Journal or Publishing Institution: Agronomy Journal
Study: http://www.kurt-schweizer.ch/home/gentech/RapsKanadaVanAcker.pdf
Author(s): Friesen, L.F., Nelson, A.G. and Van Acker, R.C.
Article Type: Peer Reviewed Study
Record ID: 717
Abstract: The objective of this study was to survey pedigreed canola (Brassica napus L.) seedlots for contaminating herbicide resistance traits because of complaints from farmers regarding glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine]-resistant canola volunteers occurring unexpectedly in their fields at densities and in patterns that suggested that pollen-mediated gene flow from neighboring fields in previous years was not the source of contamination. Twenty-seven unique, commercial certified canola seedlot samples were collected. Glyphosate-resistant seedlot samples were not collected. Canola samples were planted in the field, and when the canola had two to four true leaves, glyphosate, glufosinate [2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid], and thifensulfuron {methyl 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylate} herbicides were applied. Surviving canola plants were counted. Of the 27 seedlots, 14 had contamination levels above 0.25% and therefore failed the 99.75% cultivar purity guideline for certified canola seed. Three seedlots had glyphosate resistance contamination levels in excess of 2.0%. Unexpected contamination (even at 0.25%) can cause problems for producers that practice direct seeding and depend on glyphosate for nonselective, broad-spectrum weed control. To avoid unexpected problems and costs, it is important that farmers are cognizant of the high probability that pedigreed canola seedlots are cross-contaminated with the various herbicide resistance traits.
Keywords: glyphosate resistance contamination, canola
Citation: Friesen, L.F., Nelson, A.G. and Van Acker, R.C., 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agronomy Journal, 95(5), pp.1342-1347.
