Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:17:59.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of formulated glyphosate and activator adjuvants on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in glyphosate-resistant and-susceptible Glycine max

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Ray Hammerschmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

Abstract

Two Glycine max near-isolines, GL2415 (glyphosate sensitive) and GL2600RR (glyphosate resistant), were compared for susceptibility to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, the fungus that causes white mold disease (also known as Sclerotinia stem rot). A formulated isopropylamine salt of glyphosate (RU) at 840, 1,680, and 2,520 g ae ha−1; the RU formulation blank containing only adjuvants (RUFB) at 0.4% (v/v); organosilicone at 0.3% (v/v); a crop oil concentrate at 1.0% (v/v); and a nonionic surfactant at 0.5% (v/v) were evaluated for their influence on V5 G. max susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum in the field. The same treatments plus a formulated isopropylamine salt of glyphosate lacking adjuvants at 2,520 g ae ha−1 and a formulated trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate at 2,520 g ae ha−1 were applied to GL2600RR G. max in the greenhouse. Results from these studies indicated no differences in fungal growth, disease development, or G. max yield for any of these treatments. To determine if any interaction occurred between the chemicals, plants, and S. sclerotiorum, leaflets from both cultivars were dipped into and immediately removed from solutions of the RU at 4, 7, and 10% (v/v) and the RUFB and adjuvants at the rates described. The resulting lesion developments were similar across both cultivars but not across chemical treatments. Lesion developments were smaller on leaflets treated with RUFB and RU, but larger on leaflets treated with the other three adjuvants. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum mycelia growing on potato dextrose agar were inhibited by high concentrations of RU and of RUFB at 100 mM ae glyphosate and by the three adjuvants at 1% (v/v). Formulated glyphosate lacking adjuvants did not inhibit mycelial growth on potato dextrose agar. The glyphosate resistance trait did not appear to be associated with the susceptibility of G. max to S. sclerotiorum. Neither the glyphosate resistance trait nor the applications of glyphosate and adjuvants influenced G. max susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum.

Type
Research Article
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

Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1986. Growthroom evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Can. J. Plant. Sci. 66:559564.Google Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1988a. Epidemiology of Sclerotinia stem rot in soybean in Ontario. Phytopathology 78:12411245.Google Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1988b. Relationships between the spatial pattern and number of apothecia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and stem rot of soybean. Plant Pathol. 37:329336.Google Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1994. Index of plant hosts of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Can. J. Plant Pathol. 16:93108.Google Scholar
Casale, W. L. and Hart, L. P. 1986. Influence of four herbicides on carpogenic and apothecium development of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Physiol. Biochem. 76:980984.Google Scholar
Cline, M. N. and Jacobsen, B. J. 1983. Methods for evaluating soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Plant Disease 67:784786.Google Scholar
Dann, E. K., Diers, B. W., and Hammerschmidt, R. 1999. Suppression of sclerotinia stem rot of soybean by lactofen herbicide treatment. Phytopathology 89:598602.Google Scholar
Dissanayake, N., Hoy, J. W., and Griffin, J. L. 1998. Herbicide effects on sugarcane growth, pythium root rot, and Pythium arrhenomanes . Phytopathology 88:530535.Google Scholar
Feng, P.C.C., Ryserse, J. S., and Sammons, R. D. 1998. Correlation of leaf damage with uptake and translocation of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Technol. 12:300307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, C. R. and Radke, V. L. 1984. Effects of cultural practices on Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean. Plant Dis. 68:5658.Google Scholar
Haney, R. L., Senseman, S. A., Hons, F. M., and Zuberer, D. A. 2000. Effect of glyphosate on soil microbial activity and biomass. Weed Sci. 48:8993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, J. C. 1997. How a soybean plant develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University SR 53. 20 p.Google Scholar
Holliday, M. J. and Keen, N. T. 1982. The role of phytoalexins in the resistance of soybean leaves to bacteria: effect of glycophosphate on glyceollin accumulation. Phytopathology 72:14701474.Google Scholar
Keen, N. T., Holliday, M. J., and Yoshikawa, M. 1982. Effects of glyphosate on glyceollin production and the expression of resistance to Phytophthora megasperma f.sp. glycinea in soybean. Phytopathology 72:14671470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. S., Sneller, C. H., and Diers, B. W. 1999. Evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot in field environments. Crop Sci. 39:6468.Google Scholar
Kuehl, R. O. 1994. Statistical Principles of Research and Design Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 114116.Google Scholar
Levene, B. C., Owen, M.D.K., and Tylka, G. L. 1998. Response of soybean cyst nematodes and soybeans (Glycine max) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:264270.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35:14511461.Google Scholar
Radke, V. L. and Grau, C. R. 1986. Effects of herbicides on carpogenic germination of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Plant Dis. 79:1923.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541548.Google Scholar