Tolerance of cotton expressing a 2,4-D detoxification gene to 2,4-D applied in the field
Graham W. Charles A E , Greg A. Constable B , Danny J. Llewellyn C and Mark A. Hickman DA NSW Department of Primary Industries, Australian Cotton Research Institute, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia.
B CSIRO Plant Industry, Australian Cotton Research Institute, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia.
C CSIRO Plant Industry, Clunies Ross Road, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia.
D Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: graham.charles@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 58(8) 780-787 https://doi.org/10.1071/AR06375
Submitted: 28 November 2006 Accepted: 16 April 2007 Published: 30 August 2007
Abstract
The tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) of a genetically modified (transgenic) cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) expressing a 2,4-D detoxification gene was compared with conventional (non-transgenic) cotton over 2 seasons. The 2,4-D was applied over-the-top of cotton in the field at 7–17 nodes of crop growth at rates of 0.004–1.12 kg a.i./ha. The transgenic cotton displayed better tolerance to 2,4-D than conventional cotton at all growth stages and herbicide rates. Some damage was apparent on both types of cotton at 2,4-D rates of 0.07 kg/ha and above, with damage most pronounced when the plants were exposed at 7 nodes. The transgenic cotton also had some tolerance to MCPA. Commercial use of transgenic, 2,4-D-tolerant cotton has the potential to greatly reduce problems of 2,4-D damage in cotton from accidental spray drift and herbicide residues in spraying equipment, where plants are predominantly exposed to low rates of 2,4-D.
Additional keywords: genetically modified organism, herbicide resistance, MCPA, transgenic.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Paul and Stuart Gruber, who provided land and irrigation for the work, and Nufarm who assisted with herbicide. We also thank Dr Ian Taylor and Dr Robert Mensah for reviewing the manuscript. We acknowledge the support of the Australian Cotton Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre.
Al-Khatib K,
Mink GI,
Reisenauer G,
Parker R,
Westberg H, Lamb B
(1993) Development of a biologically-based system for detection and tracking of airborne herbicides. Weed Technology 7, 404–410.
Baker RS
(1993) Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to preplant-applied hormone-type herbicides. Weed Technology 7, 150–153.
Banks PA, Schroeder J
(2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technology 16, 833–837.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bayley C,
Trolinder N,
Ray C,
Morgan M,
Quisenberry JE, Ow DW
(1992) Engineering 2,4-D resistance into cotton. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83, 645–649.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Birch P
(2004) Understanding hormone damage. The Australian Cottongrower 25, 29–31.
Chen ZX,
Llewellyn DJ,
Fan YL,
Li SJ,
Guo SD,
Jiao GL, Zhao JX
(1994) 2,4-D resistant cotton plants produced by Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer. Scientia Agricultura Sinica 27, 31–37.
Ellis JM,
Griffin JL, Jones CA
(2002) Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technology 16, 587–592.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hammond D
(1992) Managing 2,4-D in cotton fallows. The Australian Cottongrower 13, 67.
Horowitz M,
Herzlinger G, Gizmawi I
(1976) Biological methods for detection and estimation of damage to cotton by 2,4-D. Phytoparasitica 4, 144.
Llewellyn D, Fitt G
(1996) Pollen dispersal from two field trials of transgenic cotton in the Namoi Valley, Australia. Molecular Breeding 2, 157–166.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Llewellyn D,
Tyson C,
Constable G,
Duggan B,
Beale S, Steel P
(2007) Containment of regulated genetically modified cotton in the field. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (In press) ,
Lyon BR,
Cousins YL,
Llewellyn DJ, Dennis ES
(1993) Cotton plants transformed with a bacterial degradation gene are protected from accidental spray drift damage by the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Transgenic Research 2, 162–169.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martin RJ,
McMillan MG, Cook JB
(1988) Survey of farm management practices of the northern wheat belt of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28, 499–509.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Medd D, McMillan M
(1992) Cotton weed identification and control. The Australian Cottongrower 13, 80–81.
Porter WK,
Thomas CH, Baker JB
(1959) A three-year study of the effect of some phenoxy herbicides on cotton. Weeds 7, 341–348.
Staten G
(1946) Contamination of cotton fields by 2,4-D or hormone type weed sprays. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 38, 536–544.
Storrie A,
Hickman M,
Cook T, Alston C
(1998) The effect of low rates of fallow herbicides on cotton. The Australian Cottongrower 19, 9–13.
Zhang BH,
Wang HM,
Liu YH, Liu ZD
(2001) In vitro assay for 2,4-D resistance in transgenic cotton. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology 37, 300–304.
