ABSTRACT
In Brazil, ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) has been identified as resistant to glyphosate, becoming a major problem, especially in crops cultivated in the winter season. This herbicide can indirectly affect photosynthesis by inhibiting biosynthesis of many compounds. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of glyphosate on the physiological profile of susceptible and resistant ryegrass populations to the herbicide. The experimental design was completely randomized with two treatments (720 and 1,080 g e.a. ha-1) and four replications plus control with no treatment. Two ryegrass populations were sown, one susceptible and another one resistant to glyphosate. After the treatments, evaluations were carried out at 1, 3, 7 and 28 days after application (DAA). Variables analyzed were: CO2 net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance, CO2 internal concentration, transpiration, water use efficiency and instantaneous carboxylation efficiency. The glyphosate herbicide caused irreversible damage in a susceptible population which at 28 DAA in all variables analyzed this population was already dead and it was impossible to analyze it, but it was shown that the effects of this herbicide were intensified from the third day after application. In the case of the resistant population, at 3 DAA in all variables, it suffered significant effects comparing to the control, showing that even with a high level of resistance the herbicide can affect its metabolism.
Keywords:
herbicide resistance; photosynthesis; Lolium multiflorum
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable. Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha 1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).
The vertical bars indicate the confidence interval. Botucatu, SP. * nd: non-detectable. Control susceptible (CS), control resistant (CR), susceptible population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (S2), susceptible population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (S3), resistant population submitted to 720 g a.e. ha-1 (R2), resistant population submitted to 1,080 g a.e. ha-1 (R3).