{"title":"History and Outlook for Glyphosate-Resistant Crops.","authors":"Jerry M Green, Daniel L Siehl","doi":"10.1007/398_2020_54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, commercially referred to as glyphosate-tolerant (GT), started the revolution in crop biotechnology in 1996. Growers rapidly accepted GR crops whenever they became available and made them the most rapidly adopted technology in agriculture history. Adoption usually meant sole reliance on glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, CAS No. 1071-83-6] for weed control. Not surprisingly, weeds eventually evolved resistance and are forcing growers to change their weed management practices. Today, the widespread dissemination of GR weeds that are also resistant to other herbicide modes-of-action (MoA) has greatly reduced the value of the GR crop weed management systems. However, growers continue to use the technology widely in six major crops throughout North and South America. Integrated chemistry and seed providers seek to sustain glyphosate efficacy by promoting glyphosate combinations with other herbicides and stacking the traits necessary to enable the use of partner herbicides. These include glufosinate {4-[hydroxy(methyl)phosphinoyl]-DL-homoalanine, CAS No. 51276-47-2}, dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid, CAS No. 1918-00-9), 2,4-D [2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid, CAS No. 94-75-7], 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors, acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors, and other herbicides. Unfortunately, herbicide companies have not commercialized a new MoA for over 30 years and have nearly exhausted the useful herbicide trait possibilities. Today, glyphosate-based crop systems are still mainstays of weed management, but they cannot keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Growers desperately need new technologies, but no technology with the impact of glyphosate and GR crops is on the horizon. Although the expansion of GR crop traits is possible into new geographic areas and crops such as wheat and sugarcane and could have high value, the Roundup Ready® revolution is over. Its future is at a nexus and dependent on a variety of issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":21182,"journal":{"name":"Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology","volume":"255 ","pages":"67-91"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/398_2020_54","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, commercially referred to as glyphosate-tolerant (GT), started the revolution in crop biotechnology in 1996. Growers rapidly accepted GR crops whenever they became available and made them the most rapidly adopted technology in agriculture history. Adoption usually meant sole reliance on glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, CAS No. 1071-83-6] for weed control. Not surprisingly, weeds eventually evolved resistance and are forcing growers to change their weed management practices. Today, the widespread dissemination of GR weeds that are also resistant to other herbicide modes-of-action (MoA) has greatly reduced the value of the GR crop weed management systems. However, growers continue to use the technology widely in six major crops throughout North and South America. Integrated chemistry and seed providers seek to sustain glyphosate efficacy by promoting glyphosate combinations with other herbicides and stacking the traits necessary to enable the use of partner herbicides. These include glufosinate {4-[hydroxy(methyl)phosphinoyl]-DL-homoalanine, CAS No. 51276-47-2}, dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid, CAS No. 1918-00-9), 2,4-D [2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid, CAS No. 94-75-7], 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors, acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors, and other herbicides. Unfortunately, herbicide companies have not commercialized a new MoA for over 30 years and have nearly exhausted the useful herbicide trait possibilities. Today, glyphosate-based crop systems are still mainstays of weed management, but they cannot keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Growers desperately need new technologies, but no technology with the impact of glyphosate and GR crops is on the horizon. Although the expansion of GR crop traits is possible into new geographic areas and crops such as wheat and sugarcane and could have high value, the Roundup Ready® revolution is over. Its future is at a nexus and dependent on a variety of issues.
抗草甘膦(GR)作物(商业上称为耐草甘膦(GT))于 1996 年掀起了一场作物生物技术革命。只要有抗草铵膦作物,种植者就会迅速接受,并使其成为农业史上最迅速被采用的技术。采用这种技术通常意味着只能依靠草甘膦[N-(膦酰甲基)甘氨酸,化学文摘社编号 1071-83-6]来控制杂草。毫不奇怪,杂草最终产生了抗药性,迫使种植者改变杂草管理方法。如今,对其他除草剂作用方式(MoA)也产生抗性的 GR 杂草的广泛传播,大大降低了 GR 作物杂草管理系统的价值。不过,种植者仍在北美和南美的六种主要作物上广泛使用该技术。综合化学和种子供应商通过推广草甘膦与其他除草剂的组合以及堆叠使用伙伴除草剂所需的性状,力求维持草甘膦的功效。这些除草剂包括草铵膦{4-[羟基(甲基)膦酰基]-DL-高丙氨酸,化学文摘社编号:51276-47-2}、麦草畏(3,6-二氯-2-甲氧基苯甲酸,化学文摘社编号:CAS No.1918-00-9)、2,4-D [2-(2,4-二氯苯氧基)乙酸,化学文摘社编号 94-75-7]、4-羟基苯基丙酮酸二氧酶抑制剂、乙酰辅酶 A 羧化酶(ACCase)抑制剂和其他除草剂。遗憾的是,除草剂公司 30 多年来一直没有将新的 MoA 商业化,几乎耗尽了有用除草剂性状的可能性。如今,以草甘膦为基础的作物系统仍然是杂草管理的主流,但它们无法跟上杂草的抗药性进化能力。种植者亟需新技术,但目前还没有任何技术能达到草甘膦和 GR 作物的效果。尽管 GR 作物性状有可能扩展到新的地理区域和作物,如小麦和甘蔗,并可能具有很高的价值,但 Roundup Ready® 革命已经结束。它的未来取决于各种问题。
期刊介绍:
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology publishes reviews pertaining to the sources, transport, fate and effects of contaminants in the environment. The journal provides a place for the publication of critical reviews of the current knowledge and understanding of environmental sciences in order to provide insight into contaminant pathways, fate and behavior in environmental compartments and the possible consequences of their presence, with multidisciplinary contributions from the fields of analytical chemistry, biochemistry, biology, ecology, molecular and cellular biology (in an environmental context), and human, wildlife and environmental toxicology.
•Standing on a 55+ year history of publishing environmental toxicology reviews
•Now publishing in journal format boasting rigorous review and expanded editorial board
•Publishing home for extensive environmental reviews dealing with sources, transport, fate and effect of contaminants
•Through Springer Compact agreements, authors from participating institutions can publish Open Choice at no cost to the authors