Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-45s75 Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2021-11-30T16:04:32.061Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north–south transect in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Morris, MN 56267
Jeffrey Gunsolus
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Michael Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Richard Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Reid Smeda
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA 70803

Abstract

There are many concerns about the effects of repeated use of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, including two that are seemingly contradictory. These are (1) weed escapes and (2) loss of weed diversity. Weeds that escape glyphosate treatment represent species that likely will become troublesome and difficult to control in the future, and identifying these future problems may allow more effective management. In contrast, complete weed control directly reduces the weed component of agroecosystem biodiversity and may lower other components indirectly (e.g., weed-dependent granivores). During 2001 and 2002 effects of glyphosate and conventional weed control treatments on weed community composition and GR soybean yields were studied. Field studies were conducted along a north–south transect of sites spanning a distance of 1600 km from Minnesota to Louisiana. Low-intensity use (single application yr−1) of glyphosate allowed more escapes and maintained higher weed diversity than high-intensity use (two applications yr−1) of glyphosate, and it was equivalent to or even higher than diversity in non-GR systems. Although the same weeds escaped from low- and high-intensity glyphosate treatments, frequency of escapes was higher with less intensive use. These results suggest that limited use of glyphosate would not have profound effects on weed diversity. In addition, crop yield did not differ between GR and non-GR treatments at high latitudes, but below 40° N latitude, with a longer cropping season, yields with low-intensity glyphosate use decreased by about 2% per degree latitude because of competition from escaped weeds.

Type
Research Article
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

Buttel, F. H. 2002. The Adoption and Diffusion of GM Crop Varieties: The “Genetic Revolution” in Global Perspective, 1996–2001. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Ptas Staff Paper Series No. 6.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, A. J., Glare, T. R., and Nap, J. P. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops in the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. The Plant Journal 33:1946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res 35:311320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA. 2003. Farm Scale Evaluation Results—Important New Evidence on GM Crops. www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effect of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci 47:729735.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G., Heard, M. S., and Woiwod, I. P. et al. 2003. An introduction to the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J. Appl. Ecol 40:216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:13371347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C., Benech Arnold, R. L., Satorre, E., and Martinez Ghersa, M. A. 2000. Advances in weed management strategies. Field Crops Res 67:95104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, J. 2003. Biosafety trials darken outlook for transgenic crops in Europe. Nature 425:751.Google Scholar
Gould, F. C. 10 committee members. 2003. Environmental Effect of Transgenic Plants. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 320 p.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L., Becker, R. L., Durgan, B. R., Porter, P. M., and Dexter, A. G. 2006. Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Extension Bulletin BU-3157S. 96 p.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2004. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004. Weed management in a glyphosate resistant soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technol 18:284291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mixture combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol 10:828834.Google Scholar
James, C. 2005. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. http://www.isaaa.org.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:354362.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. L., Krausz, R. F., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Soybean tolerance and summer annual weed control with glufosinate and glyphosate in resistant soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf 49:120.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. C. 2003. Herbicides—a two—edged sword. Weed Res 43:90102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York: Wiley. 547 p.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. 1996. Critical period of weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean systems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf 51:130131.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate resistant soybean. Weed Technol 14:413422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. F., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci 46:604607.Google Scholar
Puricelli, E. and Tuesca, D. 2005. Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Prot 24:533542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. A. and Sutherland, W. J. 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol 39:157176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiter, H. D. and Meinen, E. 1998. Influence of water stress and surfactant on the efficacy, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci 46:289296.Google Scholar
Scursoni, J., Forcella, F., Peterson, D., and Amundson, G. 2004. Weed escape and delayed weed emergence in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Page 28 in Proceeedings of the 4th International Weed Science Congress. Durban, Republic of South Africa.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. 1996. Effect of Rate and Application Timing of Glyphosate to Control Sicklepod and Other Problem Weeds of the Mississipi Delta. M.S. dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 116 p.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitta, J. I., Tuesca, D., and Puricelli, E. 2004. Widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean and weed community richness in Argentina. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 103:621624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkinson, A. R., Freckleton, R. P., Robinson, R. A., and Sutherland, W. J. 2000. Predictions of biodiversity response to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Science 289:15541557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westwood, J. H. and Weller, S. C. 1997. Cellular mechanisms influence differential glyphosate sensitivity in field binweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 45:211.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate and glufosinate resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 15:122128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, C. I., Chaing, M. Y., and Chen, Y. M. 2002. Triple mechanism of glyphosate-resistance in a naturally occurring glyphosate-resistant plant Dicliptera chinensis . Plant Sci 163:543554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, M. D. K. 2005. Differential response of Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq. ex DC.) J. D. Sauer to glyphosate. Pest Manage. Sci 10:936950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north–south transect in the United States
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north–south transect in the United States
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north–south transect in the United States
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *