Rice (Oryza sativa) response to drift rates of glyphosate.

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to investigate response of two rice varieties, Priscilla and Cocodrie, to sub-lethal rates of glyphosate in terms of injury, shikimate accumulation and yield. In the greenhouse, more shikimate accumulated in Cocodrie than Priscilla at comparable glyphosate rates applied to plants at the three-leaf stage. In field studies, glyphosate was applied to both varieties when they were 74-cm tall and in the internode separation growth stage. Visual injury, plant height, and leaf-tissue samples for shikimate analysis were collected at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after treatment (DAT). Rice yield was also determined. Noticeable visual injury and height reduction to both varieties was observed as early as 7 and 3 DAT in Cocodrie and Priscilla, respectively. Shikimate levels in leaves began to increase in both varieties by 3 DAT in a dose-dependent manner and reached a peak between 7 and 14 DAT. Elevated shikimate levels were still detectable by 28 DAT. Similar levels of shikimate accumulated in both varieties at comparable glyphosate rates. However, glyphosate treatment at comparable rates reduced rice yields more in Cocodrie than in Priscilla. The highest rate of glyphosate reduced yield in Cocodrie by 92% whereas there was only a 60% yield reduction in Priscilla. Shikimate levels in glyphosate-treated rice were strongly correlated to yield reductions across both varieties and appeared to be a better predictor of yield reduction than was visual injury. Visual injury coupled with measured shikimate levels can be used collaboratively to identify glyphosate exposure and estimate subsequent rice yield reductions.

[1]  S. Askew,et al.  Cost and Weed Management with Herbicide Programs in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) , 1999, Weed Technology.

[2]  Allan T Woodburn,et al.  Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide , 2000 .

[3]  N. Amrhein Specific Inhibitors as Probes into the Biosynthesis And Metabolism of Aromatic Amino Acids , 1986 .

[4]  K. N. Reddy,et al.  Weed Control and Economic Comparisons of Glyphosate-Resistant, Sulfonylurea-Tolerant, and Conventional Soybean (Glycine max) Systems1 , 2000, Weed Technology.

[5]  J. M. Ellis,et al.  Rice (Oryza sativa) and Corn (Zea mays) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate1 , 2003, Weed Technology.

[6]  C. H. Koger,et al.  Assessment of two nondestructive assays for detecting glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) , 2005, Weed Science.

[7]  Dale L. Shaner,et al.  Rapid Determination of Glyphosate Injury to Plants and Identification of Glyphosate-Resistant Plants , 1998, Weed Technology.

[8]  Kirk Howatt,et al.  Glyphosate applied preharvest induces shikimic acid accumulation in hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). , 2003, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[9]  C. H. Koger,et al.  Weed Control and Cotton Response to Combinations of Glyphosate and Trifloxysulfuron1 , 2005, Weed Technology.

[10]  M. E. Kurtz,et al.  Response of Rice (Oryza sativa) to Glyphosate Applied to Simulate Drift1 , 2003, Weed Technology.

[11]  S. Duke,et al.  Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). , 2002, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[12]  A. Culpepper,et al.  Weed Management in Glufosinate- and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)1 , 2000, Weed Technology.

[13]  R. F. Goudey Chemical Weed Control , 1946 .