Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:49:30.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean (Glycine max) Response to Glyphosate and Soybean Cyst Nematode (Heterodera glycines)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Xiaoyu Yang ,
S. Kent Harrison  and
Richard M. Riedel
Xiaoyu Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
S. Kent Harrison*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
Richard M. Riedel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field observations in Ohio suggested a possible interaction between soybean cyst nematode (SCN) and glyphosate in Countrymark 316 soybean, a transgenic glyphosate-resistant (R) variety that also expresses SCN resistance derived from ‘PI88788’ soybean. To investigate this possible interaction under controlled conditions, greenhouse experiments were conducted in which Countrymark 316 (R) and Corsoy 79 (S = susceptible to glyphosate and SCN) soybean root and shoot weights were measured in response to three concentrations of race 3 SCN inoculum and five glyphosate doses. Experiments were conducted in which glyphosate was applied 9, 18, or 27 d after inoculation (DAI). Data from SCN treatments in the (S) soybean experiments were regressed on glyphosate dosage and fit to a log-logistic dose–response model. SCN–glyphosate interaction in the (S) soybean variety reduced root dry weight of SCN-inoculated plants 6% compared with noninoculated plants when 1.0 kg/ha glyphosate was applied 18 DAI. The most significant interaction of SCN and glyphosate in the (S) variety occurred when glyphosate was applied 27 DAI; the glyphosate dose required to reduce shoot fresh weight 25% was 0.55 kg/ha in the noninoculated control compared with 0.32 kg/ha in plants inoculated with 1,000 SCN eggs/200 cm3 soil. Glyphosate rates of 0.84 and 1.69 kg/ha reduced root dry weights of Countrymark 316 (R) soybean 10 to 13% at the 18 DAI application timing only. Inoculation with SCN reduced shoot fresh weight of (R) soybean 8 to 29% across all experiments, but there was no interaction of glyphosate and SCN in (R) soybean.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Countrymark 316’ and ‘Corsoy 79’soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines IchinoheHerbicide–nematode interactionintegrated pest managementDAI, days after inoculationEPSPS, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EC 2.5.1.19)GR25, dose required to reduce root or shoot growth by 25%I50, dose corresponding to biomass halfway between upper- and lower-response limitsPOST, postemergenceR, glyphosate + SCN resistantS, glyphosate + SCN susceptibleSCN, soybean cyst nematode
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 332 - 339
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

Alston, D. G., Bradley, J. R. Jr., Coble, H. D., and Schmitt, D. P. 1991. Impact of population density of Heterodera glycines on soybean canopy growth and weed competition. Plant Dis. 75: 1016–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrhein, N., Deus, B., and Steinrucken, H. 1980. The site of inhibition of the shikimate pathway by glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 66: 830–834.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11: 189–198.Google Scholar
Browde, J. A., Pedigo, L. P., Owen, M.D.K., Tylka, G. L., and Levene, B. C. 1994. Growth of soybean stressed by nematodes, herbicides, and simulated insect defoliation. Agron. J. 86: 968–974.Google Scholar
Caviness, C. E. 1992. Breeding for resistance to soybean cyst nematode. In Riggs, R. D. and Wrather, J. A., eds. Biology and Management of the Soybean Cyst Nematode. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. pp. 143–156.Google Scholar
Diers, B., Arelli, P., and Cianzio, S. R. 1999. Management of SCN Through Conventional Breeding for Resistance—Midwest Perspective: Web page: http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/pages/plantpath/tylka/scnconf/toc.html. Proceedings of the National Soybean Cyst Nematode Conference, Orlando, FL. p. 5.Google Scholar
Dorrance, A. and Riedel, R. M. 2000. Soybean Cyst Nematode Resistant Varieties—2000: Web page: hrtp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/∼perf/scn00/index.html. Ohio State University Extension.Google Scholar
Endo, B. Y. 1991. Ultrastructure of initial responses of susceptible and resistant soybeans roots to infection by Herterodera glycines . Rev. Nematol. 14: 73–94.Google Scholar
Epps, J. M. and Chambers, A. Y. 1962. The soybean cyst nematode. Symptoms, lifecycle, spread, host range, research on control. Tenn. Farm Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 41: 13–15.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Streibig, J. C. 1993. Herbicide mixtures. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 132.Google Scholar
Hussey, R. S. 1985. Staining nematodes in plant tissues. In Zuckerman, B. M., Mai, W. F., and Harrison, M. B., eds. Plant Nematology Laboratory Manual. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Agriculture Experiment Station. pp. 197–199.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. H., Riggs, R. D., and Kim, K. S. 1987. Structural changes associated with resistance of soybean to Heterodera glycines . J. Nematol. 19: 177–187.Google Scholar
Levene, C. B., Owen, M.D.K., and Tylka, G. L. 1998. Response of soybean cyst nematodes and soybeans (Glycine max) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 46: 264–270.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Stachler, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2001. Weed Control Guide for Ohio Field Crops. Ohio State University Extension Bull. No. 789. 135 p. (See p. 85.)Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. and Eberlein, C. V. 1996. Possible pleiotropic effects in herbicide-resistant crops. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 200–210.Google Scholar
Niblack, T. L., Baker, N. K., and Norton, D. C. 1992. Soybean yield losses due to Heterodera glycines in Iowa. Plant Dis. 76: 943–948.Google Scholar
Padgette, D.R., Re, D. B., Barry, G. F., Eichholtz, D. E., Delannay, X., Fuchs, R. L., Kishore, G. M., and Fraley, R. T. 1996. New weed control opportunities: development of soybeans with a Roundup Ready™ gene. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Riedel, R. M. 2000. Final Results by County of the 1999 Soybean Cyst Nematode Sampling Program: Web page: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/∼ipm/scn/scn3_9.htm. Ohio State University Extension.Google Scholar
Riedel, R. M., Dorrance, A. E., Taylor, N. J., Lipps, P. E., and Harrison, K. 1998. Soybean Cyst Nematode. Ohio State University Fact Sheet AC-39-98: Web page: http://ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu/ac-fact/0039.html.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. L., Gaines, C. G., and Jensen, R. A. 1982. Enzymological basis for the herbicidal action of glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 70: 833–839.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. 1992. Population dynamics. In Riggs, R. D. and Wrather, J. A., eds. Biology and Management of the Soybean Cyst Nematode. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. pp. 51–59.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. and Riggs, R. D. 1989. Population dynamics and management of Heterodera glycines . Agric. Zool. Rev. 3: 253–269.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. and Riggs, R. D. 1991. Influence of selected plant species on hatching of eggs and development of juveniles of Heterodera glycines race 5 after one to three growing periods. Plant Dis. 71: 23–27.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Tylka, G. L. and Souhrada, S. K. 1999. Evaluation of Soybean Varieties Resistant to Soybean Cyst Nematode in Iowa: Web page: http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/plantpath/tylka/scnconf/page18.html. Proceedings of the National Soybean Cyst Nematode Conference, Orlando, FL. p. 18.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, R., Harrison, S. K., and Riedel, R. M. 2000. Weed hosts of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) in Ohio. Weed Technol. 14: 156–160.Google Scholar
Willson, H. R., Riedel, R. M., Eisley, J. B., Young, C. E., Jasinski, J. R., Wheeler, T. A., Kauffman, P. H., Pierson, P. E., and Stuart, M. C. 1996. Distribution of Heterodera glycines in Ohio. J. Nematol. 28: 599–603.Google Scholar
Wrather, A. 1999. Soybean Disease Loss Estimates for the United States in 1996-1997: Web page: http://aes.missouri.edu/delta/research/soyloss.stm. Proceedings of the National Soybean Cyst Nematode Conference, Orlando, FL. p. 1.Google Scholar
Yang, X. and Harrison, S. K. 1999. Responses of a stacked-trait soybean variety to glyphosate and soybean cyst nematode. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:26.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Multiple regression and correlation. In Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 353–360, 431-436.Google Scholar