Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:49:35.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phytotoxic Effects of Glyphosate on Pepper (Capsicum annuum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James P. Gilreath*
Affiliation:
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 5007 60th Street E., University of Florida, Bradenton, FL 34203-9324
Carlene A. Chase
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, P.O. Box 110690, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Salvadore J. Locascio
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, P.O. Box 110690, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Glyphosate was applied to pepper as single or sequential applications to assess the consequences of drift or other accidental exposures. Foliar injury increased and plant vigor declined with increased rates of glyphosate and were exacerbated by a second application. Single applications at flowering (stage 1) were more damaging than single applications after fruit set (stage 2). Decline in marketable yield with increased glyphosate rate was greater with stage 1 applications, except in spring 1987 when marketable yields with single applications of glyphosate at stage 1 or stage 2 were statistically similar. Sequential applications resulted in the lowest marketable yields. Total yields declined with increased glyphosate rate and decline was more pronounced with sequential applications than with single applications. Total yield was affected to a greater extent when glyphosate was applied at stage 1 than at stage 2. Yield was more sensitive to two successive exposures than to single applications. Mean fruit weight was reduced by glyphosate in two of the four experiments.

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

Cornish, P. S. 1992. Glyphosate residues in a sandy soil affect tomato transplants. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 32: 395399.Google Scholar
Eberbach, P. L. and Douglas, L. A. 1983. Persistence of glyphosate in a sandy loam. Soil Biol. Biochem. 15: 485487.Google Scholar
Lutman, P.J.W. and Richardson, W. G. 1978. The activity of glyphosate and aminotriazole against volunteer potato plants and their daughter tubers. Weed Res. 18: 6570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiunas, J. B. and Weller, S. C. 1988. Glyphosate activity in potato (Solanum tuberosum) under different temperature regimes. Weed Sci. 36: 137140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46: 604607.Google Scholar
Romanowski, R. R. 1980. Simulated drift studies with herbicides on field-grown tomato. HortScience 15: 793794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, V. M. 1990. Reaction of tomato cultivars to a sublethal dose of glyphosate. HortScience 25:1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc. 1,028 p.Google Scholar
Semidey, N. and Almodóver, L. 1987. Glyphosate on tomato and sweet pepper yields. J. Agric. Univ. P. R. 71: 235237.Google Scholar
Smid, D. and Hiller, L. K. 1981. Phytotoxicity and translocation of glyphosate in the potato (Solanum tuberosum) prior to tuber initiation. Weed Sci. 29: 218223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press, pp. 274297.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. Exp. Agric. 38: 583594.Google Scholar