Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:18:06.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dicamba translocation in soybean and accumulation in seed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2020

Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro Open the ORCID record for Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro [Opens in a new window] ,
Jason K. Norsworthy Open the ORCID record for Jason K. Norsworthy [Opens in a new window]  and
Chad B. Brabham Open the ORCID record for Chad B. Brabham [Opens in a new window]
Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Distinguished Professor, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Chad B. Brabham
Affiliation:
Former Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR72704. (Email: mzaccaro@uark.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dicamba-resistant cropping system was developed to be used as a tool to control multiple-resistant weed species, particularly Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson). However, dicamba applications have resulted in off-target movement of the herbicide to susceptible neighboring vegetation, with frequent damage to non–dicamba resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Pod malformation and subsequent auxin-like injury to progeny is common when parent soybean plants are exposed to the herbicide post-flowering. Yet no publication to date has conveyed the presence of dicamba in seed. The objective of this study was to determine whether dicamba exists and at what quantities inside soybean seed following a low-dose exposure in the pod-filling stage using radiolabeled herbicide as a tracer. Non–dicamba resistant soybean plants were grown in the greenhouse until the pod-filling growth stage and then treated with 2.8 g ae ha−1 of dicamba (1/200 of the recommended rate of 560 g ae ha−1). Immediately afterward, [14C]dicamba (approximately 6.4 kBq per plant) was applied to the adaxial surface of one trifoliate leaf located in the midportion of each plant. The greatest amount of [14C]dicamba recovered was in seeds and in pods, and these plant parts accumulated 44% and 38% of the total absorbed, respectively. Chromatography results showed that the totality of the [14C]dicamba present in the soybean seeds was in the phytotoxic form, except for a single sample, in which one metabolite was detected (possibly 5-hydroxy dicamba). Precautions should be taken to avoid dicamba exposure to sensitive soybean fields, especially those dedicated to seed production, as this may result in low seed quality and symptomology on progeny plants.

Keywords

14Cabsorptionmetabolism
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 333 - 339
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: Vijay Nandula, USDA–ARS

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
Anonymous (2018) Banvel® herbicide label. Arysta Publication No. AD091109. Cary, NC: Arysta LifeScience. 29 pGoogle Scholar
Ashton, FM, Crafts, AS (1981) Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience. 525 pGoogle Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. Pages 406–408in Wisconsin Crop Management Conference: 2004 Proceedings Papers. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–MadisonGoogle Scholar
Bradley, KW (2017) How to proceed in 2018: a university perspective. Page 246in Kruger, G, ed. Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St. Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, NA, Montgomery, ML, Freed, VH (1966) Metabolism of 2-methoxy-3,6-dichlorobenzoic acid (dicamba) by wheat and bluegrass plants. J Agric Food Chem 14:585–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F, Born, W (1971a) Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci 19:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F, Born, W (1971b) Translocation and metabolism of dicamba in tartary buckwheat. Weed Sci 19:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranston, HJ, Kern, AJ, Hackett, JL, Miller, EK, Maxwell, BD, Dyer, WE (2001) Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Sci 49:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, MD, Duke, SO, Fedtke, C (1993) Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp 295–309Google Scholar
Dowell, T (2017) Dicamba Update (Part I). Texas Agriculture Law Blog. https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2017/11/13/dicamba-update. Accessed: February 4, 2018Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Dayan, FE (2011) Plant Systems: Bioactivity of Herbicides. Pages 23–35in Moo-Young, M, ed. Comprehensive Biotechnology. 2nd ed. Volume 4, Agriculture and Related Technologies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority (2013) Reasoned opinion on the modification of the MRL for dicamba in genetically modified soybean. EFSA Journal 11:3440Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stages of Soybean Development. Special Report 80. Ames: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K, Caspar, G, Kwiatkowski, J, Bowe, SJ (2002) On the mechanism of selectivity of the corn herbicide BAS 662H: A combination of the novel auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr and the auxin herbicide dicamba. Pest Manag Sci 58:1002–1014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hager, A (2017) Observations of Midwest weed extension scientists. Page 240in Kruger, G, ed. Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St. Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, B (2017) Off-target dicamba injury: the Iowa experience. Integrated Crop Management News 2439. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cropnews/2439. Accessed: August 12, 2019Google Scholar
Jones, GT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2019a) Response of soybean offspring to a dicamba drift event the previous year. Weed Technol 33:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, GT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Gbur, E, Kruger, GR (2019b) Effect of low doses of dicamba alone and in combination with glyphosate on parent soybean and offspring. Weed Technol 33:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Soybean response to dicamba: a meta-analysis. Weed Technol 32:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCown, S, Barber, T, Norsworthy, JK (2018) Response of non-dicamba-resistant soybean to dicamba as influenced by growth stage and herbicide rate. Weed Technol 32:513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, RM, Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Steckel, LE, York, AC, Braxton, LB, Ford, JC (2013) Weed response to 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba applied alone or with glufosinate. J Cotton Sci 17:212–218Google Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT, Spaunhorst, DJ, Butts, TR (2015) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 29:716–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Vencill, WK (2015) Herbicide absorption and translocation in plants using radioisotopes. Weed Sci 63:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, QT, Kisiala, A, Andreas, P, Neil Emery, RJ, Narine, S (2016) Soybean seed development: Fatty acid and phytohormone metabolism and their interactions. Curr Genomics 17:241–260CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, PJ, Haderlie, LC, Hoefer, RH, McAllister, RS (1985) Dicamba absorption and translocation as influenced by formulation and surfactant. Weed Sci 33:717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, SB, inventor; Vesicol Chemical Company, assignee (1958) 2-Methoxy-3,5-dichlorobenzoates. US patent 3,013,054Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, JA (1976) Relationship of selectivity to uptake and movement. Pages 303–312in Audus, LJ, ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Ecology. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2018) JMP® 14 Basic Analysis. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 418 pGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate combinations on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Technol 27:675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L, Egli, DB (1973) Evaluation of seedling progeny of soybeans treated with 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba. Weed Sci 21:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardlaw, IF (1990) Tansley Review No. 27: The control of carbon partitioning in plants. New Phytol 116:341–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, J, Triplett, G Jr, Sobotka, F (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar