Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:43:17.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inhibition of wheat growth planted after glyphosate application to weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2020

Se Ji Jang ,
Carol Mallory-Smith  and
Yong In Kuk Open the ORCID record for Yong In Kuk [Opens in a new window]
Se Ji Jang
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Oriental Medicine Resources, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Republic of Korea
Carol Mallory-Smith
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Yong In Kuk*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Oriental Medicine Resources, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Republic of Korea
*
Author for correspondence: Yong In Kuk, Department of Oriental Medicine Resources, 255 Jungangno, Suncheon, Jeonnam557922, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate is easily translocated from shoots to roots and released into the rhizosphere. The objective of this study was to clarify the influence of glyphosate residues in the root tissue of glyphosate-treated weeds on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth and shikimate accumulation. Foliar application to 5-leaf downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) planted in sandy loam soil reduced wheat (‘Tubbs 06’) shoot fresh weight by 37% to 46% compared with the control when seeds were planted 0 and 1 d after applications. With Italian ryegrass [Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot], wheat shoot fresh weight was inhibited by 20% to 34% compared with the control at 0, 1, 3, and 5 d after applications to 1.5- and 5-leaf-stage plants. Using a different wheat cultivar (‘Stephens’), shoot fresh weight was inhibited by 19% to 43% when seeds were planted 0 d after glyphosate applications to 1.5-, 2-, and 5-leaf-stage B. tectorum and L. perenne planted in sandy loam soil compared with control. In contrast, some studies using treated L. perenne and B. tectorum planted in clay loam soil resulted in increases in wheat shoot fresh weight. Lolium perenne planted in water-saturated sandy loam soil showed no differences in either shoot or root fresh weight or shikimate accumulation in shoots or roots. Compared with the control plants, shikimate accumulation in roots increased 51- to 59-fold in wheat planted in sandy loam soil that previously contained B. tectorum and 13- to 49-fold in soil that previously contained L. perenne. In both studies, glyphosate was applied at the 1.5-leaf stage, and wheat seeds were sown 0, 1, and 3 d after glyphosate applications. Thus, plant damage caused by glyphosate was associated with increased shikimate accumulation in the root tissue. Overall, crop damage caused by glyphosate residue to target plants was strongly influenced by soil type, soil water conditions, glyphosate sensitivity, target weed species identity, and weed densities.

Keywords

Downy bromeLolium perenneshikimate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 373 - 381
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Franck E. Dayan, Colorado State University

References

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN (2016) Wheat, field pea, and canola response to glyphosate and AMPA soil residues. Weed Technol 30:985–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borggaard, OK, Gimsing, AL (2008) Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: a review. Pest Manag Sci 64:441–456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bott, S, Tesfamariam, T, Kania, A, Eman, B, Aslan, N, Römheld, V, Neumann, G (2011) Phytotoxicity of glyphosate soil residues re-mobilised by phosphate fertilisation. Plant Soil 342:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candela, L, Caballero, J, Ronen, D (2010) Glyphosate transport through weathered granite soils under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions—Barcelona, Spain. Sci Total Environ 408:2509–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, PS (1992) Glyphosate residues in a sandy soil affect tomato transplants. Aust J Exp Agric 32:395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doublet, J, Mamy, L, Barriuso, E (2009) Delayed degradation in soil of foliar herbicides glyphosate and sulcotrione previously absorbed by plants: consequences on herbicide fate and risk assessment. Chemosphere 77:582–589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edivaldo, DV, Alves, E, Godoy, MC, Meschede, DK, Souza, RT, Duke, SO (2008) Glyphosate applied at low doses can stimulate plant growth. Pest Manag Sci 64:489–496Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, PCC, Pratley, JE, Bohn, JA (1999) Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum. II. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci 47:412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, JE, Mao, KK, Sikorski, JA (1997) Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society Monograph 189. 653 pGoogle Scholar
Giesy, JP, Dobson, S, Solomon, KR (2000) Ecotoxicogical risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 167:35–120Google Scholar
Henry, WB, Shaner, DL, West, MS (2007) Shikimate accumulation in sunflower, wheat, and proso millet after glyphosate application. Weed Sci 55:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, AG, Wauchope, RD, Herner, A (1996) Pesticide Properties in the Environment. New York: Springer-Verlag. 227 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, P, Rämö, S, Siimes, K (2007) Glyphosate translocation from plants to soil—does this constitute a significant proportion of residues in soil? Plant Soil 300:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, G, Kohls, S, Landsberg, E, Stock-Oliveira Souza, K, Yamada, T, Römheld, V (2006) Relevance of glyphosate transfer to non-target plants via the rhizosphere. J Plant Dis Prot 20:963–969Google Scholar
Piccolo, A, Celano, G, Pietramellara, G (1992) Adsorption of the herbicide glyphosate on a metal-humic acid complex. Sci Total Environ 123:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, WA, Wilcut, JW, Duke, SO, Edmisten, KL, Wells, R (2002) Tolerance and accumulation of shikimate in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Agric Food Chem 50:506–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Rimando, AM, Duke, SO (2004) Aminomethylphosphonic acid, a metabolite of glyphosate, causes injury in glyphosate-treated, glyphosate-resistant soybean. J Agric Food Chem 52:5139–5143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, BJ, Shaner, DL (1998) Rapid determination of glyphosate injury to plants and identification of glyphosate-resistant plants. Weed Technol 12:527–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprankle, P, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1975a) Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci 23:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprankle, P, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1975b) Adsorption, mobility and microbial degradation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci 23:229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System Institute (2000) SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 7. Electronic version. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System InstituteGoogle Scholar
Tesfamariam, T, Bott, S, Cakmak, I, Römheld, V, Neumann, G (2009) Glyphosate in the rhizosphere-role of waiting times and different glyphosate binding forms in soils for phytotoxicity to non-target plants. Eur J Agron 31:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar