Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:57:40.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase tolerance to glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lewis H. Ziska ,
John R. Teasdale  and
James A. Bunce
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
Weed Science Laboratory, Building 003, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705
James A. Bunce
Affiliation:
Climate Stress Laboratory, Building 046A, Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We tested whether the efficacy of chemical weed control might change as atmospheric CO2 concentration [CO2] increases by determining if tolerance to a widely used, phloem mobile, postemergence herbicide, glyphosate, was altered by a doubling of [CO2]. Tolerance was determined by following the growth of Amaranthus retroflexus L. (redroot pigweed), a C4 species, and Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters), a C3 species, grown at near ambient (360 μmol mol−1) and twice ambient (720 μmol mol−1) [CO2] for 14 d following glyphosate application at rates of 0.00 (control), 0.112 kg ai ha−1 (0.1 X the commercial rate), and 1.12 kg ai ha−1 (1.0 X the commercial rate) in four separate trials. Irrespective of [CO2], growth of the C4 species, A. retroflexus, was significantly reduced and was eliminated altogether at glyphosate application rates of 0.112 and 1.12 kg ai ha−1, respectively However, in contrast to the ambient [CO2] treatment, an application rate of 0.112 kg ai ha−1 had no effect on growth, and a 1.12-kg ai ha−1 rate reduced but did not eliminate growth in elevated [CO2]-grown C. album. Although glyphosate tolerant does increase with plant size at the time of application, differences in glyphosate tolerance between CO2 treatments in C. album cannot be explained by size alone. These data indicate that rising atmospheric [CO2] could increase glyphosate tolerance in a C3 weedy species. Changes in herbicide tolerance at elevated [CO2] could limit chemical weed control efficacy and increase weed–crop competition.

Keywords

GlyphosateChenopodium album L. CHEAL, common lambsquartersAmaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE, redroot pigweedClimate changecarbon dioxidepostemergenceCHEALAMARE
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 608 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Bowes, G. 1996. Photosynthetic responses to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Pages 397–407 in Baker, N. R., ed. Photosynthesis and the Environment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bunce, J. A. 1997. Variation in growth stimulation by elevated carbon dioxide in seedlings of some C3 crop and weed species. Global Change Biol. 3:61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, T. J., Tans, P. P., and Waterman, L. S. 1994. Atmospheric records from sites in the NOAA/CMDL ai sampling network. Pages 41–119 in Boden, T. A., Kaiser, D. P., Seanski, R. J., and Stoss, F. W., eds. Trends 93, A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Geiger, D. R., Kapitan, S. W., and Tucci, M. A. 1986. Glyphosate inhibits photosynthesis and allocation of carbon starch in sugar beet leaves. Plant Physiol. 82:468–472.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 609 p.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T., Meira-Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenburg, A., and Maskell, K. 1996. IPCC Climate Change Assessment 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
Kimball, B. A., Mauney, J. R., Nakayama, F. S., and Idso, S. B. 1993. Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation. Vegetatio 104/105:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Implications of global climate change for impact of weeds, insects and plant diseases. Pages 273–280 in Buxton, D. R., ed. International Crop Science I. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci. 43:483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1980. Potential effects of global atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and competitiveness of C3 and C4 weed and crop plants. Weed Sci. 28:71–75.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1990. Implications of increasing carbon dioxide and climate change for plant communities and competition in natural and managed ecosystems. Pages 83–110 in Kimball, B. A., Rosenberg, N. J., and Allen, L. H. Jr., eds. Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change on Global Agriculture. ASA Special Publ. 53. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Poorter, H. 1993. Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration. Vegetatio 104/105:77–97.Google Scholar
Tremmel, D. C. and Patterson, D. T. 1993. Responses of soybean and five weeds to CO2 enrichment under two temperature regimes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1249–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremmel, D. C. and Patterson, D. T. 1994. Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on development in soybean and five weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 34:43–50.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. and Duke, S. O. 1991. Biochemical basis of herbicide resistance. Pages 142–169 in Vaughn, K. C. and Duke, S. O., eds. Chemistry of Plant Protection: Herbicide Resistance—Brassinosteroids, Gibberellins, Plant Growth Regulators. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H. and Bunce, J. A. 1997. Influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentration on the photosynthetic and growth stimulation of selected C4 crops and weeds. Photosynth. Res. 54:199–208.Google Scholar