Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:54:30.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by gibberellic acid (GA3)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wendy A. Pline ,
Keith L. Edmisten ,
John W. Wilcut ,
Randy Wells  and
Judith Thomas
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Randy Wells
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Judith Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate treatments to glyphosate-resistant (GR) cotton can cause increased fruit loss compared with untreated plants, likely due to reductions in pollen viability and alterations in floral morphology that may reduce pollination efficiency. This study was conducted to determine whether both stamen and pistil are affected by glyphosate treatments by measuring seed set from reciprocal reproductive crosses made between glyphosate-treated GR, untreated GR, and conventional nontransgenic cotton. Pollen viability was 51 and 38% lower for the first and second week of flowering, respectively, in GR plants treated with a four-leaf postemergence (POST) treatment and an eight-leaf POST-directed treatment of glyphosate than in GR plants that were not treated. Seed set per boll was significantly reduced when the pollen donor parent was glyphosate treated vs. untreated for the first 2 wk of flowering. There were no significant differences between treatments applied to male parents as measured by seed set at Weeks 3 and 4 of flowering. Seed set was not influenced by glyphosate treatments applied to female parents at any time. Retention of bolls resulting from crosses was reduced by glyphosate treatment of male parents during the first and third week of flowering but was not affected by glyphosate treatment of female parents. The application of gibberellic acid (GA), which has been shown to reverse male sterility in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) and to enhance boll retention in cotton, was investigated for similar effects in glyphosate-treated GR cotton. The GA treatments to glyphosate-treated plants increased the anther–stigma distance 12-fold, stigma height, and pollen viability in the second week of flowering but decreased the number of seeds in second-position bolls on Fruiting branches 1 through 3, decreased the number of first-position bolls per plant, and increased the number of squares in comparison with glyphosate-treated GR plants not receiving GA. Although GA applications to glyphosate-treated GR cotton have some remedial effect on pollen viability, the GA-induced increase in the anther–stigma difference exacerbates the increase in anther–stigma distance caused by glyphosate, resulting in low pollination.

Keywords

Glyphosatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Delta Pine & Land 5415RR’, ‘Delta Pine & Land 5415’Herbicide-resistant cropstransgenic cropsgametogenesismale-sterilepollengibberellic acid
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 19 - 27
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

Allison, D. C. and Fisher, W. D. 1964. A dominant gene for male sterility in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 4:548–549.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, J. G. 1970. Physiological studies on boll-drying in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) I. Changes in carbohydrate contents during bolling. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 13:86–91.Google Scholar
Bhatt, J. G. and Ramanujam, T. 1971. Some responses of a short-branch cotton variety to gibberellin. Cotton Grow. Rev. 48:136–139.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. T., Weaver, J. B., and Walker, D. B. 1978. Analysis of a dominant male sterile character in upland cotton I. Cytological studies. Crop Sci. 18:730–738.Google Scholar
Brewbaker, J. L. and Kwack, B. H. 1963. The essential role of calcium ion in pollen germination and pollen tube growth. Am. J. Bot. 50:747–858.Google Scholar
Cognée, M. 1976. Variations in the Physiological and Hormonal States of Cotton Fruit and Their Relationship with the Initiation of Abscission. . University of Paris, Paris, France. 245 p. [Translated from French by King, E. E.]Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidonis, G. H., Johnson, A., and Landivar, J. A. 2000. Cotton mote frequency under rainfed and irrigated conditions. J. Cotton Sci. 4:1–9.Google Scholar
Deterling, D. and El-Zik, K. M. 1982. How a Cotton Plant Grows. Bulletin, Progressive Farmer Inc. Birmingham, AL: Progressive Farmer 14 p.Google Scholar
Doak, C. C. 1937. The pistil anatomy of cotton as related to experimental control of fertilization under varied conditions of pollination. Am. J. Bot. 24:187–194.Google Scholar
Downs, R. J. and Thomas, J. F. 1991. Phytotron Procedural Manual for Controlled Environment Research at the Southeastern Plant Environmental Laboratory. Technical Bull. 244 (revised). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University and North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. 43 p.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 2001. Suggestions for pix use. Pages 52–59 in North Carolina Cotton Production Guide. Agricultural Publication AG-147. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Frankel, R. and Galun, E. 1977. Allogamy. Pages 79–233 In Frankel, R., Gall, G.A.E., Grossman, M., Linskens, H. F., and de Zeeuw, D., eds. Pollination Mechanisms, Reproduction and Plant Breeding. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gasser, C. S., Winter, J. A., Hironaka, C. M., and Shah, D. M. 1988. Structure, expression, and evolution of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase genes of petunia and tomato. J. Biol. Chem. 263:4280–4289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorlach, J., Schmid, J., and Amrhein, N. 1994. Abundance of transcripts specific for genes encoding enzymes of the prechorismate pathway in different organs of tomato (Lycopersion esculentum L.) plants. Planta 193:216–223.Google Scholar
Gougler, J. A. and Geiger, D. R. 1981. Uptake and distribution of N-phosphonomethylglycine in sugarbeet plants. Plant Physiol. 68:668–672.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E. and Addicott, F. T. 1967. Boll retention in relation to leaf and boll development in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop Sci. 7:571–574.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Kasembe, J.N.R. 1967. Phenotypic restoration of fertility in a male-sterile mutant by treatment with gibberellic acid. Nature 215:668.Google Scholar
King, C. C., Tang, Y. W., and Ni, T. S. 1956. Studies on the boll shedding of the unfertilized ovaries in cotton plant. Acta Bot. Sin. 5:77.Google Scholar
Legé, K. E. and Kerby, T. A. 2001. Relationship between levels of cavitation and yield performance. Pages 486–488 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Lloyd, F. E. 1920. Environmental changes and their effect upon boll-shedding in cotton. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 24:1–131.Google Scholar
McGregor, S. E. 1976. Crop plants and exotic plants. Pages 171–190 in Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., Buehler, R. E., et al. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1960–1966.Google Scholar
Phatak, S. C., Wittwer, S. H., Honma, S., and Bukovac, M. J. 1966. Gibberellin-induced anther and pollen development in a stamenless tomato mutant. Nature 209:635–636.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. S. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci. 42:2193–2200.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 Gossypium hirsutum as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton due to lower CP4-EPSPS levels in male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wells, R., Little, G., Edmisten, K. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002c. Glyphosate and water stress effects on fruiting and carbohydrates in glyphosate resistant cotton. Crop Sci. 42:2193–2200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002d. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rana, R. S. and Jain, H. K. 1968. Gibberellin-induced expression of male potential in a stamenless mutant of Cosmos. Naturwissenschaften 55:301–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res. 20:195–200.Google Scholar
Sawhney, V. K. 1992. Floral mutants in tomato: development, physiology, and evolutionary implications. Can. J. Bot. 70:701–707.Google Scholar
Sawhney, V. K. and Greyson, R. I. 1973. Morphogenesis of the stamenless-2 mutant in tomato. II. Modifications of sex organs in the mutant and normal flowers. Can. J. Bot. 51:2473–2479.Google Scholar
Sawhney, V. K. and Shukla, A. 1994. Male sterility in flowering plants: are plant growth substances involved? Am. J. Bot. 81:1640–1647.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google Scholar
Smith, C. W. and Coyle, G. G. 1997. Association of fiber quality parameters and within-boll yield components in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 37:1775–1779.Google Scholar
Vargas, R. N., Wright, S., and Martin-Duvall, T. M. 1998. Tolerance of Roundup Ready cotton to Roundup Ultra applied at various growth stages. Pages 847–848 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Varma, S. K. 1976. Role of gibberellic acid in the phenomena of abscission in flower buds and bolls of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 19:40–46.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Underbrink, S. M., Jost, P. H., Whitten, T. K., and Cothren, J. T. 2000. Factors affecting Roundup Ready cotton fruit retention and yields. Pages 689–690 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Walhood, V. T. 1957. Effect of gibberellins on boll retention and cut-out in cotton. Pages 24–30 in Proc. 12th Annual Cotton Defoliation Physiology Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Walhood, V. T. and McMeans, J. L. 1964. Seed number as a factor in fruit retention. Pages 30–33 in Proc. 18th Annual Cotton Defoliation Physiology Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Yasuor, H., Sibony, M., Rubin, B., Flash, I., and Gat, E. 2000. Influence of glyphosate (Roundup Ultra) rate and time of application on weed control and performance of DP 5415RR cotton in Israel: field and laboratory experiments. Pages 1480–1483 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar