Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:07:53.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantification and Mitigation of Adventitious Presence of Volunteer Flax (Linum usitatissimum) in Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jody E. Dexter ,
Amit J. Jhala ,
Melissa J. Hills ,
Rong-Cai Yang ,
Keith C. Topinka ,
Randall J. Weselake  and
Linda M. Hall
Jody E. Dexter
Affiliation:
Genome Prairie, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada
Amit J. Jhala*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada
Melissa J. Hills
Affiliation:
Grant MacEwan College, P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 2P2, Canada
Rong-Cai Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada
Keith C. Topinka
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada
Randall J. Weselake
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada
Linda M. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Global expansion in the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops has raised concerns about the adventitious presence of GE seeds in non-GE and organic products. Flax is the second most important oilseed crop in western Canada and is currently being evaluated as a potential platform for the production of bio-products. Before transgenic flax is released for commercial production, mitigation measures must be identified to reduce the adventitious presence in subsequent crops. To quantify adventitious presence of volunteer flax in spring wheat and to identify the efficacy of herbicide treatments on mitigating volunteer flax adventitious presence, research was conducted at four locations during 2005 and 2006 in central Alberta. To simulate artificial volunteer populations, flax was seeded prior to wheat at a target population of 150 plants m−2. In the untreated control, volunteer flax seed yield was 135 kg ha−1, which resulted in adventitious presence of 8.57% in spring wheat. When left uncontrolled, volunteer flax reduced wheat yields ∼57% and resulted in volunteer flax seed production of 4,755 seeds m−2. A single PRE treatment of glyphosate or glyphosate plus tribenuron reduced volunteer flax density from 39 to 4 and 6 plants m−2, respectively, seed production from 4,755 to < 58 seeds m−2, and volunteer flax seed viability from 55 to < 40%. POST herbicides, fluroxypyr plus MCPA and fluroxypyr plus 2,4-D, reduced volunteer flax seed production as low as 0.6 and 0.0 seeds m−2, respectively, adventitious presence to 0.64 and 0.03%, respectively, and seed viability to ≤ 10%. Combination of glyphosate applied PRE followed by fluroxypyr plus 2,4-D or by thifensulfuron plus tribenuron plus quinclorac applied POST reduced adventitious presence of volunteer flax in wheat to near 0%. These treatment combinations were also effective for reducing volunteer flax fecundity to 0.0 and 7.1 seeds m−2, respectively, and volunteer flax seed viability to 0 and 5%, respectively. This study demonstrated that with effective mitigation strategies, seed mediated gene flow from GE volunteer flax can be reduced.

Keywords

2,4-DfluroxypyrglyphosateMCPAquincloracthifensulfurontribenuronflax, Linum usitatissimum L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Comminglingmitigationseed mediated gene flowvolunteer flax
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 80 - 88
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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada [AAFC] 2005. Buckwheat/Flaxseed: Situation and Outlook. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/agr/A27-18-20-10E.pdf Accessed: May 20, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous Brook, H. 2008. Crop protection 2008. Pages 344–435. in. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Alberta Agriculture and Food, Canada.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2002. Growing Flax: Production, Management and Diagnostic Guide. 4th ed. Winnipeg, MB, Canada Flax Council of Canada and Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission. 59.Google Scholar
Azlin, W. R. and McWhorter, C. G. 1981. Preharvest effects of applying glyphosate to soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:123–127.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., Hall, L. M., Warwick, S. I., Légère, A., Sikkema, P. H., Clayton, G. W., Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., Seguin-Swartz, G., and Simard, M-J. 2006. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1243–1264.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and Owen, M. D. K. 2007. Herbicide-resistant crops as weeds in North America. CAB Rev.: Perspect. Agric., Vet. Sci., Nutr. Nat. Resour. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bloedon, L. T. and Szapary, P. O. 2004. Flaxseed and cardiovascular risk. Nutr. Rev. 62:18–27.Google Scholar
Brook, H. 2007. Crop Protection 2008. Edmonton, Canada Alberta Agriculture and Food. 539.Google Scholar
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. 2008. Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum. 11:21–38.Google Scholar
Canadian Grain Commission 2008. Canadian Grain Exports (2007–2008). http://grainscanada.gc.ca/statistics-statistiques/ecgwf-egcfb/2008/exports08-10-e.pdf Accessed: May 4, 2009.Google Scholar
Cathey, G. W. and Barry, H. R. 1997. Evaluation of glyphosate as a harvest-aid chemical on cotton. Agron. J. 69:11–14.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 2003. Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. Off. J. Eur. Comm. L268:1–23.Google Scholar
Demeke, T., Perry, D. J., and Scowcroft, W. R. 2006. Adventitious presence of GEOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1–23.Google Scholar
Demont, M., Daems, W., Dillen, K., Mathijs, E., Sausse, C., and Tollens, E. 2008. Regulating coexistence in Europe: beware of the domino-effect. Ecol. Econ. 64:683–689.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. and Wall, D. A. 1996. Flax (Linum usitatissimum) response to thifensulfuron mixtures with sethoxydim plus broadleaf weed herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:965–973.Google Scholar
Devos, Y., Demont, M., and Sanvido, O. 2009. Coexistence of genetically modified (GE) and non-GE crops in the European Union. A review. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 29:11–30.Google Scholar
Devos, Y., Reheul, D., and de Schrijver, A. 2005. The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4:71–87.Google Scholar
Devos, Y., Reheul, D., de Schrijver, A., Cors, F., and Moens, W. 2004. Management of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: A case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3:135–148.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, K. 2007. Innovation in western Canadian functional food. Cereal Foods World. 52:289–290.Google Scholar
Gaines, T., Preston, C., Byrne, P., Henry, W. B., and Westra, P. 2007. Adventitious presence of herbicide resistant wheat in certified and farm-saved seed lots. Crop Sci. 47:751–754.Google Scholar
Gruber, S., Colbach, N., Barbottin, A., and Pekrun, C. 2008. Post-harvest gene escape and approaches for minimizing it. CAB Rev.: Perspect. Agric., Vet. Sci., Nutr. Nat. Resour. 3:1–17.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Beckie, H. J. 2007. Weed management with herbicide resistant crops in western Canada. Pages 15–31. in Gulden, R. H. and Swanton, C. J. The First Decade of Herbicide Resistance Crops in Canada. Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Quebec Canadian Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
James, C. 2008. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GE Crops: 2008. ISSSA Brief no. 39. Ithaca, NY ISAAA. 20.Google Scholar
Kershen, D. L. and McHughen, A. 2005. Adventitious presence: inadvertent commingling and coexistence among farming methods. CAST Commentary QTA 2005 1:1–4.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., Brenzil, C. A., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Prairie Weed Surveys of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops from the 1970s to the 2000s. Saskatoon, SK, Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Series Publication. 395.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. and Zapiola, M. 2008. Gene flow from glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manage. Sci. 64:428–440.Google Scholar
McHughen, A., Rowland, G. G., Holm, F. A., Bhatty, R. S., and Kenaschuk, E. O. 1997. CDC triffid transgenic flax. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77:641–643.Google Scholar
Moryganov, A. P., Galashina, V. N., Dymnikova, N. S., Stokozenko, V. G., and Danilov, A. R. 2008. Modification of flax fibers. Fiber Chemistry. 40:234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, S. and McHughen, A. 2008. Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: The case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol. 6:213–225.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada 2007. Cereals and Oilseeds Review. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/22-007-XIB/22-007-XIB2007008.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2007.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. and Smith, M. J. 1999. Control of volunteer flax in spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Beckie, H. J., and Hall, L. M. 2009. Gene flow, invasiveness and ecological impact of genetically modified crops. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1168:72–99.Google Scholar