Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:39:15.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translocation and Absorption of Glyphosate in Flowering Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric R. Walker  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Eric R. Walker*
Affiliation:
Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ewalker@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sicklepod is a competitive and prolific weed that emerges throughout the crop season. Glyphosate applications to flowering sicklepod greatly reduce seed production, but there is limited information on glyphosate translocation in flowering weeds. Therefore, a laboratory study was conducted to document the absorption and translocation of 14C-glyhosate in flowering sicklepod. Flowering sicklepod plants were treated with a 14C-glyphosate solution, and 14C-glyphosate absorption and translocation was quantified by scintillation spectrometry. Absorption and translocation of 14C-glyphosate in flowering sicklepod were similar for both 0.21 and 0.42 kg ae ha−1 glyphosate. Although the treated leaflets retained approximately 50% of the recovered 14C-glyphosate, movement of the herbicide was both acropetal and basipetal, with the highest 14C-glyphosate concentrations in the shoot below the treated leaf and the roots. By 96 h after treatment, sicklepod buds and flowers had abscised, but analysis of the structures revealed accumulation of 2% of the recovered 14C-glyphosate. Based on results of the study, effects of glyphosate accumulation in buds and flowers combined with plant stress associated with the primary and secondary effects of glyphosate result in bud and flower abscission, drastically reducing sicklepod seed production.

Keywords

Glyphosate, sicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby CASOB.Flowerseed productionsoil seedbank

Information

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 338 - 343
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Barnes, J. W. and Oliver, L. R. 2003. Cultural practices and glyphosate applications for sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:429–440.Google Scholar
Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 34:256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping systems on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed in soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton, I: sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
Buehring, N. W., Nice, G. R. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control and soybean (Glycine max) response to soybean row spacing and population in three weed management systems. Weed Technol. 16:131–141.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. and Hoffman, M. 1999. Andersen's Guide to Practical Methods of Propagating Weeds and Other Plants. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seedbank dynamics in subthreshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) populations. Weed Sci. 45:85–90.Google Scholar
Clay, P. A. and Griffin, J. L. 2000. Weed seed production and seedling emergence responses to late-season glyphosate applications. Weed Sci. 48:481–486.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. and Caseley, J. C. 1979. Presence of 14C activity in root exudates and guttation fluid from Andropogon repens treated with 14C-labeled glyphosate. New Phytol. 83:17–22.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. and Peabody, D. V. 1981. Absorption, translocation, and exudation of glyphosate, fosamine, and amitrole in field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Weed Sci. 29:556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16:396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:307–310.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. 1990. Weed Identification Guide. 5th ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Chiu, T., and Sammons, R. D. 2003. Glyphosate efficacy is contributed by its tissue concentration and sensitivity in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 77:83–91.Google Scholar
Geiger, D. R. and Bestman, H. D. 1990. Self-limitation of herbicide mobility by phytotoxic action. Weed Sci. 38:324–329.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide, I: tomato. Hortscience. 36:669–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherly, L. G. and Elmore, R. W. 2004. Managing inputs for peak production. Pages 451–536. in Specht, J. and Boerma, R. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd ed. Agronomy Monograph 16. Madison, WI Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society.Google Scholar
Irwin, H. S. and Turner, B. L. 1960. Chromosomal relationships and taxonomic considerations in the genus Cassia . Am. J. Bot. 47:309–318.Google Scholar
Isaacs, M. A., Murdock, E. C., Toler, J. E., and Wallace, S. U. 1989. Effects of late-season herbicide application on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed production and viability. Weed Sci. 37:761–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Cardina, J., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1994. Dynamics of subeconomic threshold populations of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in a peanut–cotton–corn rotation. Weed Sci. 42:364–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C., Hetherington, R., Reynolds, T. L., and Marshall, G. 2000. Absorption, localization, translocation, and activity of glyphosate in barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L) Beauv]: influence of herbicide and surfactant concentration. Pestic. Manag. Sci. 56:359–367.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Shaw, D. R., Watson, C. E., and Reddy, K. N. 2003. Detecting late-season weed infestations in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:696–704.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.Google Scholar
Lui, Z. Q. 2003. Characterization of glyphosate uptake into grass species. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 54:877–884.Google Scholar
Martin, S. G., Van Acker, R. C., and Friessen, L. F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring. Weed Sci. 49:326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 41:574–582.Google 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. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmiston, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6:985–989.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. J. V., Worsham, A. D., and Corbin, F. T. 1982. Exudation of glyphosate from wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants and its effects on interplanted corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:316–320.Google Scholar
Ryerse, J. S., Downer, R. A., Sammons, R. D., and Feng, P. C. C. 2004. Effect of glyphosate spray droplets on leaf cytology in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 52:302–309.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Absorption, action, and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 23:235–240.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) seed production and viability as influenced by late-season postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 45:497–501.Google Scholar
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis): geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28:68–71.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Pline-Srnić, W. A., Viator, R. P., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Effects of glyphosate application timing and rate on sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) fecundity. Weed Technol. 19:55–61.Google Scholar
Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.Google Scholar
Toler, J. E., Murdock, E. C., and Keeton, A. 2002. Weed management systems for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with reduced tillage. Weed Technol. 16:773–780.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: Role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:714–724.Google Scholar
Wright, S. R., Raper, C. D. Jr., and Ruffy, T. W. Jr. 1999. Comparative responses of soybean (Glycine max), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to root zone and aerial temperatures. Weed Sci. 47:167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar