Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:40:04.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lesli K. Blair-Kerth ,
Peter A. Dotray ,
J. Wayne Keeling ,
John R. Gannaway ,
Mel J. Oliver  and
Jerry E. Quisenberry
Lesli K. Blair-Kerth
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Mailstop 2122, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2122
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock, TX 79401-9757
John R. Gannaway
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock, TX 79401-9757
Mel J. Oliver
Affiliation:
Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Lubbock, TX 79415
Jerry E. Quisenberry
Affiliation:
Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Lubbock, TX 79415
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments from 1997 to 1999 examined cotton cv. ‘Coker 312’ that was genetically transformed to tolerate glufosinate. None of the glufosinate treatments caused visible injury to the glufosinate-tolerant cotton, but treatments were lethal to nontransformed or nonexpressing cotton. No glufosinate treatment adversely affected plant height at maturity, total number of nodes, bolls per plant, or boll positions. Glufosinate applications of 0.6 kg ha−1 made at eight stages of growth, ranging from cotyledon stage to 50% open boll, did not adversely affect yield or fiber quality as measured by micronaire or fiber length and strength. Sequential glufosinate applications up to four stages of growth from the zero- to one-leaf stage to the 14- to 15-leaf stage or individual glufosinate applications at 3.3 kg ha−1 made at the two- to three-leaf stage of growth also did not adversely affect yield or fiber quality. Overall yields in these studies were low relative to normal Texas Southern High Plains cotton yield because these studies were conducted using a Coker 312 parental line, which is generally a poor performer in this region. This research indicated that the transformation events for glufosinate tolerance in cotton were successful and the glufosinate-tolerance gene was expressed throughout the growing season. Transformation and field testing of other cotton varieties are needed to improve varietal performance on the Texas Southern High Plains.

Keywords

Glufosinatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 312’Sequential applicationsstage of growthherbicide ratebialaphos resistance geneBAR gene
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , June 2001 , pp. 375 - 380
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1999. AgrEvo Agribusiness Product Guide 1999. Wilmington, DE: AgrEvo USA Company. pp. 52–56.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Enhanced seed systems: BXN cotton. Page 166 In Curran, B., Foster, R., Holm, R., McCarty, R. H., Mortvedt, J. J., and Butts, E. eds. Weed Control Manual: Weed Control Solutions for the New Millennium. Volume 32. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Webster, E. P., Sij, J. W. Jr., and Bordovsky, D. G. 1999. Effect of postemergence topical applications of Roundup on Roundup Ready cotton. Pages 731–732 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Bayley, C., Trolinder, N., Ray, C., Morgan, M., Quisenberry, J. E., and Ow, D. W. 1992. Engineering 2,4-D resistance into cotton. Theor. Appl. Genet 83:645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, M. 1984. Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Res. 12:8711–8721.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1997. Potential fit of Roundup Ready cotton in Georgia. Page 778 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M and Bednarz, C. W. 1998. Tolerance of Roundup Ready cotton to mid and late post applications of Roundup. Page 849 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Christensen, A. H. and Quail, P. H. 1996. Ubiquitin promoter-based vectors for high level expression of selectable and/or screenable marker genes for monocotyledenous plants. Transgenic Res. 5:213–218.Google Scholar
Collins, J. R. 1996. BXN cotton: marketing plans and weed control programs utilizing Buctril. Page 201 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Ferreira, K. L. 1998. Roundup Ready cotton fruiting pattern response to over the top applications of Roundup Ultra after the 4 leaf stage. Page 848 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.Google Scholar
Hake, S. J., Hake, K. D., and Kerby, T. A. 1996. Prebloom decisions. Pages 29–33, 335–355 In Hake, S. J., Kerby, T. A., and Hake, K. D., eds. Cotton Production Manual. Oakland, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Hood, E. E., Gelvin, S. B., Melchers, L. S., and Hoekma, A. 1993. New Agrobacterium helper plasmids for gene transfer to plants. Transgenic Res. 2:208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. L., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., Abernathy, J. R., and Hake, K. A. 1994. Postemergence weed control in transgenic cotton with bromoxynil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:55.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Kalaher, C. J., Coble, H. D., and York, A. C. 1997. Morphological effects of Roundup application timings on Roundup-Ready cotton. Page 780 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1992. Technology transfer for herbicide-tolerant weeds and herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6:662–664.Google Scholar
Li, X. H. and Carrington, J. C. 1995. Complementation of tobacco etch polyvirus by active RNA polymerase expressed in transgenic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 22:457–461.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. G., Brauley, P., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1997. What happens when Roundup Ready cotton is sprayed with Roundup after the four leaf stage? Page 779 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. B., File, S. L., and Blackley, R. E. 1999. The effect of Roundup on Roundup Ready cotton. Page 732 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and cultural weed control systems. Weed Sci. 40:249–254.Google Scholar
Tsaftaris, A. 1996. The development of herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops. Field Crops Res. 45:115–123.Google Scholar