Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T23:19:51.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increased Glyphosate Tolerance in ‘Aurora Gold’ Hard Fescue (Festuca longifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen E. Hart ,
Jeffrey F. Derr ,
Darren W. Lycan ,
Crystal Rose-Fricker  and
William A. Meyer
Stephen E. Hart*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Biology and Plant Pathology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Jeffrey F. Derr
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton Roads Ag. Res. and Ext. Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Darren W. Lycan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Biology and Plant Pathology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Crystal Rose-Fricker
Affiliation:
Pure Seed Testing, Canby, OR 97013
William A. Meyer
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Biology and Plant Pathology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in New Jersey and Virginia to evaluate the response of ‘Aurora Gold’ hard fescue, which had undergone five cycles of phenotypic recurrent selection for increased glyphosate tolerance, to direct applications of glyphosate. ‘Discovery’ hard fescue, which had not undergone recurrent selection, was also included in the study. Glyphosate treatments were initiated in early/mid-May and applied once, twice, or three times at 4- to 5-wk intervals at rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.6 kg ae/ha. Aurora Gold was more tolerant to glyphosate than Discovery in all experiments, indicating that recurrent selection was successful in increasing glyphosate tolerance in hard fescue. Single applications of glyphosate at rates ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 kg/ha could be applied to Aurora Gold with minimal injury or stand thinning (<20%), whereas multiple applications of glyphosate could be applied at rates ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 kg/ha. The use of Aurora Gold in areas planted to hard fescue, such as golf course roughs, vineyards, orchards, and landscapes, would allow the integration of direct glyphosate applications into an overall weed management program providing potential economic and environmental benefits.

Keywords

Glyphosatehard fescue, Festuca longifolia Thuill. ‘Aurora Gold’, ‘Discovery’Herbicide toleranceEPSP, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthaseGC, ground coverMAT, month after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 640 - 646
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

Amrhein, N., Deus, B., Gehrke, P., and Steinrucken, H. C. 1980. The site of the inhibition of the shikimate pathway by glyphosate. II. Interference of glyphosate with chorismate formation in vivo and in vitro. Plant Physiol. 66:830–834.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Roundup Pro product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto. 21 p.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate—A summary. in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Toronto, ON, Canada: Butterworth. Pp. 210–216.Google Scholar
Beard, J. B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 2002. Comparison of glyphosate with other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): efficacy and economics. Weed Technol. 16:701–706.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Lycan, D. W., and Meyer, W. A. 2002. Increased glyphosate tolerance in tall and fine fescue. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:109.Google Scholar
Meyer, W. A., Rose-Fricker, C. A., and Funk, C. R. 1991. Registration of ‘Aurora’ hard fescue. Crop Sci. 31:1088–1089.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Re, D., 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, Economic, Environmental, Regulatory, and Technological Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 54–80.Google Scholar
Rose-Fricker, C. A. 2000. Hard fescue variety known as ‘Aurora Gold’, and tall fescue variety known as ‘Pure Gold’ for glyphosate tolerant grasses. US patent Application No. 6,066,786.Google Scholar
Rose-Fricker, C. A., Fraser, M. L., and Meyer, W. A. 1999. Registration of ‘Discovery’ hard fescue. Crop Sci. 39:1530–1531.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log Logistic analysis of herbicide-dose relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate, halosulfuron, and mesotrione. Weed Technol. 18:826–834.Google Scholar
Turgeon, A. J. 1996. Turfgrass management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 55–57.Google Scholar