Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T00:20:41.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Techniques for Selection of Glyphosate-Tolerant Field Pea, Pisum sativum, Cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Samuel P. Yenne ,
Donald C. Thill ,
Duane J. Letourneau ,
Dick L. Auld  and
Lloyd C. Haderlie
Samuel P. Yenne
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci. and Dep. Bact. Biochem., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci. and Dep. Bact. Biochem., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Duane J. Letourneau
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci. and Dep. Bact. Biochem., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Dick L. Auld
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci. and Dep. Bact. Biochem., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Lloyd C. Haderlie
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci. and Dep. Bact. Biochem., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The tolerance of several field pea cultivars to glyphosate was compared in the laboratory and greenhouse, using root, foliar, and tissue culture exposure techniques. Pea cultivar response among glyphosate exposure techniques did not always agree. However, the cultivar ‘Alaska’ was consistently one of the most susceptible cultivars regardless of exposure technique. ‘Melrose’ was one of the most tolerant cultivars, especially when its roots and cells were exposed to glyphosate. The response of ‘Frogel’, ‘Glacier’, and other cultivars varied among glyphosate-exposure techniques.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinefield peas, Pisum sativum L.Liquid cell cultureroot bioassaypacked cell volumePisum sativum

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 286 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Amrhein, N., Deus, B., Gehrke, P., and Steinrucken, H.C. 1980. The site of inhibition of shikimate pathway by glyphosate. II. Interference of glyphosate with chorismate formation in vivo and in vitro . Plant Phisiol. 66:830–834.Google Scholar
2. Amrhein, N., Johanning, D., Schab, J., and Schultz, A. 1986. Biochemical basis for glyphosate tolerance in a bacterium and a plant tissue culture. Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc. Lett. 157:191–196.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1985. Genetic engineering: Progress on herbicide resistant crops. Nov. 11, 1985. Chem. Engr. News, p. 4–5.Google Scholar
4. Blaydes, F. 1966. Interaction of kinetin and various inhibitors in the growth of soybean tissue. Physiol. Plant. 19:748–753.Google Scholar
5. Boocock, M. R., and Coggins, J. R. 1983. Kinetics of 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase inhibition by glyphosate. Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc. Lett. 154:127–133.Google Scholar
6. Bowmer, K. H. 1982. Residues of glyphosate in irrigation water. Austrian J. Marine Freshwater Biol. 33:443–458.Google Scholar
7. Chaleff, R. S., and Ray, T. B. 1984. Herbicide-resistant mutant from tobacco cell cultures. Science 223:1148–1151.Google Scholar
8. Comai, L., Sen, L. C., and Stalker, D. M. 1983. An altered aroA gene product confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Science 221:370–371.Google Scholar
9. Fraley, R., Rogers, S., Horsch, R., Weigand, R., Mozer, T., and Shah, D. 1985. The potential for introduction of herbicide resistance into crop plants by genetic engineering. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 25:215.Google Scholar
10. Gamborg, O. L., Murashige, T., Thorpe, T. A., and Vasil, I. K. 1976. Plant tissue culture media. In vitro 12:473–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Haderlie, L. C., Widholm, J. M., and Slife, F. W. 1977. Effect of glyphosate on carrot and tobacco cells. Plant Physiol. 60:40–43.Google Scholar
12. Hensley, D. L., Beurerman, D.S.N., and Carpenter, P. L. 1978. The inactivation of glyphosate by various soils and metal salts. Weed Res. 18:287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hollander-Czytko, H., and Amrhein, N. 1983. Subcellular compartmentation of shikimic acid and phenylalanine in buckwheat cell suspension cultures grown in the presence of shikimic acid pathway inhibitors. Plant Sci. Lett. 29:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Ray, R. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron. Inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol 75:827–831.Google Scholar
15. Rubin, J. L., Gaines, C. G., and Jensen, R. A. 1984. Glyphosate inhibition of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from suspension-cultured cells of Nicotinia silvestris . Plant Physiol. 75:839–845.Google Scholar
16. Thompson, G. A., Hiatt, W. R., Facciotti, D., Comai, L., and Stalker, D. 1985. Expression in plants of a bacterial gene coding for glyphosate resistance. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 25:216.Google Scholar
17. Yenne, S. P., Thill, D. C., LeTourneau, D. J., and Auld, D. L. 1987. Tissue culture of field peas. Pisum Newsl. 19:93–95.Google Scholar