Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T10:24:16.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shikimate Accumulation in Sunflower, Wheat, and Proso Millet after Glyphosate Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Brien Henry ,
Dale L. Shaner  and
Mark S. West
W. Brien Henry*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Central Plains Resources Management Research Unit, 40335 County Road GG, Akron, CO 80720
Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Water Management Research Unit, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Mark S. West
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, NPS Statistician Room S-300, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: brien.henry@ars.usda.gov.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to examine the utility of a spectrophometric leaf disc assay for detecting shikimate accumulation after glyphosate application in sunflower, proso millet, and wheat. The assay was conducted on both greenhouse- and field-grown plants. Glyphosate was applied at five rates ranging from 840 to 53 g ae ha−1. Shikimate accumulation data were generated at 1, 4, 7, and 14 d after application (DAA). Sunflower accumulated shikimate more rapidly and at lower glyphosate rates than the other two species. At 14 DAA, glyphosate at the two highest rates remained detectable in all three species. Plants receiving lower glyphosate doses (210, 105, and 53 g ae ha−1) had begun to grow out of the injury, or at least the shikimate levels in the plants were no longer significantly different than that present in the untreated controls. This spectrophotometric assay is both rapid and simple, with respect to other means of detecting shikimate, and it can be used to detect glyphosate drift. For it to be used by crop managers, samples from potentially drift-affected crops should be taken as soon as possible after the suspected drift event or immediately after the appearance of glyphosate injury.

Keywords

Glyphosateproso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. ‘Sunup’sunflower, Helianthus annus L. ‘Triumph 765C’wheat, Triticum aestivum, L. ‘Stak-Tite N25550’DriftshikimateglyphosateEPSPSleaf discspectrophotometer

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 1 - 5
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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
Amrhein, N., Deus, B., Gehrke, P., and Steinrucken, H. C. 1980. The site of inhibition of the shikimate pathway by glyphosate II. Interference of glyphosate with chorismate formation in vivo and in vitro. Plant Physiol. 66:830–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anonymous, , 1999. Spray Drift of Pesticides. December. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Pub. 735F99024.Google Scholar
Auch, D. E. and Arnold, W. E. 1978. Dicamba use and injury on soybean (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci. 26:471–475.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1990. Droplet makeup and the effect of phytotoxicity of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38:406–410.Google Scholar
Cromartie, T. H. and Polge, N. D. 2000. An improved assay for shikimic acid and its use as a monitor for the activity of sulfosate. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 40:291.Google Scholar
Drapala, P. 2001. Bureau of Plant Industry Announces Supplemental Labeling. Jackson, MS: Bureau of Plant Industry, Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce Lester Spell Jr., D.V.M., Commissioner.Google Scholar
Henry, W. B., Koger, C. H., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Accumulation of shikimate in corn and soybean exposed to various rates of glyphosate. Crop Manag. doi 1094/CM-2005-1123-01-RS.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The Water-Culture for Growing Plants without Soil. Berkeley, CA: California Agricultural Experiment Station Circ. 347 (Rev.).Google Scholar
James, C. and Krattiger, A. F. 1996. Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercializaton of Transgenic Plants (1986 to 1995: The First Decade of Crop Biotechnology). Ithaca, NY ISAA Briefs 1. 31.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Shaner, D. L., Krutz, L. J., Walker, T. W., Buehring, N., Henry, W. B., Thomas, W., and Wilcut, J. 2005. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to drift rates of glyphosate. Pestic. Manag. Sci. 61:1161–1167.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. H. 1993. Spray drift and its measurement. Pages 101–122. in Mathews, G.A. and Hislop, E.C. eds. Application Technology for Crop Protection. Wallingford, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International.Google Scholar
Nordby, A. and Skuterud, R. 1975. The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res. 14:385–395.Google Scholar
Pline-Srnic, W. 2005. Technical performance of some commercial glyphosate-resistant crops. Pestic. Manag. Sci. 61:225–234.Google Scholar
Pringnitz, B. 1999. Pesticide Drift: To Spray or Not To Spray?. Ames, IA Iowa State University Extension Pesticide Applicator Education Program PCIC-99d.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Koger, C. H. 2004. Herbicide resistant crops and weed management. Pages 549–580. in Singh, H.P. ed. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press Inc.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. D. 2000. Crop Tolerance to Non-target and Labeled Herbicide Applications. . Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Mississippi State, MS.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pestic. Sci. 56:320–326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Nadler-Hassar, T., Henry, W. B., and Koger, C. H. III. 2005. A rapid in vivo EPSPS assay with excised leaf discs. Weed Sci. 53:769–774.Google Scholar
Singh, B. J. 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
Steinrucken, H. C. and Amrhein, N. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolylpyruvyl-shikimic acid-3-phosphate. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 94:1207–1212.Google Scholar
USDA-NASS 2004. Acreage. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0604.pdf, Accessed November 2, 2004.Google Scholar