Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield

Dewar, A. M.; Haylock, L. A.; Bean, K. M. R.; May, Mike

doi:10.1002/(sici)1526-4998(200004)56:4<345::aid-ps126>3.0.co;2-y

Cited by 46 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…documented a decline in populations of Therioaphis maculata (Buckton) along the field edges after herbicide (dicamba and 2,4-D) treatment associated with vegetation removal. In contrast, Dewar et al 19. and Albajes et al 20.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…and Albajes et al 20. reported that aphids became more abundant in glyphosate-treated plots in herbicide-tolerant crops, which might be a consequence of the increased vigour of crop plants released from competition with weeds19 or a reduction in the associational resistance of crop plants to herbivores due to a disrupted crop-weed interaction underground21. Other modes of action of herbicides against herbivorous insects include the direct toxicity of the formulation22 or the sub-lethal effects of the herbicides caused by the insects feeding on contaminated or modified, less nutritious food23.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment by glyphosate-based herbicide alters life history parameters of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum

Saska

Skuhrovec

Lukáš

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glyphosate is the number one herbicide in the world. We investigated the sub-lethal effects of this herbicide on the aphid Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker), using an age-stage, two-sex life table approach. Three concentrations of the herbicide (low - 33.5, medium - 66.9 and high - 133.8 mmol dm−3 of active ingredient) and distilled water as the control were used. The LC50 of the IPA salt of glyphosate on M. dirhodum was equivalent to 174.9 mmol dm−3 of the active ingredient (CI95: 153.0, 199.0). The population parameters were significantly negatively affected by herbicide application, and this negative effect was progressive with the increasing concentration of the herbicide. A difference of two orders of magnitude existed in the predicted population development of M. dirhodum between the high concentration of the herbicide and the control. This is the first study that comprehensively documents such a negative effect on the population of an herbivorous insect.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment by glyphosate-based herbicide alters life history parameters of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum

Saska

Skuhrovec

Lukáš

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weeds occurring between rows after an early over-the-row band spraying could be controlled by a later overall spray (Dewar et al, 2000May et al, 2005;Pidgeon et al, 2007). Weeds occurring between rows after an early over-the-row band spraying could be controlled by a later overall spray (Dewar et al, 2000May et al, 2005;Pidgeon et al, 2007).…”

Section: Impact On Farmland Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-60) for placing on the market of genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize GA21 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Seeds

2011

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Scientific Opinion reports on an evaluation of a risk assessment for placing on the market of genetically modified maize GA21 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation. Maize GA21 was developed through particle bombardment and contains a single insertion locus consisting of modified maize epsps (mepsps) gene, conferring tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides. Bioinformatic analyses and levels of the mEPSPS protein were considered sufficient. The comparative analysis of compositional, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics indicated that maize GA21 is not different from the conventional counterpart and its composition fell within the range observed among non-GM maize varieties, except for the presence of the mEPSPS protein in maize GA21. The safety assessment of maize GA21 identified no concerns regarding potential toxicity and allergenicity. A feeding study with broiler chickens confirmed that maize GA21 is as nutritious as its conventional counterpart. The EFSA GMO Panel considers that maize GA21 is unlikely to raise additional environmental safety concerns compared to conventional maize, but that its cultivation management could result in environmental harm under certain conditions. The EFSA GMO Panel therefore recommends managing the use of glyphosate on maize GA21 within diversified cropping regimes that have similar or reduced environmental impacts compared with conventional maize cultivation. The EFSA GMO Panel recommends the deployment of case-specific monitoring to address (1) changes in botanical diversity within fields due to novel herbicide regimes, and (2) resistance evolution to glyphosate in weeds due to novel herbicide regimes. The EFSA GMO Panel agrees with the general surveillance plan of the applicant, but requests that its proposals to strengthen general surveillance are implemented. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the information available for maize GA21 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that maize GA21, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and commercial maize varieties with respect to potential adverse effects on human and animal health. If subjected to appropriate management measures, the cultivation management of maize GA21 is unlikely to raise safety concerns for the environment.

show abstract

“…The high efficacy of glyphosate combined with a respective herbicide-tolerant variety in conservation tillage would make the use of conventional herbicides unnecessary, when the first application of glyphosate is made at the six-to eight-leaf stage of the crop. Thus, a great increase in environmental benefits can be achieved, based on the biodiversity of a weed population that exists from autumn until the eight-to 10-leaf stage, leaving residues until after canopy closure of the crop (Dewar et al 2000(Dewar et al , 2003. The use of density threshold-based weed control in sugar beet would then become feasible, either with conservation tillage or tillage with ploughing (Platte et al 1998, Ma¨rla¨nder and Bu¨ckmann 1999, Wellmann 1999 Dietsch and Ma¨rla¨nder (2002) 70 Ma¨rla¨nder…”

Section: Entire Evaluation and Integrated Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed Control in Sugar Beet using Genetically Modified Herbicide‐tolerant Varieties – A Review of the Economics for Cultivation in Europe

Märländer¹

2005

J Agronomy Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetically modified sugar beet varieties have been developed to be tolerant to glyphosate and glufosinate. To date, research regarding other active ingredients did not result in additional herbicide-tolerant varieties and the approval of glufosinate-tolerant varieties for market access has been withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore, only glyphosatetolerant varieties could be introduced for cultivation in the short run. Results concerning efficacy and cost of weed control using these varieties and the complementary herbicides were extensively reported in various contributions, mostly on a national level. Based on these results, the economics of weed control for sugar beet production in Europe were reviewed and aspects of integrated control, risk management, and issues of sustainable development of crop production are discussed. Efficient weed control is possible in almost any field situation with glyphosate at about 2 kg a.i. ha )1 , compared with conventional herbicides at 6 kg ha )1 or higher, depending on weed infestation level. Cost savings for weed control with glyphosate would amount to an average of e150 ha )1 , without any great deviation across different sites and states. A technology fee of about e40 ha )1 is assumed. The high selectivity of glyphosate may result in a 1-3 % higher yield performance of the crop. All assumptions being considered, total cost savings of e180 · 10 6 year )1 were calculated for the area of 1.7 · 10 6 ha in the main EU sugar beet-growing countries. A risk management by implementing a monitoring programme is compulsory, and systems of identity preservation or quality assurance are needed in order to enable the production of conventional and genetically modified sugar beet in coexistence. To date, costs are unknown for these measures. Because of the favourable ecotoxicological behaviour of glyphosate and the possibility of thresholdbased weed control, this new technology could provide an excellent option towards sustainable development of the crop. However, political reasons and the lack of acceptance of genetically modified varieties by the consumer have prevented the market entry of GMHT sugar beet to date, so that conventional herbicides will continuously be used in the future.

show abstract

Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield

Cited by 46 publications

References 1 publication

Treatment by glyphosate-based herbicide alters life history parameters of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum

Treatment by glyphosate-based herbicide alters life history parameters of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum

Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-60) for placing on the market of genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize GA21 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Seeds

Weed Control in Sugar Beet using Genetically Modified Herbicide‐tolerant Varieties – A Review of the Economics for Cultivation in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About