Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T00:19:00.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationale for Developing Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Orvin C. Burnside
Orvin C. Burnside*
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide-resistant crops (HRCs) have been used extensively during the past five decades, because crop tolerance is necessary for a selective herbicide. In the past, chemical company personnel screened a large number of organic compounds against a limited number of major crop and weed species to discover HRCs. Now a single herbicide can be evaluated for crop selectivity against a great number of biotypes of a single crop in tissue culture, or sometimes gene transfer can be used to produce tolerant genotypes. Thus, one can now choose an environmentally “benign” herbicide and search for or develop resistant crop cultivars. The advantages of these new HRCs are: (a) solutions may be more easily found for difficult weed management problems, (b) growers are more apt to use integrated weed management when they have effective backup weed control procedures if cultural or mechanical methods fail, (c) increased weed management options for growers of minor crops, (d) economic advantages to growers, and (e) increased use of more environmentally “benign” herbicides. Concerns about HRCs include: (a) these weed management procedures do not eliminate herbicides, (b) some believe biotechnology should not further herbicide use, (c) HRCs may become weeds, (d) this approach may facilitate less ecological diversity, (e) HRCs may increase herbicide use, (f) it could result in more herbicide carryover by facilitating the use of environmentally “harsh” herbicides, (g) HRCs may be less competitive to weeds, and (h) dependence on HRCs may decrease the weed control practices that a farmer uses. One needs to consider both the benefits and risks of HRCs to properly evaluate this technology.

Keywords

Biotechnologyherbicide-resistant weedsherbicide-tolerant cropsselective herbicidesustainable agricultureweed control methodsweed management
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 621 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1990. Agricultural statistics, U.S. Dep. Agric., Supt. of Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. Baker, J. L. and Laflen, J. L. 1983. Water quality consequences of conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38:186–193.Google Scholar
3. Beversdorf, W. D., Weiss-Lerman, J., Erickson, L. R., and Sousa Machado, V. 1980. Transfer of cytoplasmically inherited triazine resistance from birdsrape to cultivated oilseed (Brassica campestris and B. napus). Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 22:167–172.Google Scholar
4. Cantor, K. P., Blair, A., and Zahn, S. H. 1987. Health effects of agrichemicals in groundwater: what do we know? p. 27–42 in Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection: Emerging Management and Policy. Proc. Freshwater Foundation, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
5. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Pesticides in groundwater: background document. EPA-WH 550 G, Office of Ground-Water Protection, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 72 p.Google Scholar
6. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in groundwater: proposed pesticide strategy. Proposed Strategy Document, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 149 p.Google Scholar
7. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Protecting groundwater: pesticides and agricultural practices. EPA-440/6-88-001, Office of Ground-Water Protection, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 53 p.Google Scholar
8. Goldburg, R., Rissler, J., Shand, H., and Hasselbrook, C. 1990. Biotechnology's bitter harvest: herbicide-tolerant crops and the threat to sustainable agriculture. Biotechnology Working Group, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
9. Hallberg, G. R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides: agriculture and groundwater quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:357–364.Google Scholar
10. Harlan, J. R. 1982. Relationships between weeds and crops. p. 91–96 in Holzner, W. and Numata, N., eds. Biology and Ecology of Weeds, W. Junk, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
11. Harper, J. L. 1956. The evolution of weeds in relation to the resistance to herbicides. Proc. 3rd Br. Weed Control Conf. 1:179–188.Google Scholar
12. Heap, I. and Knight, R. 1982. The occurrence of herbicide cross-resistance in a population of annual ryegrass, Lolium rigidum, resistant to diclofop-methyl. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 37:149–156.Google Scholar
13. Holt, J. S. and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141–149.Google Scholar
14. LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Weed science in the 1990's: will it be forward or in reverse. Weed Technol. 4:671–689.Google Scholar
15. Nalewaja, J. D. 1974. Energy requirements for various weed control practices. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:19–23.Google Scholar
16. Rock, C. 1985. Minnesota Agriculture Statistics. Minn. Agric. Stat. Serv., Dep. Agric., St. Paul, MN. 83 p.Google Scholar
17. Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.Google Scholar
18. Smolen, M. D., Humenik, S. J., Dressing, S. A., and Maas, R. P. 1984. Best management practices for agricultural nonpoint source control. IV. Pesticides, N.C. Agric. Exp. Stn., Raleigh, NC. 87 p.Google Scholar