Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:28:07.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in Weed Tolerance to Glyphosate Involve Different Mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Nilda R. Burgos  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Nilda R. Burgos*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nburgos@uark.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cause of differential susceptibility of barnyardgrass, hemp sesbania, pitted morningglory, and prickly sida to glyphosate was examined by measuring the absorption of 14C-glyphosate, quantifying the amount of epicuticular wax, and observing the wettability of leaf surfaces. In greenhouse experiments, the biomass of barnyardgrass and prickly sida was reduced by 95% by Roundup Ultra®. Hemp sesbania and pitted morningglory showed more tolerance, with 66 and 51% average biomass reduction, respectively. Absorption of 14C-glyphosate in a controlled environment did not follow the trend in species susceptibility with barnyardgrass, 30%; prickly sida, 18%; hemp sesbania, 52%; and pitted morningglory, 6%; absorption. The high tolerance of pitted morningglory to glyphosate can be attributed mostly to limited absorption, but the tolerance of hemp sesbania is due to other mechanisms. The addition of nonionic surfactant (NIS) to a low rate of Roundup Ultra® reduced absorption of 14C-glyphosate by barnyardgrass and hemp sesbania, but had no effect on the herbicidal activity. Glyphosate absorption in the four weed species was not correlated with quantity of chloroform-extracted wax or leaf wettability. Pitted morningglory and prickly sida, which contained the least leaf wax, also had smaller contact angles or higher leaf wettability than the species with more waxy leaves. The adjuvant in Roundup Ultra® reduced contact angles of the four species compared to contact angles obtained using deionized water alone. The addition of 0.25% v/v NIS alone to water reduced contact angles more than did the adjuvant in Roundup Ultra® solution.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rydb. ex A. W. Hill # SEBEXpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPDroplet contact angle, epicuticular wax, 14C-glyphosate, glyphosate absorption, glyphosate uptakeCMC, critical micelle concentrationDAT, days after treatmentEPSPS, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthaseHAT, hours after treatmentNIS, nonionic surfactant
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 725 - 731
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.)

Footnotes

Current address of senior author: Department of Crop and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Edisto Research and Education Center, 64 Research Road, Blackville, SC 29817

References

Literature Cited

Boerboom, C. M. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Influence of glyphosate concentration on glyphosate absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 36: 291–295.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 19–29.Google Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32: 472–476.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W. D. 2000. Genetically engineered crops for pest management in US Agriculture. Econ. Res. Servive. USDA. Agric. Econ. Rep. #786 (AER-786). April 2000. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/) Google Scholar
Fogg, G. E. 1947. Quantitative studies on the wetting of leaves by water. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 134: 503–522.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E. 1985. Discovery, development and chemistry of glyphosate. In Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. London: Butterworth. pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
Gottrup, O., O'Sullivan, P. A., Schraa, R. J., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1976. Uptake, translocation, metabolism and selectivity of glyphosate in Canada thistle and leafy spurge. Weed Res. 16: 197–201.Google Scholar
Haderlie, L. C., Widholm, J. M., and Slife, F. W. 1977. Effect of glyphosate on carrot and tobacco cells. Plant Physiol. 60: 40–43.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Univ. Calif. Agric. Res. Stn. Circ. 347: 1–39.Google Scholar
Marshall, G., Kirkwood, R. C., and Martin, D. J. 1987. Studies on the mode of action of asulam, aminotriazole, and glyphosate in field horsetail (Equisetum arvensi L.). II. The metabolism of [14C]asulam, [14C]aminotriazole, and [14C]glyphosate. Pestic. Sci. 18: 65–77.Google Scholar
Mayeux, H. S. Jr., Jordan, W. R., Meyer, R. E., and Meola, S. M. 1981. Epicuticular wax on goldenweed (Isocoma spp.) leaves: variation with species and season. Weed Sci. 29: 389–393.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., Paul, R. N., and Barrentine, W. L. 1990. Morphology, development, and recrystalization of epicuticular waxes of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 38: 22–33.Google Scholar
Mysels, K. J. 1969. Contribution of micelles to the transport of water-insoluble substance through a membrane. In Pesticide Formulation Research. Advances in Chemistry Series 86. Van Valkenburg, W., ed. Washington, DC: Am. Chem. Soc. pp. 24–38.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14: 413–422.Google Scholar
Riechers, D. E., Wax, L. M., Liebl, R. A., and Bush, D. R. 1994. Surfactant-increased glyphosate uptake into plasma membrane vesicles isolated from common lambsquarters leaves. Plant Physiol. 105: 1,419–1,425.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986a. Absorption and translocation of MON 0818 adjuvant in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34: 817–823.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986b. Effects of adjuvants and environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and translocation in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34: 811–816.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46: 652–660.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. 1996. Effect of rate and application timing of glyphosate to control sicklepod and other problem weeds of the Mississippi Delta. M.S. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 116 p.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H. and Weller, S. C. 1997. Cellular mechanisms influence differential glyphosate sensitivity in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45: 2–11.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H., Yerkes, C. N., DeGennaro, F. P., and Weller, S. C. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45: 658–663.Google Scholar
Wyrill, J. B. III and Burnside, O. C. 1976. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Sci. 24: 557–566.Google Scholar