Glyphosate tolerance by Clitoria ternatea and Neonotonia wightii plants involves differential absorption and translocation of the herbicide
- 308 Downloads
Glyphosate tolerance by Clitoria ternatea, Neonotonia wightii and Amaranthus hybridus was studied in whole plants from Mexico. Experiments in a controlled growth chamber showed both legumes to be highly tolerant of glyphosate, with and ED50 values of 600.18 g ae ha–1 for C. ternatea and 362.94 g ae ha–1 for N. wightii. On the other hand, A. hybridus was highly susceptible to the herbicide (ED50 = 42.22 g ae ha–1). Shikimate accumulation peaked 96 h after treatment in the tolerant plants and the susceptible weed under 500 g ae ha–1 glyphosate. The shikimic acid content of whole leaves was 4.0 and 5.0 times higher in the susceptible weed than in N. wightii and C. ternatea, respectively. 14C-glyphosate absorption and translocation tests showed A. hybridus to absorb 30% more herbicide than the legumes 24 h after glyphosate foliar application. 14C-glyphosate translocation as measured by quantified autoradiography revealed increased translocation of the herbicide to untreated leaves and roots in A. hybridus relative to the two legumes. The cuticular surface of A. hybridus exhibited very low wax coverage relative to the epicuticular surface of N. wightii and, especially, C. ternatea. No significant degradation of glyphosate to aminomethylphosphonic acid and glyoxylate metabolites was detected among the tolerant leguminous plants or the susceptible weed population. These results indicate that the high glyphosate tolerance of Clitoria ternatea and Neonotonia wightii is mainly a result of poor penetration and translocation of the herbicide to apical growing points in their plants.
KeywordsTolerance Glyphosate Shikimic acid Cover crops
The authors thank the technical help of Rafael A. Roldán-Gómez. Also are grateful to Spain’s Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) for funding this work through Projects AGL2010–16774 and CTQ2009–07430.
- Duke SO, Baerson SR, Rimando AM (2003) Glyphosate. Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals; Wiley: New York, http://www.interscience.wiley.com. Accessed 6 May 2010.
- Gasquez J (1997) Genetic of herbicides resistance within weeds. Factors of evolution, inheritance and fitness. In: Jorrín J, García-Torres L, De Prado R (eds) Weed and crop resistance to herbicides. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 181–189Google Scholar
- Gressel J (1996) Fewer constraints than proclaimed to the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Resistant Pest Manage Newsl 8:2–5Google Scholar
- Heap I (2011) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed March 23, 2011
- Kerstiens G (1996) Diffusion of water vapour and gases across cuticles and through stomatal pores presumed closed. In: Kertiens G (ed) Plant cuticle: an integrated functional approach. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford, pp 121–134Google Scholar
- Lal R, Regnier E, Eckert DJ, Edwards WM, Hamm R (1991) Expectations of cover crops for sustainable agriculture. In: Hargrove WL, Ankeny IA (eds) Cover crops for clean water. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Columbus, pp 1–11Google Scholar
- Monquero PA, Christoffoleti PJ, Osuna MD, De Prado R (2004) Absorção, translocação e metabolismo do glyphosato por plantas tolerantes e suscetíveis a este herbicida. Planta Daninha 22:444–451Google Scholar
- Pengelly BC, Benjamin AK (1992) Neonotonia wightii (Wight and Arnott) Lackey. In: Mannetje L, Jones RM (eds) Plant resources of south-east Asia no 4. forages. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp 169–171Google Scholar
- Ribeiro DN, Gil D, Cruz-Hipolito HE, Ruiz-Santaella JP, Christoffoleti PJ, Vidal RA, De Prado R (2008) Rapid assays for detection of glyphosate-resistant Lolium spp. J Plant Dis Prot 21:95–100Google Scholar
- Senseman SA (2007) Herbicide handbook, 9th edn. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, pp 428–429Google Scholar
- Siehl DL (1997) Inhibitors of EPSP synthase, gluthamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. In: Roe RM, Burton JD, Kuhr RJ (eds) Herbicide activity: toxicology, biochemistry, and molecular biology. IOS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 37–67Google Scholar