + 0.14x, r2 = 0.99*; 10 cm, y
= 14 + l.Olx, r2 = 0.77#; and 15 cm, y = 22 + 0.06x, r2 = 0.89*. For
1994: 5 cm, y = 17 + 0.14x, r2 = 0.88#; 10 cm, y = 29 + 0.12x, r2 =
0.99*; and 15 cm, y = 25 + 0.14x, r2 = 0.90*. For 1995: 5 cm, y = 13 +
O.lix, r2 = 0.79#; 10 cm, y = 9.0 + 0.14x, r2 = 0.93*; and 15 cm, y = 27
+ 0.09x, r2 = 0.97*.

of Higgins et al. (1991), who found that glufosinate applied to common lambsquartersplants as tall as 60 cm
resulted in very good control. Often, early researchwith
glufosinate evaluatedrates of 600 g/ha and higher.These
elevated rates may explain the enhanced control of
weeds such as common lambsquarters.In this study, all
rates at all plant heights but one resulted in less than
70% control. Only at the 10-cm plant height in 1995 did
the 420 and 560 g/ha rates give control that was approximately 80% or greater.In 1995, favorable environmental conditions before and after the 10-cm height application could have resulted in this enhanced control of
common lambsquarters. Adequate soil moisture and
good growing conditions prior to treatment are often
found to enhance herbicidecontrol, as stressedplants are
usually difficult to control. When plants are water
stressed, the reduced efficacy has been found to be the
result of reduced uptake and translocationof other herbicides such as glyphosate (Ahmadi et al. 1980).

Common Cocklebur. Consistent control of common

cockleburwas achieved when applicationswere made to
plants that were 10 cm high (Figure 3). Control with
glufosinate at 560 g/ha in 1994 was above 80% for the
5- and 10-cm high plants. This is somewhat consistent
with the overall control results. In 1993 and 1995, control was optimal when glufosinate rates of 420 and 560
g/ha were applied to 10-cm tall plants. The linear response of glufosinate rate and weed height is consistent
with other herbicides used for the control of common
cocklebur. Applications of acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid} were
found by Lee and Oliver (1982) to have a linear relationship between rate and applicationtiming. These researchers found that common cocklebur greater than 8
cm tall required increased rates to optimize control. In
this study, applicationof glufosinate at the 5- and 15-cm
height was very erratic from year to year. In 1994, the
regression was not significant at the 10% level. In 1993
and 1995, an unexpecteddecreaseoccurredin the control

Volume 11, Issue 3 (July-September) 1997

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

487

STECKELET AL.: GLUFOSINATEEFFICACYON ANNUAL WEEDS IS INFLUENCEDBY RATE AND GROWTH STAGE

of common cockleburby glufosinate applied at the 5-cm

plant height. This may have been the result of insufficient leaf area for herbicide interception as well as regrowth where complete mortality did not occur in these
2 yr.
Pennsylvania Smartweed. In all 3 yr of this study, control of Pennsylvania smartweedresulted in little differences between weed heights (Figure 4). Rates above 280
g/ha were requiredto achieve 70% or greatercontrol at
10 cm in 1994 and 1995. Consistency in control was
greatest, however, for the 5-cm and 10-cm weed heights
as exhibited by the regression equation. The slopes of
the lines for the 15-cm heights have a 43% difference
between the highest and lowest, while the slopes of the
5- and 10-cm lines are 21 and 29%, respectively. Optimal consistent control was achieved by applications of
glufosinate at 560 g/ha at both the 5- and 10-cm plant
heights for 2 of the 3 yr. However, this control was commercially acceptableonly in 1994 and 1995 when moisture was present in greatest amounts both before and
after application.
Weed species differed in their sensitivity to glufosinate, and control was influencedby rate and weed height.
Within weed species, increased control was obtainedby
applying glufosinate at rates of 420 and/or 560 g/ha to
plants that were 10 cm high. This held true even for 1
yr for the most tolerant species, common lambsquarters.
Applications made to plants at the 5-cm heights resulted
in poor overall control, often as a result of incomplete
control. Erratic control of 15-cm high plants was due
primarily to an inability to obtain adequate coverage.
These studies indicated giant foxtail was most sensitive
to glufosinate, followed by common cocklebur and
Pennsylvania smartweed, with common lambsquarters
being the most tolerant.The results of these studies suggest that the rate of glufosinate depends primarilyon the
species present; thus, recommendations should be adjusted accordingly. In this study, 420 or 560 g/ha were
required for most species. Under the competitive interactions of a cropping system, the requiredrates may be
closer to the 300 to 400 g/ha registeredrates. In addition,
application of these rates should be focused on weed
heights near 10 cm. Difficult-to-controlspecies, such as
common lambsquarters,and those that may emerge in
several flushes may require tank mixtures or cultivation
to increase control to a desired level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank AgrEvo USA Co. for their ideas,
herbicides, and financial support.
488

Mention of trademark,vendor, or proprietaryproduct

does not constitute a guaranteeor warrantyof the product by the U.S. Departmentof Agricultureor the University of Illinois and does not imply its approvalto the
exclusion of other productsor vendors that also may be
suitable.
LITERATURE
CITED
Ahmadi, M. S., L. C. Haderlie,and G. A. Wicks. 1980. Effect of growth stage
and water stress on barnyardgrass(Echinchloa crus-galli) control and on
glyphosate absorptionand translocation.Weed Sci. 28:277-282.
Anderson, D. M., C. J. Swanton, J. C. Hall, and B. G. Mersey. 1993a. The
influence of temperatureand relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium.Weed Res. 33:139-147.
Anderson, D. M., C. J. Swanton, J. C. Hall, and B. G. Mersey. 1993b. The
influence of soil moisture, simulated rainfall and time of applicationon
the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium.Weed Res. 33:149-160.
Bellinder, R. R., K. K. Hatzios, and H. P Wilson. 1985. Mode of action
investigations with the herbicides HOE-39866 and SC-0224. Weed Sci.
33:779-785.
Bellinder,R. R., R. E. Lyons, S. E. Scheckler,and H. P. Wilson. 1987. Cellular
alterationsresulting from foliar applications of HOE-39866. Weed Sci.
35:27-35.
Carlson, K. L. and 0. C. Burnside. 1984. Comparativephytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0545, and HOE-0061. Weed Sci. 32:841-844.
Higgins, J. M., T. Whitwell, and J. E. Toler. 1991. Common lambsquarters
(Chenopodiumalbum) control with non-selective herbicides.Weed Technol. 5:884-886.
King, C. A. and L. R. Oliver. 1992. Applicationrate and timing of acifluorfen,
bentazon, chlorimuron,and imazaquin.Weed Technol. 6:526-534.
Lee, S. D. and L. R. Oliver. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfenon broadleafweeds.
Times and methods for application.Weed Sci. 30:520-526.
Logusch, E. W., D. M. Walker,J. F McDonald, and J. E. Franz. 1991. Inhibition of plant glutamine synthetases by substitutedphosphinothricins.
Plant Physiol. 95:1057-1062.
McWhorter,C. G. 1980. Translocationof '4C-glyphosatein soybean (Glycine
max) and johnsongrass (Sorghumhalepense). Weed Sci. 28:113-118.
Mersey, B. G., J. C. Hall, D. M. Anderson, and C. J. Swanton. 1990. Factors
affecting the herbicidal activity of glufosinate-ammonium:absorption,
translocation,and metabolism in barley and green foxtail. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 37:90-98.
Prasad,R., C. L. Foy, and A. S. Crafts. 1967. Effects of relative humidityon
absorptionand translocationof foliarly applied dalapon. Weeds 15:149156.
Ridley, S. M. and S. F McNally. 1985. Effects of phosphinothricinon the
isoenzymes of glutamine synthetase isolated from plant species which
exhibit varying degrees of susceptibility to the herbicide. Plant Sci. 39:
31-36.
Ritter, R. L. and H. D. Coble. 1981. Influence of temperatureand relative
humidity on the activity of acifluorfen.Weed Sci. 29:480-485.
Sauer,H., A. Wild, and W. Ruhle. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin(glufosinate) on photosynthesisII. The causes of inhibitionof photosynthesis.
Z. Naturforsch.42:270-278.
Shelp, B. J., C. J. Swanton, B. G. Mersey, and J. C. Hall. 1991. Glufosinate
(phosphinothricin)inhibition of nitrogen metabolism in barley and green
foxtail plants. J. Plant Physiol. 139:605-610.
Wendler, C., M. Barniske, and A. Wild. 1990. Effect of phosphinothricin
(glufosinate)on photosynthesisand photorespirationof C3 and C4 plants.
Photosyn. Res. 24:55-61.
Wild, A., H. Sauer,and W. Ruhle. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin(glufosinate) on photosynthesis. I. Inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Naturforsch.42:263-269.
Wild, A. and C. Wendler.1993. Inhibitoryaction of glufosinate on photosynthesis. Z. Naturforsch.48:369-373.
Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocationof sethoxydim in bermudagrass
(Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment.Weed Sci. 32:20-24.
Wilson, H. P., T. E. Hines, R. R. Bellinder, and J. A. Grande. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat,and glyphosate in no-till com
(Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531-536.

Volume 11, Issue 3

This content downloaded from 138.26.31.3 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:53 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(July-September) 1997