Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:00:45.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Varietal Tolerance of Peach (Prunus persica) Seedlings to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. B. Marriage  and
S. U. Khan
P. B. Marriage
Affiliation:
Res. Stn., Res. Branch, Agric. Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada, NOR 1GO
S. U. Khan
Affiliation:
Chem. Biol. Res. Inst., Res. Branch, Agric. Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The translocation and effects of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] were determined in greenhouse-grown peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] seedlings obtained from different seed parents. Two lower branches of 10-week-old seedlings of Rutgers Red Leaf, Bailey, Kalamazoo, Siberian C, and Harrow Blood were sprayed with 0.9 to 18 mg of glyphosate per plant. Seedlings of Harrow Blood, Bailey, and Kalamazoo were more susceptible to injury than were those of Siberian C and Rutgers Red Leaf. Glyphosate at 6, 9, and 18 mg produced necrotic areas on the stems of the former seedlings and at the higher rates tree death resulted. The Siberian C and Rutgers Red Leaf seedlings showed only chlorosis and malformation of apical leaves although slight stem injury occurred 1 month after treatment. Measurements of plant weight, height, and stem diameter indicated that seedlings of Harrow Blood, Bailey, and Kalamazoo tolerated only 3 mg of glyphosate without growth reduction. This was one-half and one-third of the amount which seedlings of Siberian C and Rutgers Red Leaf tolerated, respectively. The concentration of glyphosate in the treated lower branches and the main stem of the seedlings was determined by thin-layer chromatography. The concentrations in the bark were generally similar among all seedlings. Differential tolerance, therefore, was not based on differences in overall glyphosate concentration in tissues but on protective or resistance mechanisms present only in seedlings of Siberian C and Rutgers Red Leaf.

Keywords

Absorptiontranslocationchromatographyphytotoxicity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , July 1978 , pp. 374 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the 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

1. Bailey, J. A. and Davison, J. G. 1974. The response to glyphosate of Cirsium arvense, Heracleum sphondylium, Hypericum perforatum, Polygonum amphibium, Rumex obtusifolius and Urtica dioica in orchards. Proc. Brit. Weed Conf. 12:655–662.Google Scholar
2. Baird, D. D., Shaulis, N. J., and Waywell, C. G. 1974. Glyphosate for herbaceous perennial weed control in northeastern apple orchards and vineyards. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:205–212.Google Scholar
3. Gay, D. V. 1972. Response of various fruit crops to glyphosate. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 11:451–457.Google Scholar
4. Curtis, O. F. Jr. 1974. Apple response to local application of glyphosate on foliage or pruning wounds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:219.Google Scholar
5. Gottrup, O., O'Sullivan, P. A., Schraa, R. J., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1976. Uptake, translocation, metabolism and selectivity of glyphosate in Canada thistle and leafy spurge. Weed Res. 16:197–201.Google Scholar
6. Haderlie, L. C. 1976. Biochemical action and physiological characteristics of the herbicide glyphosate. Diss. Abstr. Int. B. 36:4253.Google Scholar
7. Jeffery, L. S., Connell, J. T., and Graves, C. R. 1973. Tolerance of soybean cultivars to glyphosate applied at various stages of growth. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:36–42.Google Scholar
8. Lange, A. H., Fischer, B. B., Elmore, C. L., Kempen, H. M., and Schlesselman, J. 1975. Roundup–the end of perennial weeds in tree and vine crops? Calif. Agric. 19:6–7.Google Scholar
9. Lord, W. J., Murphy, M. L., and Greene, D. W. 1975. Glyphosate phytotoxicity to clonal apple rootstocks and ‘McIntosh’ apple trees. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:319–323.Google Scholar
10. Marriage, P. B. 1975. Effect of simazine and glyphosate on newly-planted peach, apricot, and pear trees. Res. Rep., Can. Weed Comm., East. Sect. 20:231–232.Google Scholar
11. Putnam, A. R. 1976. Response of deciduous fruit trees to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 24:425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Rom, R. C. 1975. Field evaluation of herbicides in tree fruits, 1974. Arkansas, Agric. Exp. Stn., Mimeogr. Ser. 232. 22 pp.Google Scholar
13. Saidak, W. J. 1972. Tolerance of peach seedlings to MON 2139. Res. Rep., Can. Weed Comm., East Sect. 17:137.Google Scholar
14. Saidak, W. J. and Marriage, P. B. 1976. Response of Canada thistle varieties to amitrole and glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:211–214.Google Scholar
15. Seddon, J. C. 1974. Field performance of the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate for the control of Agropyron repens and other weeds in top fruit orchards. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 12:595–602.Google Scholar
16. Spurrier, E. C. 1973. Glyphosate–a new broad-spectrum herbicide. PANS Pestic. Artic. News Summ. 19:607–612.Google Scholar
17. Stott, K. G., Harper, C. W., Jefferies, C. J., and Belcher, A. 1974. Glyphosate. Long Ashton Agric. and Hortic. Res. Stn. Report 1974:30–31.Google Scholar
18. Wyrill, J. B. III and Burnside, O. C. 1976. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Sci. 24:557–566.Google Scholar
19. Young, J. C. 1976. Detection and determination of N-nitrosamines by thin-layer chromatography using fluorescamine. J. Chromatogr. 124:17–28.Google Scholar
20. Young, J. C., Khan, S. U., and Marriage, P. B. 1977. Fluorescence detection and determination of glyphosate via its N-nitroso derivative by thin-layer chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25:918–922.Google Scholar