Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:29:06.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metabolic changes, agronomic performance, and quality of seeds in soybean with the pat gene after application of glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2020

Alfredo Junior P. Albrecht ,
Ivana Paula F. S. de Brito ,
Leandro P. Albrecht ,
André Felipe M. Silva Open the ORCID record for André Felipe M. Silva [Opens in a new window] ,
Ana Karollyna A. de Matos ,
Caio Antonio Carbonari  and
Edivaldo D. Velini
Alfredo Junior P. Albrecht
Affiliation:
Professor, Federal University of Paraná, Palotina, Paraná, Brazil
Ivana Paula F. S. de Brito
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, São Paulo State University, School of Agriculture, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
Leandro P. Albrecht
Affiliation:
Professor, Federal University of Paraná, Palotina, Paraná, Brazil
André Felipe M. Silva*
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Crop Science, Palotina, Paraná, Brazil
Ana Karollyna A. de Matos
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, São Paulo State University, School of Agriculture, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
Caio Antonio Carbonari
Affiliation:
Professor, São Paulo State University, School of Agriculture, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
Edivaldo D. Velini
Affiliation:
Professor, São Paulo State University, School of Agriculture, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: André Felipe Moreira Silva, Crop Science, Palotina, Rodovia PR 364, no. 3741, 85950-000, Paraná, Brazil. (Email: afmoreirasilva@hotmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The transgenic Liberty Link® (LL) soybean is tolerant to glufosinate, conferred by the enzyme phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT), which is encoded by the pat gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes. Because symptoms of injury can be observed in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plants in some situations, this study evaluated the effects of rates of glufosinate on agronomic performance; quality of LL soybean seeds; and the ammonia, glufosinate, and N-acetyl-l-glufosinate concentration (NAG) in soybeans with and without the pat gene after application of increasing glufosinate rates. Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted; the first evaluated the selectivity of glufosinate in LL soybeans, and the second evaluated the metabolic changes in soybeans with (LL) and without (RR2) the pat gene, after application of glufosinate. For fieldwork, application of glufosinate at rates up to four times the maximum recommended caused initial injury symptoms (up to 38.5%) in LL soybean plants. However, no negative effect was found on seed quality and agronomic performance of LL plants, including yield. This shows the selectivity of glufosinate promoted by pat gene insertion for application in POST (V4), in LL soybean. For the greenhouse experiment, it was concluded that the LL soybean plants presented high glufosinate metabolism, lower ammonia concentration, and no reduction in dry matter, in comparison with RR2 soybean, after application of high rates of glufosinate.

Keywords

Crop injuryglufosinate-tolerant soybeanglutamine synthetaseN-acetyl-l-glufosinateselectivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 6 , November 2020 , pp. 594 - 604
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Franck E. Dayan, Colorado State University

References

Aulakh, JS, Jhala, AJ (2015) Comparison of glufosinate-based herbicide programs for broad-spectrum weed control in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:419–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avila-Garcia, WV, Mallory-Smith, C (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne) populations also exhibit resistance to glufosinate. Weed Sci 59:305–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avila-Garcia, WV, Sanchez-Olguin, E, Hulting, AG, Mallory-Smith, C (2012) Target-site mutation associated with glufosinate resistance in Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum). Pest Manag Sci 68:1248–1254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, ER, Knezevic, SZ, Sikkema, PH, Lindquist, JL, Jhala, AJ (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. Front Plant Sci 8:1455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, JT, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG (2002) Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:267–273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, IPFS, Marchesi, BB, Silva, IPF, Carbonari, CA, Velini, ED (2017) Variation in the sensitivity of wandering jew plants to glufosinate ammonium. Rev Caatinga 30:595–601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, IPFS, Marchesi, BB, Tropaldi, L, Carbonari, CA, Velini, ED (2018) Sensitivities of Urochloa decumbens plants to glufosinate. Planta Daninha 36:e018174412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunharo, CACG, Christoffoleti, PJ, Nicolai, M (2014) Aspectos do mecanismo de ação do amônio glufosinato: culturas resistentes e resistência de plantas daninhas. Rev Bras Herb 13:163–177 Google Scholar
Carbonari, CA, Latorre, DO, Gomes, GL, Velini, ED, Owens, DK, Pan, Z, Dayan, FE (2016) Resistance to glufosinate is proportional to phosphinothricin acetyltransferase expression and activity in LibertyLink® and WideStrike® cotton. Planta 243:925–933 Google ScholarPubMed
Chahal, PS, Jhala, AJ (2015) Herbicide programs for control of glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:431–443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CTNBio] Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (2010) Technical Report No. 2273.2010. Brasília, Brazil: Ministerio da Ciencia e TecnologiaGoogle Scholar
Dayan, FE, Owens, DK, Corniani, N, Silva, FML, Watson, SB, Howell, JL, Shaner, DL (2015) Biochemical markers and enzyme assays for herbicide mode of action and resistance studies. Weed Sci 63:23–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, DF (2011) Sisvar: a computer statistical analysis system. Cienc Agrotecnol 35:1039–1042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herouet, C, Esdaile, DJ, Mallyon, BA, Debruyne, E, Schulz, A, Currier, T, Hendrickx, K, van der Klis, RJ, Rouan, D (2005) Safety evaluation of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase proteins encoded by the pat and bar sequences that confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicide in transgenic plants. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 41:134–149 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[ISAAA] International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2020) GM Crop Events Approved in Brazil. http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase. Acessed: April 13, 2020Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Sarangi, D, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:32–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krenchinski, FH, Carbonari, CA, Cesco, VJS, Albrecht, AJP, Arcuri, MDLC, Maia, IG, Velini, ED (2018) Glufosinate resistance level is proportional to phosphinothricin acetyltransferase gene expression in glufosinate-resistant maize. J Agric Food Chem 66:12641–12650 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krenchinski, FH, Cesco, VJS, Castro, EB, Carbonari, CA, Velini, ED (2019) Ammonium glufosinate associated with post-emergence herbicides in corn with the cp4-epsps and pat genes. Planta Daninha 37:e019184453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacuesta, M, Muñoz-Rueda, A, Gonzalez-Muruá, C, Sivak, MN (1992) Effect of phosphlnothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence emission by barley leaves illuminated under photorespiratory and non-photorespiratory conditions. J Exp Bot 43:159–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, RL, Stephenson, DO, Woolam, BC (2016) Glufosinate rate and timing for control of glyphosate-resistant rhizomatous johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Int J Agron 2016:8040235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeffler, TM, Tekrony, DM, Egli, DB (1988) The bulk conductivity test as an indicator of soybean seed quality. J Seed Technol 12:37–53 Google Scholar
Marcos Filho, J (2015) Fisiologia de sementes de plantas cultivadas. 2nd ed. Londrina, Brazil: ABRATES.Google Scholar
Manderscheid, R, Schaaf, S, Mattsson, M, Schjoerring, JK (2005) Glufosinate treatment of weeds results in ammonia emission by plants. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:129–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[MAPA] Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília (2009) Regras para análise de sementes. Brazil: MAPA/ACS. 399 pGoogle Scholar
Mitscherlich, EA (1909) Des gesetz des minimums und das gesetz des abnehmended bodenertrages. Landwirsch Jahrb 3:537–552 Google Scholar
Müllner, H, Eckes, P, Donn, G (1993) Engineering crop resistance to the naturally occurring glutamine synthetase inhibitor phosphinothricin. Pages 38–47 in Duke SO, Menn JJ, Plimmer JR, eds. Pest Control with Enhanced Environmental Safety (ACS Symposium Series 524). Washington, DC: American Chemical SocietyGoogle Scholar
Pereira, T, Coelho, CMM, Sobiecki, M, Souza, CA (2015) Physiological quality of soybean seeds depending on the preharvest desiccation. Planta Daninha 33:441–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J, Hurle, K (2001) Influence of climatic conditions and plant physiology on glufosinate-ammonium efficacy. Weed Res 41:31–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel-Gomes, F, Garcia, CH (2002) Estatística aplicada a experimentos agronômicos e florestais: exposição com exemplos e orientações para uso de aplicativos. Piracicaba, Brazil: Fealq. 309 p Google Scholar
Reddy, KN, Zablotowicz, RM, Bellaloui, N, Ding, W (2011) Glufosinate effects on nitrogen nutrition, growth, yield, and seed composition in glufosinate-resistant and glufosinate-sensitive soybean. Int J Agron 2011:109280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, BN, Almeida, FS (2018) Guia de herbicidas. 7th ed. Londrina, Brazil: Ed. Authors. 764 p Google Scholar
Salas-Perez, RA, Saski, CA, Noorai, RE, Srivastava, SK, Lawton-Rauh, AL, Nichols, RL, Burgos, NR (2018) RNA-Seq transcriptome analysis of Amaranthus palmeri with differential tolerance to glufosinate herbicide. PLoS One 13:e0195488 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, H, Wild, A, Rühle, W (1987) The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis II. The causes of inhibition of photosynthesis. Z Naturforsch C 42:270–278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Li, J (2004) Glutamine synthetase activity and ammonium accumulation is influenced by time of glufosinate application. Pestic Biochem Physiol 78:9–20 Google Scholar
Silva, IPF, Carbonari, CA, Velini, ED, Silva Júnior, JF, Tropaldi, L, Gomes, GL (2016) Absorption velocity of glufosinate and its effects on weeds and cotton. Agrociencia 50:239–249 Google Scholar
Takano, HK, Beffa, R, Preston, C, Westra, P, Dayan, FE (2019) Reactive oxygen species trigger the fast action of glufosinate. Planta 249:1837–1849 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsai, CJ, Wang, CS, Wang, CY (2006) Physiological characteristics of glufosinate resistance in rice. Weed Sci 54:634–640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velini, DE, Osipe, R, Gazziero, DLP (1995) Procedimentos para instalação, avaliação e análise de experimentos com herbicidas. Londrina, Brazil: SBCPD. 42 p Google Scholar
Webster, EP, Lanclos, DY, Zhang, W (2003) Influence of glufosinate on seed weight, seed germination, and seedling vigor of glufosinate-resistant rice. Weed Technol 17:51–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendler, C, Barniske, M, Wild, A (1990) Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosynth Res 24:55–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuffo, AM, Santos, MDA, Oliveira, IC, Alves, CZ, Aguilera, JG, Teodoro, PE (2019) Does chemical desiccation and harvest time affect the physiological and sanitary quality of soybean seeds? Rev Caatinga 32:934–942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar