Potato Response to Simulated Glyphosate Drift

被引:16
|
作者
Felix, Joel [1 ]
Boydston, Rick
Burke, Ian C.
机构
[1] Oregon State Univ, Malheur Expt Stn, Ontario, OR 97914 USA
关键词
Potato hooking stage; glyphosate application timing; shikimic acid; GOSSYPIUM-HIRSUTUM RESPONSE; SOLANUM-TUBEROSUM; SHIKIMATE ACCUMULATION; RESISTANT COTTON; DOSE-RESPONSE; TRANSLOCATION; WHEAT; SIZE;
D O I
10.1614/WT-D-11-00001.1
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Field studies were conducted in 2008 in Ontario, OR and Paterson, WA to determine the effect of simulated glyphosate drift on 'Ranger Russet' potato, including visual injury, shikimic acid accumulation, and tuber yield. Glyphosate was applied at 8.5, 54, 107, 215, and 423 g ae ha(-1); which corresponds to 0.01, 0.064, 0.126, 0.254, and 0.5 of the lowest recommended (846 g ha(-1)) single application dose for glyphosate-resistant corn and sugar beet. Glyphosate was applied when potato plants were at 10-cm height, stolon hooking, tuber initiation, or bulking stage. The greatest visual foliar injury was observed when glyphosate was applied at a dose of 54 g haT/ha or greater and potato plants were at the hooking stage. The lowest foliar injury was observed when glyphosate was applied to potato plants at the bulking stage. The I-50 glyphosate dose at 42 d after treatment (DAT) was estimated to be 167 g ha(-1) for potatoes sprayed at the hooking stage. The corresponding glyphosate dose to result in 50% injury, for potatoes sprayed at tuber initiation, 10-cm height, and bulking stages were 129%, 338%, and 438%, respectively, greater than hooking stage. The U.S. No.1 potato yield was inversely related to vine injury and shikimic acid accumulation. Shikimic acid accumulation increased when glyphosate was applied at 107 g ha(-1) or greater. U.S. No.1 potato yield was reduced by 46% and 84% relative to the untreated control (55 and 76 T/ha) when glyphosate was applied at 107 g ha(-1) to plants in the booking stage at Ontario and Paterson, respectively. Tuber yields at both sites were lowest when glyphosate was applied at hooking and tuber initiation stages.
引用
收藏
页码:637 / 644
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Simulated Glyphosate Drift on Acaia and Catucai Coffee Cultivars
    Franca, A. C.
    Carvalho, F. P.
    Fialho, C. M. T.
    D'Antonino, L.
    Silva, A. A.
    Santos, J. B.
    Ferreira, L. R.
    PLANTA DANINHA, 2013, 31 (02) : 443 - 451
  • [23] Effect of late-season glyphosate drift to seed potato
    Hatterman-Valenti, Harlene M.
    Auwarter, Collin P.
    Mayland, Paul G.
    HORTSCIENCE, 2007, 42 (04) : 932 - 932
  • [24] Simulated mesotrione drift followed by glyphosate, imazethapyr, bentazon or glyphosate plus chlorimuron in soybean
    Brown, Lynette R.
    Robinson, Darren E.
    Chandler, Kevin
    Swanton, Clarence J.
    Nurse, Robert E.
    Sikkema, Peter H.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE, 2009, 89 (02) : 265 - 272
  • [26] Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate
    Al-Khatib, K
    Peterson, D
    WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 13 (02) : 264 - 270
  • [27] Yield and physiological response of peanut to glyphosate drift
    Lassiter, Bridget R.
    Burke, Ian C.
    Thomas, Walter E.
    Pline-Srnic, Wendy A.
    Jordan, David L.
    Wilcut, John W.
    Wilkerson, Gall G.
    WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2007, 21 (04) : 954 - 960
  • [28] Simulated drift effect of glyphosate in different parts of Eucalyptus grandis plants
    Peres Rodrigues da Costa, Andreia Cristina
    da Costa, Neumarcio Vilanova
    Rocha Pereira, Maria Renata
    Martins, Dagoberto
    SEMINA-CIENCIAS AGRARIAS, 2012, 33 (05): : 1663 - 1672
  • [29] Effect of Simulated Glyphosate Drift on the Initial Growth of Physic Nut Plants
    Costa, N., V
    Erasmo, E. A. L.
    Queiroz, P. A.
    Dornelas, D. F.
    Dornelas, B. F.
    PLANTA DANINHA, 2009, 27 : 1105 - 1110
  • [30] Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate
    Ellis, JM
    Griffin, JL
    Jones, CA
    WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2002, 16 (03) : 587 - 592