Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:08:34.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Glyphosate Application Timing and Rate on Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Fecundity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walter E. Thomas ,
Wendy A. Pline-Srnić ,
Ryan P. Viator  and
John W. Wilcut
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wendy A. Pline-Srnić
Affiliation:
Syngenta, Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42GEY, U.K.
Ryan P. Viator
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse experiments were conducted to examine the effect of glyphosate on reproductive development in sicklepod. Glyphosate was applied postemergence over the top at 112 and 280 g ai/ha to sicklepod at 4-leaf stage (L), 8-L, 4-L followed by 8-L, and 12-L. A nontreated control was included. Immediately after the 12-L application, number of flowers was recorded for all treatments twice per week for 8 wk. Pollen viability was measured on 1 open flower/plant/sampling time using Alexander stain. The number of pods, pod length, seeds per plant, 50-seed weight, total seed weight, seed germination, seed viability, and dry weight of aboveground biomass were also recorded. No significant differences among the treatments were found for average pod length, 50-seed weight, seed germination, seed viability, and aboveground biomass. The nontreated had 18 flowers counted over 8 wk. Glyphosate applied at 12-L and sequentially at 4-L and 8-L, averaged over glyphosate rates, reduced cumulative flower production after 8 wk by 65 and 54%, respectively, compared with the nontreated. Similarly, glyphosate at 280 g/ha, averaged over treatment timings, reduced flower production by 58% compared with the nontreated. Because the number of flowers produced was limited by glyphosate treatment due to flower abscission, pollen viability measurements could not be analyzed because of large numbers of missing data points. The number of pods, seeds, and total seed weight were reduced by 79, 80, and 81%, respectively, with 280 g/ha of glyphosate compared with the nontreated.

Keywords

Glyphosatesicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBAlexander stainpollen viabilitytetrazolium chloridefb, followed byIAA, indoleacetic acidL, leaf stage
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 55 - 61
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

Alexander, M. P. 1969. Differential staining of aborted and nonaborted pollen. Stain Technol 44:117–122.Google Scholar
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
Barrapour, M. T. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Effect of tillage and interference on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) population, seed production, and seed bank. Weed Sci. 46:424–431.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. 2000a. Effect of preharvest desiccants on weed seed production and viability. Weed Technol. 14:530–538.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. 2000b. Effect of preharvest desiccants on Group IV Glycine max seed viability. Weed Sci. 48:426–430.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. 1990. The shikimate pathway: a metabolic tree with many branches. in Fasman, G. D., ed. Critical Reviews of Biochemisty and Molecular Biology. Volume 25. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 307–384.Google Scholar
Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide application. Weed Sci. 34:256–259.Google Scholar
Blackburn, L. G. and Boutin, C. 2003. Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically modified crops: a case study with glyphosate (Roundup). Ecotoxicology 12:271–285.Google Scholar
Bozsa, R. C., Oliver, L. R., and Driver, T. L. 1989. Intraspecific and interspecific sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference. Weed Sci. 37:670–673.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping systems on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed in the soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Bridges, D. C. 1989. Weed facts: sicklepod. in Cooperative Extension Service University of Georgia College of Agriculture Bull. 1010. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Office. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Influence of environmental factors on after-ripened crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium) seed germination. Weed Sci. 51:342–347.Google Scholar
Clay, P. A. and Griffin, J. L. 2000. Weed seed production and seedling emergence responses to late-season glyphosate applications. Weed Sci. 48:481–486.Google Scholar
Creager, R. A. 1992. Seed germination, physical and chemical control of catclaw mimosa. Weed Technol. 6:884–891.Google Scholar
Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16:396–400.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1988. Glyphosate. in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 1–70.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1978. Longevity of seed after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried seed study. Weed Sci. 31:264–270.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587–592.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of 2,4-D and dalapon on weed seed production and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide. I. Tomato. HortScience 36:669–673.Google Scholar
Gruys, K. J. and Sikorski, J. A. 1999. Inhibitors of tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine biosynthesis as herbicides. in Singh, B. K., ed. Plant Amino Acids. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 357–384.Google Scholar
Irwin, H. S. and Turner, B. L. 1960. Chromosomal relationships and taxonomic considerations in the genus Cassia . Am. J. Bot 47:309–318.Google Scholar
Isaacs, M. A., Murdock, E. C., Toler, J. E., and Wallace, S. U. 1989. Effects of late-season herbicide applications on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed production and viability. Weed Sci. 37:761–765.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Kearns, C. A. and Inouye, D. W. 1993. Pollen. in Techniques for Pollination Biologists. Niwot, CO: University of Colorado Press. Pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
Maun, M. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1969. Effects of 2,4-D on seed production and embryo development of curly dock. Weed Sci. 17:761–765.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 41:574–582.Google Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Association of Official Seed Analysts Tetrazoleum Testing Handbook Contribution 29. 1st Revision. Lincoln, NB: Association of Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. S. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci 42:2193–2200.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. 2003. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by gibberillic acid (GA(3)). Weed Sci. 15:19–27.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant Gossypium hirsutum as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506–512.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992a. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6:985–989.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992b. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on soybean (Glycine max) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6:339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanowski, R. R. 1980. Simulated drift studies with herbicides on field-grown tomato. HortScience 15:793–794.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res 20:195–200.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. P. 1028.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. E. and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum). Weed Sci. 28:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senseman, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Flowering patterns, seed production, and somatic polymorphism of three weed species. Weed Sci. 41:418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siehl, D. L. 1997. Inhibitors of EPSP synthase, glutamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS. Pp. 37–67.Google Scholar
Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. 1998. Auxins. in Plant Physiology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Pp. 543–584.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) seed production and viability as influenced by late-season postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 45:497–501.Google Scholar
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis): geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28:68–70.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Pline-Srnic, W. A., Thomas, J. F., Wells, R., Edmisten, K. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Glyphosate negatively affects pollen viability but not pollination and seed set in glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Sci. 52:725–734.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Senseman, S. A., and Cothren, J. T. 2003. Boll abscission responses of glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 17:571–575.Google Scholar
Wallace, A., Lancaster, R. A., and Hill, N. L. 1998. Application of non-selective herbicides during flowering of pasture legumes can reduce seed yield and alter seed characteristics. Aust. J. Expt. Agric 38:583–594.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–259.Google Scholar