Glirus Section
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100:58-61. 1987.
GLUFOSINATE (IGNITE): A NEW PROMISING POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR CITRUS
Megh Singh and D. P. H. Tucker
University of Florida, IFAS
Citrus Research and Education Center
700 Experiment Station Road
Lake Alfred, FL 33850
Additional index words. Basta, Buster, Conquest, Finale,
HOE-00661, HOE-39866, glufosinate-ammonium.
Abstract. Glufosinate [ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl)
methyl phosphinate] is a non-selective postemergence her
bicide for the control of a broad spectrum of grasses and
broad leaf weed species. It is known worldwide by various
names such as Basta, Buster, Conquest, and Finale. Glufosi
nate controls both annual and perennial weeds. The activity
of glufosinate is somewhat slower than paraquat but dis
tinctly faster than that of glyphosate. The effect on perennial
weeds is longer lasting than paraquat but not as long as the
control exhibited by glyphosate. Glufosinate inhibits the syn
thesis of glutamine synthetase which is required for the fixa
tion of ammonia in plant cells. Without the activity of
glutamine synthetase, ammonia (NH3) concentration in
creases to toxic levels in the plants. Glufosinate is a herbicide
of relatively low toxicity; the oral LD50 in female rats is 1620
mg/kg. It is rapidly degraded biologically in soil. Glufosinate
is being developed in the United States for no-tillage crops,
orchards, vineyards and for non-cropland situations. Evalua
tion of glufosinate for the control of bahia (Paspalum
notatum Fluegge), bermuda [Cynodon dactylon (L) Pers.],
guinea (Panicum maximum Jacq.), para [Brachiaria mutica
(Forsk.) Stapf], torpedo (Panicum repens L.) and signal
[ Brachiaria piligera (F. Muell.) Hughes] grasses indicated that
glufosinate will be a useful herbicide for weed control in cit
rus. Further work needs to be done on its compatibility as a
tank mix with residual herbicides.
Glufosinate is a primary amine with an extended car
bon chain. The parent acid of glufosinate was first discov
ered as a microbial metabolite of Streptomyces viridoc-
hromogenes in 1972 and was named phosphinothricin or
bialophos (5). Glufosinate is a non-selective, foliar applied
herbicide for the control of a broad spectrum of grasses
and broadleaf weeds. Glufosinate controls both annual and
perennial weeds (1). In general, lower rates of glufosinate
are needed to control dicot weed species.
Glufosinate acts more slowly than paraquat and faster
than glyphosate. It controls perennial weeds longer than
paraquat but not as long as glyphosate. Bellinder and Wil
son (4) reported the effective control of several weed
species using glufosinate. The symptom response to
glufosinate occurred within 36 hr, whereas response to
glyphosate was observed after 4 to 7 days. They also re-
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. 8630.
58
ported that the pattern of plant responses to glufosinate
and glyphosate was distinctly different. Glufosinate has li
mited translocation to rootstocks and rhizomes, etc. of per
ennial weeds as compared to glyphosate. Therefore, even
tual regrowth from these plant parts will occur.
Glufosinate may be a useful herbicide for weed control
in no-tillage systems, for orchards and vineyards, and for
general weed control in rangeland and non-cropland situ
ations. Kapusta (6) reported effective control of several
weed species using glufosinate in no-till fields. Glufosinate
at 1.0 to 2.0 kg/ha provided effective control of several
annual and perennial weeds in vineyards, citrus, and other
fruit orchards as well as in uncultivated areas (3). Lawson
and Wiseman (9) reported satisfactory runner control in
strawberries without the adverse effect on the growth and
yield of the crop. Glufosinate at 4.0 kg/ha provided
adequate control of cogangrass (Imperata spp.) (10) and at
2.0 kg/ha provided 93% control of purple nutsedge (7).
Wilson et al. (11) reported the control of rye and horse-
weed with glufosinate. Glufosinate at 1.0 kg/ha controlled
a broad spectrum of annual and perennial weeds in or
chards in Europe, though some species required higher
rates. In most cases two applications were adequate to pro
vide full season weed control. The summer application in
many cases was more effective than the spring one. This
may be due to weeds which were not fully emerged at the
time of early application. The leaves of stone and pome
fruit trees which were directly sprayed showed necrotic
symptoms but no signs of translocation were found (8).
Glufosinate shows excellent potential as a herbicide for
weed control in citrus. Thus, it is appropriate to review the
information from the manufacturer's technical informa
tion bulletins (1, 2) for the benefit of citrus industry per
sonnel.
Chemical and Physical Properties
Chemical Name: Ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl)
methylphosphinate
Common Name: Glufosinate
Chemical Structure:
NH, CH - p - CH-CH-CH - COOH
5 I 2 d\
Trade Name: The trade name in the U.S.A. is IGNITE.
Molecular Weight: 198.19
Appearance: Crystalline powder
Color: White to light yellow
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100: 1987.
Odor: Slightly pungent
Solubility: Soluble in water
Vapor Pressure: Not determinable due to decomposition
Stability: Two years in original sealed containers stored at
25 ± 5 C.
Formulation: It is a blue color liquid containing 200 g/liter
active ingredient.
Toxicological Properties
Aute Oral Toxicity: LD50 Male Rat—2000 mg/kg body
weight
Female Rat—1620 mg/kg body
weight
Acute Dermal Toxicity: LD50 Male Rat—4000 mg/kg body
weight
Female Rat—approximately
4000 mg/kg body weight
Skin and Eye Irritation: No primary irritation of skin and
eye mucosa was observed in rab
bits.
Subchronic Toxicity: This is based on a 90-day feeding test.
No effect level—rats—18 mg/kg body weight/day
dogs—2 to 8 mg/kg body weight/day
Embryo Toxicity: No observable effect level—
rats—10 mg/kg body weight
rabbits—6.3 mg/kg body weight
Mutagenicity: Mutagenic tests in vitro and vivo did not
show any mutagenic activity.
Neurotoxicity: No signs of neurotoxic effects in hens have
been observed.
Ecological Data:
Toxicity to Fish: LD50 (96 hr) for Rainbow trout is >
320 mg/liter water.
Bees: Non-toxic to bees.
Biological Properties
Glufosinate must be applied postemergence to the
weeds. Annual grasses and broadleaf weeds should have
developed sufficient foliage to allow uptake of the her
bicide. Perennial weeds are most sensitive when treated at
the time of maximum translocation of photosynthetic
products to the storage plant parts, i.e., beginning of flow
ering to full flowering stage. Favorable environmental con
ditions for active plant growth are preconditions for effec
tive weed control with glufosinate. Cold and dry weather
reduce plant metabolic activity and thus, the product effi
cacy. Lower light intensity may increase the activity of
glufosinate. Since the spray deposit of glufosinate is likely
to be washed off by rain, no precipitation should fall dur
ing the first 6 hr after application to ensure adequate up
take of the herbicide (2).
Mode of Action
The active ingredient of Ignite, glufosinate-am-
monium, is a non-selective, partially systemic contact her
bicide. After uptake, the compound is active in the leaf.
No activity in the roots could be detected in plants after
emergence and no damage is caused to seedlings before
emergence (2).
Under normal conditions, ammonia produced during
various metabolic processes in the plant cells (nitrate re-
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100: 1987.
duction, photorespiration and amino acid metabolism) is
bound to glutamic acid to form glutamine. This process is
catalyzed by the enzyme glutamine synthetase. Glufosi-
nate-ammonium inhibits the activity of this enzyme. Am
monium metabolism in the plant is disturbed shortly after
application of the product so that ammonia (NH3), a strong
phytotoxin, accumulates and kills the cells. Photosynthesis
is also inhibited.
Since ammonia is produced mainly during the reaction
linked with photosynthetic electron transport, its accumu
lation is higher in treated plants exposed to light than in
those kept in darkness or shade. Exposure to light also
accelerates the development of phytotoxic symptoms,
which begin with the development of pale yellowish discol
oration of the green plant parts. Plants wilt and die within
1 to 2 weeks.
Metabolism in Soil and Plants
Physical and chemical properties of the active ingre
dient glufosinate-ammonium are very similar to those of
protein compounds synthesized by living organisms. The
active ingredient is highly stable as a chemical compound
but its degradation is rapid in a microbiologically active
environment such as soil or surface water. Consequently,
there should be no accumulation of the substance in the
food chain. Model tests carried out in the laboratory
suggested that the active ingredient could leach into the
deeper layers of the soil. Field studies, however, de
monstrated that under natural conditions there is no
movement into the soil layers deeper than 15 cm. Because
glufosinate is a relatively new herbicide, there are no de
tailed studies on its mobility in different soils under differ
ent environmental conditions. Such studies are needed to
clearly establish its leaching behavior in soil. This suggests
rapid biodegradation of glufosinate-ammonium. Further
tests with radioactive labelled material showed that glufosi
nate-ammonium is rapidly decomposed to 3-methyl phos-
phinicopropionic acid and finally to carbon dioxide. No
residues of the active ingredient have been detected using
the commercial formulation in any of the major crops
treated for weed control (fruits, grapes, vegetables, etc.);
however, traces of the metabolite, 3-methyl phosphinicop-
ropionic acid were detected.
Spectrum of Herbicide Activity
Glufosinate is effective against a wide range of monocot
and dicot annual and perennial weeds. Generally, peren
nial weeds require a higher rate than annual ones. Major
weeds controlled by glufosinate are listed in Table 1
(monocot) and Table 2 (dicot) (1).
We have evaluated glufosinate for the control of annual
and perennial grasses in citrus groves. The grasses in our
study included bahia, bermuda, para, guinea, torpedo, and
signal. The rates tested were 1.12 and 2.25 kg a.i./ha.
Glufosinate provided excellent burn down of all grasses at
both rates. Signal grass was most sensitive, para and tor
pedo were most tolerant, with other species being inter
mediate in response. Regrowth of perennial grasses varied
with rate of application and species. It appears from our
results that glufosinate will be a useful herbicide for weed
control in citrus. Further work needs to be done on its
compatibility as a tank mix with residual herbicides.
59
Table 1. Monocot weeds controlled by glufosinate. Table 2. Dicot weeds controlled by glufosinate.

Common name Scientific name Common name

Scientific name

quackgrass Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf

Agropyron repens
Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass Achillea millefolium common yarrow

colonial bentgrass Amaranthus retroflexus redroot pigweed

Agrostis tenuis
Alopecurus myosuroides slender foxtail Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed
wild oats Anthemis arvensis corn chamomile
Avenafatu
Brachiaria platyphylla broadleaf signalgrass Arctotheca calendula capeweed
Bromus mollis soft brome Artemisia vulgaris mugwort

Bromus sterilis poverty brome Bellis perennis English daisy

Bromus tectorum downy brome Bidens pilosa hairy geggarticks
Calamagrostis epigeios bushgrass Cadaria draba hoary cress
sedges Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherdspurse
Carex spp.
bermudagrass Chenopodium album common lambsquarters
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus esculentus yellow nutsedge Chrysanthemum vulgare common tansy

Cyperus rotundus purple nutsedge Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed
Deschampsia flexuosa wavy hair grass Convolvulus sepium hedge bindweed
Digitaria sanguinalis large crabgrass Datura stramonium jimsonweed
Echinochloa cms. galli barnyardgrass Equisetum arvense field horsetail
Eleusine indica goosgrass Erigeron canadensis horseweed
Festuca pratensis meadow fescue Eupatorium odoratum thoroughwort spp.
Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass Euphorbia hirta garden spurge
Hordeum murinum wall barly Fumaria officinalis fumitory
Imperata cylindrica cogongrass Galinsoga parviflora smallflower galinsoga
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Galiu aparine catchweed bedstraw
Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass Glechoma hederacea ground ivy
Panicum dichotomiflorum fall panicum Helianthus annuus common sunflower
Panicum maximum guineagrass Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnsworth
Panicum texanum Texas panicum Ipomea spp. morningglory
Paspalum conjugatum sour paspalum Lamium amplexicaule henbit '
Paspalum dilatatum dallisgrass Lamium purpureum purple deadnettle
Paspalum distichum knotgrass Lithospermum arvense corn gromwell
Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyugrass Malva neglecta common mallow
Phalaris spp. canarygrass Matricaria chamomilla wild chamomile
Phragmites communis giant reed Matricaria maritima false chamomile
Poaannua annual bluegrass Physalis angulata cutleaf groundcherry
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain
Poa trivialis roughstalk Plantago major broadleaf plantain
Secale cereale rye Polygonum amphibium water smartweed
Setaria faberi giant foxtail Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed
Setaria lutescens yellow foxtail Polygonum convolvulus wild buckwheat
Setaria viridis green foxtail Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed
Sorghum halepense johnsongrass Polygonum persicaria ladysthumb
Portulaca oleracea common purslane
Pteridium aquilinum brackenfurn
Pyrrhopappus carolinianus Carolina falsedandelion
Relatively lower acute toxicity and control of a wider
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup
spectrum of weeds make glufosinate a useful addition to Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish
presently available herbicides for citrus. It will be a useful R ubus fruticosus European blackberry
foliar applied herbicide to control weeds which escape or Rubus idaeus European red raspberry
Senecio vulgaris common groundsel
are tolerant to preemergence herbicides. In addition, post-
Sida spinosa prickly sida
emergence herbicides such as glyphosate are needed to Sinapis arvensis wild mustard
control weeds where there is a potential injury to young Solanum carolinense horsenettle
citrus trees from residual herbicides. Its application in cit- Solanum nigrum black nightshade
riculture will not require any modification in present prac Solidago spp. goldenrod
Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle
tices. Glufosinate is not presently registered for citrus in
Sonchus oleracea annual sowthistle
Florida but is expected to be soon. Spergula arvensis corn spurry

Stellaria media common chickweed

Literature Cited Taraxacum officinale dandelion
Thlaspi arvense field pennycress
1. American Hoechst Corporation. 1982. Technical Information Bulle Trifolium arvense rabbitfoot clover

tin. Somerville, NJ p. 4. Trifolium repens white clover

2. American Hoechst Corporation. 1983. Basta: The new non-selective Urtica dioica stinging nettle
herbicide. Somerville, NJ p. 27. Urtica wrens burning nettle
3. Bahat, A. 1985. Glufosinate-ammonium for general weed control in Veronica hederaefolia ivyleaf speedwell
vineyards, citrus and other fruit orchards and uncultivated areas. Veronica persica persian speedwell
Phytoparasitica 13:239. Vicia spp. vetch
4. Bellinder, R. R. and H. P. Wilson. 1983. Comparison of several non- Viola tricolor pansy

selective herbicides in reduced tillage systems. Proc. Northeast Weed Xanthium pensylvanicum common cocklebur

Sci. Soc. 37:20-26.

60 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100: 1987.

5. 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.
6. Kapusta, G. 1981. Hoe-661: A new herbicide for the control of veg
etation in no till fields. Proc. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 36:92.
7. Labrada, R., J. Hernandez, and J. Baez. 1987. Evaluation of her
bicides for Cyperus rotundus control. Weed Abstr. 36:159.
8. Langeluddeke, P., W. Bubl, H. P. Huff, U. Kotter, and F. Wallmuller.
1985. Glufosinate-ammonium (Hoe 39866): New results on weed
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100:61-64. 1987.
GROWTH OF YOUNG 'HAMLIN' ORANGE TREES USING STANDARD
AND CONTROLLED-RELEASE FERTILIZERS
T. E. Marler, J. J. Ferguson, and F.S. Davies
University of Florida, IFAS
Fruit Crops Department
Gainesville, FL 32611
Abstract. Controlled-release fertilizers were compared with
a standard fertilizer on 1- and 2-year 'Hamlin' orange
[ Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] on sour orange (C. aurantium
L.) trees planted on double-row beds. All fertilizers con
sisted of an 8N - 2.6P - 6.6K - 2Mg - 0.2Mn - 0.12Cu -
0.2Zn - 1.78Fe formulation. No differences were found in
tree growth over two years in two separate experiments
for comparisons between the following treatments: (A)
isobutylidene diurea (IBDU) and Wonder Gro (WG)
applied twice per year (year 1, 2 lb./tree/application; year
2, 4 lb./tree/application); (B) standard fertilizer applied
four times/year (year 1, 1 lb./tree/application; year 2, 2 lb./
tree/application). In a separate study, standard fertilizer
was applied four times/year in one experiment and five
times/year in another experiment at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 lb. of
material/tree/application (middle rate equivalent to aver
age recommended rate). No differences were found in
growth, suggesting that optimum fertilizer rates may be
lower in some cases than those currently recommended
for young citrus trees.
Efficiency of fertilizer use can be expressed as the per
centage of applied nutrients recovered by the crop. Nitro
gen is the most important nutrient in a citrus fertilization
program and the nutrient with the most variability in effi
ciency of recovery. Nitrogen losses due to erosion, leach
ing, denitrification, and volatilization reduce N availability
for plant uptake. Sandy soils and heavy rainfall in Florida
are frequently associated with substantial N losses, espe
cially through leaching. The problem is greater in areas
where high water tables limit rooting depth. Concerns over
energy conservation and ground water pollution, com
bined with the competitive pressure to reduce production
costs in the Florida citrus industry (2) make reduction of
applied fertilizer losses desirable.
Controlled-release fertilizers potentially reduce N los
ses, improving efficiency of plant recovery (6, 10). Fewer
applications are needed (4, 7, 10), which reduces labor and
equipment costs and soil compaction by equipment.
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. 8559.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100: 1987.
control and crop tolerance in orchards. Proc. British Crop Prot. Conf.
Weeds (1985). 3:1047-1057.
9. Lawson, H. M. and J. S. Wiseman. 1985. Evaluation of glufosinate-
ammonium for runner control in strawberries. Proc. British Crop
Prot. Conf. Weeds (1985). 3:1081-1085.
10. Twitrosoedirdjo, S. 1984. The conversion oilmperata dominated veg
etation into productive systems. Trop. Newsletter 45:6-7.
11. 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 corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531-536.
Controlled-release fertilizers have been used on many
horticultural crops (10), including citrus. These sources in
creased fruit production on mature citrus (7) and growth
of young containerized citrus (3, 6) when compared to
more soluble fertilizer sources. In contrast, growth of
young 'Orlando' tangelo trees was comparable for control
led-release sulfur-coated urea and soluble sources, but fre
quency of application was reduced by 50% (4). Neverthe
less, acceptance of controlled-release fertilizers by the
Florida citrus industry has been limited (5), primarily be
cause of higher fertilizer costs and lack of grower experi
ence with these materials.
Current fertilizer recommendations (8) for young cit
rus trees have been based on previous studies (1, 11), ob
servations, and industry trends. Recommendations call for
0.06 to 0.10 lb. N/tree (average = 0.08 lb.) for newly-
planted citrus, applied five to six times per year (8). Fer
tilizer is usually broadcast evenly in a 3 ft diameter circle,
which translates to ca. 3,000 lb. N/year per treated acre.
Young citrus trees require an adequate supply of nutrients
to optimize growth; however, this rate is 10 times more
than recommended levels for mature trees and may be
excessive under some circumstances. Rasmussen and
Smith (11) also expressed concern that young trees were
being over-fertilized and recommended reduced applica
tion frequency and rates.
Objectives of this study were to compare the effects of
commonly available controlled-release and standard fer
tilizers on growth of young citrus trees, and to determine
the effects of three rates of application of standard fer
tilizer on leaf nutrient levels and tree growth.
Materials and Methods
Four field experiments were conducted at the Horticul
tural Unit NW of Gainesville, Florida, using 'Hamlin'
orange on sour orange rootstock. Double row beds, 55 ft
wide and 2-2.5 ft in height, were constructed in March,
1985. Soil type was Kanapaha sand (loamy, siliceous,
hyperthermic, Grossarenic, Paleaquult) underlain by a
hardpan. Two tree rows 25 ft apart were used on each bed
with trees set 11 ft apart. Irrigation was applied by 90
degree, 10 gallons-per-hour microsprinklers located ca.
3.25 ft NW of tree trunks. Available soil moisture was
maintained at optimum conditions (20% soil moisture de
pletion; Marler, T.E., Univ. of Florida, unpublished).
61