Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T01:34:46.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield and Physiological Response of Nontransgenic Cotton to Simulated Glyphosate Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walter E. Thomas ,
Ian C. Burke ,
Bridget L. Robinson ,
Wendy A. Pline-Srnić ,
Keith L. Edmisten ,
Randy Wells  and
John W. Wilcut
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Bridget L. Robinson
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wendy A. Pline-Srnić
Affiliation:
Syngenta, Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, U.K.
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Randy Wells
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2001 in Lewiston, NC, and in 2002 at Clayton and Lewiston, NC, to investigate the response of nontransgenic cotton to simulated glyphosate drift in a weed-free environment. Nontransgenic cotton variety ‘Fibermax 989’ was planted in a conventional seedbed at all locations. Glyphosate treatments were applied early postemergence (EPOST) at the four-leaf growth stage of cotton at 0, 8.7, 17.5, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, and 1,120 g ai/ha and represent 0, 0.78, 1.55, 3.13, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100% of the commercial use rate, respectively. Rates as low as 140 g/ha caused lint yield reductions depending on year and location. When averaged over all locations, lint yield reductions of 4, 49, 72, and 87% compared with nontreated cotton were observed with glyphosate rates of 140, 280, 560, and 1,120 g/ha, respectively. Visual injury and shikimic acid accumulation were evident at glyphosate rates greater or equal to 70 g/ha. Collectively, visual injury and shikimic acid accumulation at 7 d after EPOST treatment might be used as a diagnostic indicator to predict potential yield reductions from simulated glyphosate drift.

Keywords

Glyphosatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Fibermax 989’Shikimic acidDAT, days after early postemergence treatmentDD, degree-dayEPOST, early postemergenceEPSPS, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase [EC 2.5.1.19]HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatographyPDS, postemergence-directedPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 35 - 42
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

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13:264–270.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Acreage data. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton interference in cotton. Weed Sci. 49:184–189.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:740–745.Google Scholar
Ball, S. T. 1998. Degree-Days: An Introduction. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service Guide A-227. Pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2002. Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol. 16:833–837.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. 1990. The shikimate pathway: a metabolic tree with many branches. in Fasman, G. D., ed. Critical Review in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Volume 25. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 307–384.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., and Goering, C. E. 1976. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickeners, nozzle type, and nozzle pressure. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 19:213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, D. L., MacDonald, G. E., Shilling, D. G., Mossler, M. A., Kvien, C., Swan, C. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1990. Physiological and yield effects on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) from foliar applied yield enhancers. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 43:109.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Fitting a straight line by least squares. in Wiley, J., ed. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1988. Glyphosate. in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 1–70.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 2003. The cotton plant. in North Carolina Cotton Production Guide. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 9 p.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587–592.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 37 p.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Uptake, transport, and metabolism in plants. in Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. American Chemical Society monograph 189. Pp. 143–181.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9:380–384.Google Scholar
Hollander-Czytko, H. and Amrhein, N. 1983. Subcellular compartmentation of shikimic acid and phenylalanine in buckwheat cell suspension cultures grown in the presence of shikimate pathway inhibitors. Plant Sci. Lett 29:89–96.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., and Anderson, R. L. et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum-Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance to transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Lydon, J. and Duke, S. O. 1988. Glyphosate induction of elevated levels of hydroxybenzoic acids in higher plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 36:813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, L. L., Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Osbourne, T. S., and Dotray, P. A. 2003. Non-glyphosate tolerant cotton response to simulated drift rates of glyphosate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:14–15.Google Scholar
Mauney, J. R. 1986. Vegetative growth and development of fruiting sites. in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. M., eds. Cotton Physiology. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 26–28.Google Scholar
Mollenhauser, C., Smart, C. C., and Amrhein, N. 1987. Glyphosate toxicity in the shoot apical region of the tomato plant. I. Plastid swelling is the initial ultrastructural feature following the vivo inhibition of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid 3-phosphate synthase. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 29:55–65.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. 2003a. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by gibberellic acid (GA(3)). Weed Sci. 15:19–27.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant Gossypium hirsutum as influenced by application methods and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wells, R., Little, G. A., Edmisten, K. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003b. Glyphosate and water-stress effects on fruiting and carbohydrates in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Crop Sci 43:879–885.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002a. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Version 7.0. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Siehl, D. L. 1997. Inhibitors of EPSP synthase, glutamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. in Roe, R. M., ed. Herbicide Toxicity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS. Pp. 37–67.Google Scholar
Singh, B. K. and Shaner, D. L. 1998. Rapid determination of glyphosate injury to plants and identification of glyphosate resistant plants. Weed Technol. 12:527–530.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1993. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:1261–1273.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 2003. Weed Management in Cotton. in North Carolina Cotton Production Guide. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 77–123.Google Scholar