Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-67wsf Total loading time: 0.199 Render date: 2022-05-22T20:54:20.865Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Glufosinate Does Not Affect Floral Morphology and Pollen Viability in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Syngenta, Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, U.K.
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Randy Wells
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Ryan P. Viator
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Mary D. Paulsgrove
Affiliation:
Bayer CropScience, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine whether glufosinate treatments to glufosinate-resistant cotton caused changes in floral morphology, pollen viability, and seed set. Four glufosinate treatments were included: (1) glufosinate applied postemergence over the top (POST) at the four-leaf stage, (2) glufosinate applied POST at the eight-leaf stage, (3) the first two treatments sequentially, and (4) a POST application at the four-leaf stage followed by (fb) a postemergence-directed stem application (PDS) at the eight-leaf stage. Glufosinate was consistently applied at 0.49 kg ai/ha. A nontreated control was included. Glufosinate treatments did not affect stigma height, length of the staminal column, or pollen viability. However, the distance from the top anther to the tip of the stigma was less in plants treated with an eight-leaf POST treatment than in nontreated plants, although this difference is not likely to influence pollen deposition because in both cases anthers reached above the stigma tip. Plants receiving four-leaf POST fb eight-leaf PDS treatment with glufosinate had eight seeds per boll less than nontreated plants; however, the more rigorous four-leaf POST fb eight-leaf POST treatment did not differ from the nontreated in seeds per boll.

Type
Research
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

Anonymous. 1991. Phytotron Procedural Manual for Controlled-Environmental Research at the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratory. Web page: http://www.ncsu.edu/phytotron/manual.pdf. Accessed: July 28, 2003.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Enhanced seed systems: BXN cotton. in Curran, B., Foster, R., Holm, R., McCarty, R. H., Mortvedt, J. J., and Butts, E., eds. Weed Control Manual: Weed Control Solutions for the New Millennium. Volume 32. Willoughby, OH: Meister. P. 166.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Roundup UltraMax supplemental label 21183A4-6. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. Environmental Releases Database for the U.S.:. Web page: www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. Accessed: July 28, 2003.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and non-transgenic Gossypium hirsutum in conventional and no-tillage systems. Weed Sci. 50:512520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hisutum L). Weed Technol. 13:308312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beriault, J. N., Horsman, G. P., and Devine, M. D. 1999. Phloem transport of D,L-glufosinate and acetyl-L-glufosinate in glufosinate-resistant and -susceptible Brassica napus . Plant Physiol. 121:619627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair-Kerth, L. K., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gannnaway, J. R., Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 2001. Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate. Weed Sci. 49:375380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewbaker, J. L. and Kwack, B. H. 1963. The essential role of calcium ion in pollen germination and pollen tube growth. Am. J. Bot. 50:747858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). Weed Technol. 13:411420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doak, C. C. 1937. The pistil anatomy of cotton as related to experimental control of fertilization under varied conditions of pollination. Am. J. Bot. 24:187194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droger-Laser, W., Siemeling, U., Puhler, A., and Broer, I. 1994. The metabolites of the herbicide L-phosphinothricin (glufosinate). Plant Physiol. 105:159166.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 2001. Suggestion for pix use. in North Carolina Cotton Production Guide. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 5259.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance to transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:1926.Google Scholar
Muller, B. P., Zumdick, A., Schuphan, I., and Schmidt, B. 2001. Metabolism of the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium in plant cell cultures of transgenic (rhizomania-resistant) and non-transgenic sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris), carrot (Daucus carota), purple foxglove (Digitalis pupurea) and thorn apple (Datura stramonium). Pest Manag. Sci. 57:4656.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. S. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci. 42:21932200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. 2003. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and attempted remediation by gibberellic acid (GA3). Weed Sci. 51:1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002d. Physiological and morphological response of glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate-resistant cotton seedlings to root-absorbed glyphosate. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 73:4858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. 1999. Effects of temperature and chemical additives on the response of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybeans to glufosinate and glyphosate applications. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 65:119131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343440.Google Scholar
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Glufosinate Does Not Affect Floral Morphology and Pollen Viability in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Glufosinate Does Not Affect Floral Morphology and Pollen Viability in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Glufosinate Does Not Affect Floral Morphology and Pollen Viability in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton
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? *