4.7 Article

Rice (Oryza satiova) response to drift rates of glyphosate

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 61, 期 12, 页码 1161-1167

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.1113

关键词

drift detection; glyphosate; rice; Oryza sativa; shikimate; visual injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (c) 2005 Society of Chemical Industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据