Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:29:18.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wendy A. Pline ,
Andrew J. Price ,
John W. Wilcut ,
Keith L. Edmisten  and
Randy Wells
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Randy Wells
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of herbicide placement and plant growth stage on the absorption and translocation patterns of 14C-glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton was investigated. Plants at four growth stages were treated with 14C-glyphosate on a 5-cm2 section of the stem, which simulated a postemergence-directed spray (PDS) application, or on the newest mature leaf, which simulated a postemergence (POST) application. Plants were harvested 3 and 7 d after treatment and divided into the treated leaf or treated stem, mature leaves, immature leaves and buds, stems, roots, fruiting branches (including the foliage on the fruiting branch), squares, and bolls. The PDS versus POST application main effect on absorption was significant. Absorption of 14C-glyphosate applied to stem tissue was higher in PDS applications than in POST applications. Plants receiving PDS applications absorbed 35% of applied 14C-glyphosate, whereas those receiving POST applications absorbed 26%, averaged over growth stages at application. Absorption increased from the four-leaf growth stage to the eight-leaf stage in POST applications but reached a plateau at the eight-leaf stage. Plants with PDS applications showed an increase in absorption from the four- to eight- to twelve-leaf stages and reached a plateau at the 12-leaf stage. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate to roots was greater at all growth stages with PDS treatments than with POST treatments. Herbicide placement did not affect translocation of 14C-glyphosate to squares and bolls. Squares and bolls retained 0.2 to 3.7% of applied 14C-glyphosate, depending on growth stage. Separate studies were conducted to investigate the fate of foliar-applied 14C-glyphosate at the four- or eight-leaf growth stages when harvested at 8- or 10-leaf, 12-leaf, midbloom (8 to 10 nodes above white bloom), and cutout (five nodes above white bloom, physiological maturity) stages. Thirty to 37% of applied 14C-glyphosate remained in the plant at cutout in four- and eight-leaf treatment stages, respectively. The concentration of 14C-glyphosate in tissue (Bq g−1 dry weight basis) was greatest in mature leaves and immature leaves and buds in plants treated at the four-leaf stage. Plants treated at the eight-leaf stage and harvested at all growth stages except cutout showed a higher concentration of 14C-glyphosate in squares than in other plant tissue. Accumulation of 14C-glyphosate in squares reached a maximum of 43 Bq g−1 dry weight at harvest at the 12-leaf stage. This concentration corresponds to 5.7 times greater accumulation of 14C-glyphosate in squares than in roots, which may also be metabolic sinks. These data suggest that reproductive tissues such as bolls and squares can accumulate 14C-glyphosate at higher concentrations than other tissues, especially when the herbicide treatment is applied either POST or PDS during reproductive stages (eight-leaf stage and beyond).

Keywords

Glyphosatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Delta Pine 5415RR’Herbicide-resistant cropstransgenic crops
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2001 , pp. 460 - 467
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

Anonymous. 1999. Roundup Ultra supplemental label 21137X3-20. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Barry, G., Kishore, G., Padgette, S., Taylor, M., Kolacz, K., Weldon, M., Re, D., Fincher, K., and Hallas, L. 1992. Inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis: strategies for imparting glyphosate tolerance to crop plants. Pages 139–145 In Singh, B. K., et al., eds. Biosynthesis and Molecular Regulation of Amino Acids in Plants. Rockville, MD: American Society of Plant Physiologists.Google Scholar
Benedict, C. R. and Kohel, R. J. 1975. Export of 14C-assimilates in cotton leaves. Crop Sci. 15:367–372.Google Scholar
Camacho, R. F. and Moshier, L. J. 1991. Absorption, translocation and activity of CGA-136872, DPX-V9360, and glyphosate in rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 39:354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, F. 1934. Studies in growth analysis of the cotton plant under irrigation in the Sudan. I. The effects of different combinations of nitrogen applications and water supply. Ann. Bot. 48:877–913.Google Scholar
Davis, H. E., Fawcett, R. S., and Harvey, R. G. 1979. Effects of frost and maturity on glyphosate phytotoxicity, uptake and translocation. Weed Sci. 27:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Souza, J. G. and Vieira da Silva, J. 1987. Partitioning of carbohydrates in annual and perennial cotton (Gossypium hirstum L.). J. Exp. Bot. 38:1211–1218.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1988. Glyphosate. Pages 1–70 In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides; Chemistry, Degradation and Mode of Action. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Ferreira, K. L., Jost, D. J., Dixon, G. A., and Albers, D. W. 1998. Roundup Ready cotton fruiting pattern response to over the top applications of Roundup Ultra after the 4-leaf stage. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1998:848.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. E. and Holloway, P. J. 1992. Some physicochemical factors influencing foliar uptake enhancement of glyphosatemono(isopropylammonium) by polyoxyethylene surfactants. Pestic. Sci. 34:195–206.Google Scholar
Gougler, J. A. and Geiger, D. R. 1981. Uptake and distribution of N-phosphonomethylglycine in sugarbeet plants. Plant Physiol. 68:668–672.Google Scholar
Harris, H. M. and Vencill, W. K. 1999. Uptake and translocation of 14C-glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40:157A.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Kalaher, C. J. and Coble, H. D. 1998. Fruit abscission and yield response of roundup-ready cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1998:849.Google Scholar
Masiunas, J. B. and Weller, S. C. 1988. Glyphosate activity in potato (Solanum tuberosum) under different temperature regimes and light levels. Weed Sci. 36:137–140.Google Scholar
Mauney, J. R. 1986. Development of the plant. Pages 11–28 In Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. McD., eds. Cotton Physiology. Volume 2. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation.Google Scholar
McAllister, R. S. and Haderlie, L. C. 1985. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate and 14CO2-labeled photoassimilates in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 33:153–159.Google Scholar
McMichael, B. L. 1980. Water stress adaptation. Pages 183–204 In Hesketh, J. D. and Jones, J. D., eds. Predicting Photosynthesis for Ecosystem Models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., Jordan, T. N., and Wills, G. D. 1980. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate in soybeans (Glycine max) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 28:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., Buehler, R. E., et al. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1960–1966.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35:1451–1461.Google Scholar
Pline, W., Edmisten, K., Wilcut, J., and Wells, R. 2001. Effect of glyphosate (Roundup Ultra) on pollen viability and pollination in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. In press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, T. L. 2000. Comparison of post-direct and “over-the-top” Roundup Ultra (glyphosate) applications in Roundup Ready cotton using a spray application method with radiolabeled glyphosate. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2000:662.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J.J.V., Worsham, A. D., and Corbin, F. T. 1982. Exudation of glyphosate from wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants and its effects on interplanted corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:316–320.Google Scholar
Sabbe, W. E. and Cathey, G. W. 1969. Translocation of labeled sucrose from selected cotton leaves. Agron. J. 61:436–438.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
Tardiff, F. J. and Leroux, G. D. 1991. Translocation of glyphosate and quizalofop and metabolism of quizalofop in quackgrass biotypes (Elytrigia repens). Weed Technol. 5:525–531.Google Scholar
Vargas, R. N., Wright, S., and Martin-Duvall, T. M. 1998. Tolerance of Roundup Ready cotton to Roundup Ultra applied at various growth stages in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1998:847.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1978. Factors affecting toxicity and translocation of glyphosate in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:509–513.Google Scholar
Wullschleger, S. D. and Oosterhuis, D. M. 1990. Photosynthetic carbon production and use by developing cotton leaves and bolls. Crop Sci. 30:1259–1264.Google Scholar
Wyrill, J. B. 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