不同时期喷施草甘膦对抗草甘膦转基因大豆生长和产量构成的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.04.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】通过分析不同生长期喷施草甘膦后，抗草甘膦转基因大豆生长和产量构成的变化，阐明一定浓度的草甘膦对转基因大豆生长繁育的影响，并对转基因大豆田间实际除草过程中草甘膦喷施时间及浓度的合理选择提供数据支持及理论研究依据。【方法】选择抗草甘膦转基因大豆GTS-40-3-2，采用田间随机区组的设计方法，在大豆生长的V1—V5期茎叶喷施一定浓度梯度的41%草甘膦异丙胺盐水剂，研究草甘膦对不同时期转基因大豆生长及产量构成的影响，并同期监测该浓度梯度草甘膦的实际除草效果。【结果】1.23—12.30 kg•ai•hm-2的草甘膦均能有效控制杂草，但喷施草甘膦超过推荐剂量1.23—2.46 kg•ai•hm-2会抑制GTS-40-3-2主茎节和主茎复叶的生长及降低成熟期的单株粒数和单株产量。GTS-40-3-2的单株有效荚数和百粒重在喷施不同浓度草甘膦后保持对照水平，株高、结荚高和有效分枝数等产量相关性状在较低浓度草甘膦处理后还有一定增长。草甘膦对GTS-40-3-2生长繁育的影响因施药时间的不同存在差异，4.92—7.38 kg•ai•hm-2的草甘膦显著抑制V1和V2期大豆的生长和产量，但对V3—V5期大豆的产量构成没有明显影响；V3—V5期大豆茎叶生长的减缓发生在喷施一定浓度草甘膦后10—20 d，30 d后茎叶生长恢复至对照水平，但较高浓度（9.84—12.30 kg•ai•hm-2）的草甘膦仍会导致V4和V5期大豆单株粒数和单株产量的明显下降，V3期GTS-40-3-2的产量构成因素不受喷施草甘膦的影响。【结论】1.23—2.46 kg•ai•hm-2的草甘膦具有良好的除草效果，在转基因大豆生长的V1—V5期均能安全使用而不会造成大豆的生长抑制和减产。喷施草甘膦超过推荐剂量，一定程度上损伤大豆的结粒水平，但籽粒质量不受影响。草甘膦对不同时期转基因大豆生长繁育的影响程度为：V1、V2＞V4、V5＞V3，田间除草时选择V3期喷施草甘膦，从对转基因大豆生长和产量构成的影响角度而言，相对最为安全有效。

关键词: 抗草甘膦转基因大豆, 草甘膦异丙胺盐水剂, 生长, 产量构成

Abstract: 【Objective】 The objective of this study is to research the impact of glyphosate on growth and fecundity of glyphosate-tolerant soybean and to provide statistics and a theoretical basis of time and concentration for weeding control by glyphosate.【Method】A random complete block design was used and the influence of spraying 41% glyphosate isopropylammonium AS at different rates on growth and yield component of transgenic soybean cultivar GTS-40-3-2 at V1-V5 stages was studied in the field. Also, the effect of glyphosate on weeding control was investigated. 【Result】 It was found that glyphosate was effective at 1.23-12.30 kg•ai•hm-2 to control weed. However, the glyphosate more than recommended rate of 1.23-2.46 kg•ai•hm-2 depressed the number of stem nods and compound leaves, and reduced the number of seeds and seeds weight per plant of GTS-40-3-2. There were no obviously negative influence of spraying glyphosate on number of effective pods per plant and 100-seed-weight of GTS-40-3-2, and the main agronomic traits related to yield including plant height, pod height and number of effective embranchments even increased after dealing with glyphosate at lower concentration. There were different effects of spraying glyphosate on growth and fecundity of GTS-40-3-2 at different growth stages. Glyphosate of 4.92-7.38 kg•ai•hm-2 restrained distinctly soybean growth and yield on V1 and V2 stages, but did not injure yield component at V3-V5 stages. The stem nodes and leaves of GTS-40-3-2 were decreased in 10-20 days after treatment (DAT) with glyphosate at V3-V5 stages, then returned to control in 30 d. Glyphosate at 9.84-12.30 kg•ai•hm-2 reduced the number of seeds and seed weight per plant of GTS-40-3-2 at V4 and V5 stages, but did not affect them at V3 stage.【Conclusion】 Spraying glyphosate at 1.23-2.46 kg•ai•hm-2 not only was available for weeding control but also maintained the growth and yield component of GTS-40-3-2, which could be safe to use at V1-V5 growth stages of the glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Application of gyphosate beyond 1.23-2.46 kg•ai•hm-2 depressed the seed number but did not affect the seed mass of GTS-40-3-2. There were differences in growth and yield component depression by glyphosate between growth stages of GTS-40-3-2. Soybean at V1 and V2 stages was more sensitive to glyphosate than V3-V5. It was most safe to spray glyphosate at V3 stage compared with other stages in consideration of soybean growth and fecundity.

Key words: glyphosate-tolerant soybean, glyphosate isopropylammonium AS, growth, yield component

刘文娟, 刘勇, 黄小琴, 周西全, 宋君, 尹全, 王东, 陶李, 张富丽, 常丽娟, 张蕾, 雷绍荣. 不同时期喷施草甘膦对抗草甘膦转基因大豆生长和产量构成的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(4): 675-684.

LIU Wen-Juan, LIU Yong, HUANG Xiao-Qin, ZHOU Xi-Quan, SONG Jun, YIN Quan, WANG Dong, TAO Li, ZHANG Fu-Li, CHANG Li-Juan, ZHANG Lei, LEI Shao-Rong. Impact of Spraying Glyphosate on Growth and Yield Component of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean at Different Growth Stages[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(4): 675-684.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.04.008

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2012/V45/I4/675

参考文献

[1]Phillip A C. RAPD analysis of seed purity in a commercial hybrid cabbage (Brassica oleraca var. Capital) cultivar. Genome, 2000, 43(2): 317-321.

[2]Schönbrunn E, Eschenburg S, Shuttleworth W A, Schloss J V, Amrhein N, Evans J N S, Kabsch W. Interaction of the herbicide glyphosate with its target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase in atomic detail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001, 98(4): 1376-1380.

[3]Dill G M. Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest Management Science, 2005, 61(3): 219-224.

[4]Roberts R K, Pendergrass R, Hayes R M. Economic analysis of alternative herbicide regimes on roundup ready soybeans. Journal of Production Agriculture, 1999, 12(3): 449-454.

[5]Webster E P, Bryant K J, Earnest L D. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology, 1999, 13(3): 586-593.

[6]Reddy K N. Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed management tool: opportunities and challenges. Weed Biology and Management, 2001, 1(4): 193-202.

[7]Heatherly L G, Elmore C D, Spurlock S R. Weed management systems for conventional and glyphosate-resistant soybean with and without irrigation. Agronomy Journal, 2002, 94(6): 1419-1428.

[8]Heatherly L G, Spurlock S R, Reddy K N. Weed management in nonirrigated glyphosate-resistant and non-resistant soybean following deep and shallow fall tillage. Agronomy Journal, 2004, 96(3): 742-749.

[9]Shaner D L. Role of translocation as a mechanism of resistance to glyphesate. Weed Science, 2009, 57(1): 118-123.

[10]沈晓峰, 栾凤侠, 陶波. 抗草甘膦转基因大豆生物与环境安全性. 东北农业大学学报, 2007, 38(3): 401-404.

Shen X F, Luan F X, Tao B. Biosafety and environmental safety of genetic modified soybean resistant to glyphosate. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2007, 38(3): 401-404. (in Chinese)

[11]Reddy K N, Hoagland R E, Zablotowicz R M. Effect of glyphosate on growth, chlorophyll, and nodulation in glyphosate-resistant and susceptible soybean (Glycine max) varieties. Journal of New Seeds, 2001, 2(3): 37-52.

[12]Reddy K N, Rimando A M, Duke S O. Aminomethylphosphonic acid, a metabolite of glyphosate, causes injury in glyphosate-treated, glyphosate-resistant soybean. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2004, 52(16): 5139-5143.

[13]卜贵军, 刘洪梅, 李英, 崔琳, 王学东. 草甘膦对大豆超微结构及光合指标影响的研究. 电子显微学报, 2008, 27(4): 322-330.

Bu G J, Liu H M, Li Y, Cui L, Wang X D. Soybean ultrastructure and photosynthesis index as affected by glyphosate. Journal of Chinese Electron Microscopy Society, 2008, 27(4): 322-330. (in Chinese)

[14]Zobiole L H S, Oliveira Jr R S, Visentainer J V, Kremer R J, Bellaloui N, Yamada T. Glyphosate affects seed composition in glyphosate- resistant soybean. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2010, 58(7): 4517-4522.

[15]Zablotowicz R M, Reddy K N. Nitrogenase activity, nitrogen content, and yield responses to glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Crop Protection, 2007, 26(3): 370-376.

[16]Krausz R F, Young B G. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to trimethylsulfonium and isopropylamine salts of glyphosate. Weed Technology, 2001, 15(4): 745-749.

[17]Reddy K N, Zablotowicz R M. Glyphosate-resistant soybean response to various salts of glyphosate and glyphosate accumulation in soybean nodules. Weed Science, 2003, 51(4): 496-502.

[18]Elmore R W, Roeth F W, Klein R N, Knezevic S Z, Martin A, Nelson L A, Shapiro C A. Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar response to glyphosate. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(2): 404-407.

[19]Benbrook C. Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, 1999.

[20]Elmore R W, Roeth F W, Nelson L A, Shapiro C A, Klein R N, Knezevic S Z, Martin A. Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(2): 408-412.

[21]Nelson K A, Renner K A. Soybean growth and development as affected by glyphosate and postemergence herbicide tank mixtures. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(2): 428-434.

[22]Young B G, Young J M, Matthews J L, Owen M D K, Zelaya L A, Hartzler R G, Wax L M, Rorem K W, Bollero G A. Soybean development and yield as affected by three postemergence herbicides. Agronomy Journal, 2003, 95(5): 1152-1156.

[23]Lamb D C, Kelly D E, Hanley S Z, Mehmood Z, Kelly S L. Glyphosate is an inhibitor of plant cytochrome P450: functional expression of Thlaspi arvensae cytochrome P45071B1/reductase fusion protein in Escherichia coli. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 1998, 244(1): 110-114.

[24]King C A, Purcell L C, Vories E D. Plant growth and nitrogenase activity of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate applications. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(1): 179-186.

[25]原向阳, 郭平毅, 张丽光, 王鑫, 姚满生, 王宏富. 第三复叶期喷施草甘膦对转基因大豆和普通大豆生理指标的影响. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(11): 3886-3892.

Yuan X Y, Guo P Y, Zhang L G, Wang X, Yao M S, Wang H F. Impact of glyphosate on physiological index of transgenic and conventional soybean on three-trifoliolate leaf stage. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2008, 41(11): 3886-3892. (in Chinese)

[26]原向阳, 郭平毅, 张丽光, 王鑫, 赵锐, 姚满生, 王宏富. 不同时期喷施草甘膦对大豆生理指标的影响. 中山大学学报: 自然科学版, 2009, 48(2): 90-94.

Yuan X Y, Guo P Y, Zhang L G, Wang X, Zhao R, Yao M S, Wang H F. Impact of spraying glyphosate on physiological index of soybean at different growth stage. Acta Scientiarum Naturalun Universitatis Sunyatseni, 2009, 48(2): 90-94. (in Chinese)