TECHNICAL

BUL
LE
TIN

THE IDEAL HERBICIDE RESISTANCE PARTNER

This Technical Bulletin provides

information to facilitate the understanding

of the growing herbicide resistance of

weeds, as well as the consequences of

this problem. In addition, it seeks to further

technical knowledge about resistance

management and to promote qualitative

gains through the use of Fascinate BR

and products from the UPL herbicide

portfolio on Brazilian crops.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

01 Problem description
05 Directions for use

04 History 18 Cotton
19 Beans
19 Corn
20 Soybean

02 Technical characteristics
of glufosinate

09
10
Mode of action
Resistance management 06 About crops resistant to
glufosinate ammonium

21 Resistance to glufosinate

03 Key benefits 24 Appendices

26 Bibliography
11 Benefits

04 Results

14 Trial 1
15 Trial 2
15 Trial 3
16 Trial 4
16 Trial 5
01. Problem description
Proud to support efforts
towards efficient herbicide
resistance management

Weeds have characteristics that enable them to thrive in agricultural

environments and to develop resistance to control measures.
Some of these characteristics include: competitive ability, high
reproductive capacity, irregular germination process (some
species can germinate and emerge at great depths), viability of
reproductive organs under unfavorable conditions, alternative
reproductive mechanisms, easy dispersal of propagules, growth
and rapid early development. The combination of several of these
characteristics may lead to significant genetic variability, with the
presence of a large number of biotypes in the populations that
occur in agroecosystems.

Some weed species stand out from others, either due to their wide
dispersal, which causes considerable losses resulting from natural
tolerance, or even to their developed resistance to commonly used
herbicides.
Over the last few years, it is safe to say that the Conyza has become one of the major
sources of concern in Brazil, especially due to the resistance found in the Conyza bonariensis
and C. canadensis species to glyphosate herbicide. In addition to being resistant to the EPSP
inhibitor group, C. sumatrensis also resists the ALS inhibitor group. Some biotypes within this
species also exhibit cross-resistance between these two groups.

More recently, the biotype C. sumatrensis was also identified as being resistant to the
photosystem I inhibitor group (Heap, 2017). This species is easily pollinated and has
high seed production, with dispersal structures that, when associated with the herbicide
resistance of biotypes within the species, have transformed the C. sumatrensis into a
major pest in agricultural and non-agricultural areas – especially in places with limited soil
disturbance (Vidal et al., 2007). With the expansion of no-tillage system, combined with
transgenic crops, the use of glyphosate herbicide was expanded, exerting selection pressure
that led to the selection of resistant buffer plant biotypes.

5
In cotton:

Efficient against resistant weeds

Excellent value
Broad-spectrum herbicide
In soybean:

Controls resistant weeds

Allows for early harvesting
after desiccation
Broad-spectrum herbicide

7
02. Technical characteristics
of glufosinate
Proud of winning the war
on resistant weeds
Glufosinate is an herbicide derived from the natural phytotoxin
L-phosphinothricin (PPT), which, in turn, is a bioproduct of
the breakdown of bialaphos produced by Streptomyces
viridochromogenes and S. hygroscopicus (Dayan et al., 2009,
Dayan and Duke 2014). It is a non-selective herbicide that is applied
at post-emergence, with low translocation and a broad spectrum of
weed control. A synthetic mixture of the D- and L- optical isomers of
phosphinothricin produces glufosinate, which is the only commercial
herbicide that targets glutamine synthetase (GS), an enzyme directly
related to nitrogen metabolism in plants (Carbonari et al. 2016).

Glufosinate – whose action mechanism is one of the inhibitors of

glutamine synthetase (GS), belongs to HRAC Group H, and its
commercial composition contains ammonium 4-[hydroxy(methyl)
phosphinoyl]-DL-homoalaninate or ammonium DL-homoalanin-4-
yl(methyl)phosphinate (glufosinate ammonium salt) with 200 g/L
(20.0% w/v) and inert ingredients. The commercial product is
named Fascinate BR and belongs to the class of non-selective
total herbicide of the substituted homoalanine group, with a
soluble concentrate formulation. It is classified as toxicity class I
and environmental hazard potential class III.

The product should not be applied to weeds or crops under stress,

or when the soil is dry. Best results are obtained when weeds are
under favorable growing conditions. Avoid applications when weeds
are excessively wet. This product works best when applied after a
period of 6 hours without rainfall (Rodrigues and Almeida, 2011).

Glufosinate is absorbed by the plant’s leaves, with limited

translocation in both the phloem and xylem.
 Mode of action*

Nitrogen plays essential roles in plant composition, especially for the formation of amino
acids, enzymes, proteins, nucleic acids and other intermediate compounds that integrate
metabolic routes that are key to plant development and survival. Glutamine synthetase is
an essential enzyme in nitrogen assimilation, allowing the plant to use ammonium, produce
amino acids and participate in the detoxification of ammonia as a metabolite resulting from
nitrate reduction.

There are two forms of glutamine synthetase: cytosolic and chloroplastic (Guiz et al., 1979).
The chloroplastic isoenzyme is encoded by the GS2 gene, while cytosolic GS is encoded by
3 to 5 genes, depending on the species. Cytosolic activity works mainly in the assimilation of
ammonium produced in most of the physiological processes in the cells, with the exception
of two: assimilation of the ammonia reduced from nitrite in the chloroplasts and reassimilation
of the ammonia released during photorespiration, the latter being primarily performed by the
chloroplastic isoform (Lam et al., 1995; Taira et al., 2004). Studies have shown that both
isoenzymes are regulated in plant tissue according to the plant’s development stage, and
that each isoenzyme has a distinct and specific role in the metabolic context (Tobin et al.,
1985; Habash et al., 2001). In wheat, for example, Bernard et al. (2008) comment that this
species has ten cDNA sequences coding GS, which are later grouped into four subfamilies:
GS1, GS2, GSr and GSe. Blocking these enzymes results in ammonia buildup within the cell
(Kishore and Shah, 1988).

Even though the ammonia buildup within the cells is the primary consequence of irreversible
GS inhibition, Krieg et al. (1990) found that this substance does not directly inhibits the growth
of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants in the growing medium, even when subjected to high levels
of ammonia in the medium. On the other hand, Lea (1991) reports that the plant’s death is
actually caused by the effect of insufficient nitrogen in the cells, such as inhibition of amino acid
synthesis – and consequently of protein synthesis –, increased levels of toxic glyoxylate and
insufficient regeneration of intermediate compounds in metabolic routes that require nitrogen.

* Taken from Christoffoleti and Nicolai, 2016.

9
 Resistance management

Proper application of herbicides is essential to prevent the occurrence of resistant biotypes.

Selection of resistant biotypes through the exposure of weed populations to low doses of
herbicides is widely accepted and documented in the literature (Busi and Powles, 2009;
Neves and Powles, 2005; Norswothy, 2012), where it is related to the selection of biotypes
with polygenic resistance mechanisms.

There is evidence showing that the efficacy of glufosinate ammonium is dependent on environmental
conditions at the time of application. Anderson et al. (1993), in a study on the species Setaria
viridis and Hordeum vulgare, report that relative humidity has a greater influence on the efficacy of
glufosinate ammonium than does ambient temperature. Mersey et al. (1990), when studying the
same species as Anderson et al. (1993), concluded that their different susceptibility to glufosinate
ammonium was due to differences in herbicide absorption and translocation.

Interestingly, Sellers et al. (2003), in a study on the species Abutilon theophrasti, which is
capable of moving its leaves according to the time of day (in order to increase radiation
interception), have found a statistical association between time of application and the
effectiveness of glufosinate ammonium. When applied near sunset, its interception decreased
by 50% if compared to the control group. The authors also found that, in addition to reduced
solar interception, the reduced efficacy of glufosinate ammonium when applied near the end
of the day may be associated with GS inactivation in the absence of solar radiation.

Technical information about Fascinate BR®

Active ingredient: glufosinate ammonium (C5H15N2O4P)

Formulation: soluble concentrate (SL)

Concentration: glufosinate ammonium salt (200 g/L)

Chemical group: non-selective total herbicide

of the substituted homoalanine group

Vapor pressure: low volatility

pH stability: stable between 5.7 to 9

Toxicity class: I – extremely toxic – red stripe

Action mechanism: Glutamine synthetase inhibitor (Group H)

Post-emergent action, no residual activity on the soil.

03. Key benefits
Proud to increase
farm profitability

The goal of weed management in crops is to minimize losses

due to interference, improve harvesting conditions, reduce the
increment of the weed seedbank, and to prevent the selection
of herbicide-resistant biotypes, while keeping environmental
contamination at the lowest possible levels and increasing
profitability (Oliverira and Brunharo, 2016).

Glufosinate ammonium is a widely used molecule for weed control

in agriculture due to its broad action spectrum. In particular, it has
the peculiar characteristic of behaving like a substrate analogous to
glutamate, irreversibly inhibiting glutamine synthetase. Its use has
increased lately due to the selection of biotypes resistant to broad-
spectrum herbicides such as glyphosate, where glufosinate acts as
an alternative herbicide to control these biotypes. In addition, the
development of glufosinate-resistant crops has also been stimulating
the widespread adoption of this herbicide (Brunharo et al., 2014).

When applied at post-emergence with a directed jet, glufosinate

efficiently controls weeds in crops that were not genetically
modified to resist this herbicide, as well as in the desiccation of
beans, potatoes and soybean. The herbicide can also be used
in the pre-planting desiccation of soybean and corn, and also
in the post-emergence of genetically modified crops (Rodrigues
and Almeida, 2011). It is highly soluble in water (1.37x106mg/L);

11
is a weak acid herbicide (pKa<2.0); has an octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) of <0.1;
and is not volatile (vapor pressure <0.1mPa) - (Agricultural Research Service-ARS, 2009;
Rodrigue and Almeida, 2011).

In the soil, it exhibits little sorption, being rapidly degraded by microorganisms to

3-methyl-non-phytotoxic phosphinicopropionic acid, as an intermediary of product
degradation (Hoerlein, 1994; Ullrich et al., 1990).

The application of glufosinate in agriculture has considerable advantages, including: low

environmental impact, low application rate, no volatilization, rapid degradation in the soil, low
leaching and bioaccumulation potential due to its low Kow (Hoerlein, 1994; Metz et al. 1998;
Mullner et al., 1993). Glufosinate is considered an herbicide that results in low selection pressure on
weeds, especially since it does not have any residual activity in the soil (Moss and Rubin, 1993).

The use of more than one action mechanism to control a weed problem is recommended,
both to avoid the emergence of resistant biotypes and to remedy the selection that has
already occurred; as a result, this diversification leads to a reduction of the seed bank in the
soil (Norsworthy et al., 2012).
In beans:

Allows for early

harvesting after
desiccation
Results in a more
uniform crop, increasing
profitability and quality
Broad-spectrum
herbicide

13
 04. Results
Proud to make
a difference in
weed control

Trial 1
% Control 21 DAA
100
95
90
80
73.25
60 65

Commelina benghalensis
40
Conyza bonariensis 1

20
0 0
0
- 1.5 L/ha 1.5 L/ha

Check Fascinate BR Glufosinate

Photos Check Fascinate BR 1.5 L/ha Glufosinate 1.5 L/ha

21 DAA:

*Spray drop Pesquisas e Desenvolvimento/Fornarolli Ciência Agrícola Ltda.

(average of trials). Awaiting registration approval.

**Target awaiting registration approval.

 Trial 2
% Control
100
94
89
80

60 64.3

Conyza canadensis(14 DAA)

40
41.7 Conyza canadensis(28 DAA)
20
0 0
0 Added: Agris 0.5 L/ha
- 2.0 L/ha 1.0 L/ha
Check Fascinate DMA

Check Fascinate BR 2 L/ha 2.4-D 1.0 L/ha

Photos
28 DAA:

Trial 3
% Control 30 % Control 30 DAA
DAA
0 100
92.7 92.7
92.0 92.0
0 80 85.0 85.0
85.0 85.0

0 60

0 40 Digitaria insularisDigitaria insularis

0 20
0.0
0.0 Added: Agris 0.5 L/ha
0 0
- -
2.0 L/ha 2.0L/ha
2.0 L/ha 2.0L/ha
3.0 L/ha 3.0L/ha
0.8 L/ha 0.8 L/ha

Check Check
Fascinate Fascinate
Liberty Liberty
Glyphotal TR Glyphotal
Select TR Select

Check Fascinate BR 2.0 L/ha Glufosinate 2.0 L/ha Glyphotal TR 3.0 L/ha
Photos
30 DAA:

*Awaiting registration approval.

15
 Trial 4
% Controle 21 DAA
% Control % Control
30 DAA
% Control 21 DAA 21 DAA
100
100 100
80 92.7
79.3 80.3 92.0
80 80 85.0 85.0
60 79.3 80.3
61.7
60 60
40 45.7 61.7
Digitaria insularis
40 20 40 28.3 Digitaria insularis
45.7
0.0
20 0 20 28.3
- 2,5 L/ha 2,5 L/ha 3,0 L/ha 0,8 L/ha 0,5 L/ha Added: Agris 0.5 L/ha
0.0 0.0
0 0
Testemunha Fascinate Liberty Glyphotal Select Gallant
- 2.0 -L/ha 2.0L/ha
2.5 L/ha TR 2.5
3.0L/ha
L/ha 0.8L/ha
3.0 L/ha 0.8 L/ha 0.5 L/ha
Check Fascinate
Check Liberty
Fascinate Glyphotal
Liberty TR Glyphotal
Select TR Select Gallant

Check Fascinate BR 2.0 L/ha Glufosinate 2.5 L/ha Glyphotal TR 3.0 L/ha
Photos
21 DAA:

Trial 5
% Control 15 DAA
100
92.5
90.0
80 81.7 80.7 82.5
84.3 85.0
80.3

60 Digitaria horizontalis
Cenchrus echinatus
40
Commelina
20 Amaranthus retroflexus
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
- 2.5 L/ha 2.5 L/ha Added: Agris 0.5 L/ha
to Fascinate BR and
Check Fascinate BR
Glufosinate Glufosinate Aureo 0.25% to glufosinate

Check Fascinate BR 2.0 L/ha Glufosinate 2.0 L/ha

Photos
15 DAA:

Source: Inovação & Desenvolvimento UPL.

*Awaiting registration approval.
In corn:

Controls resistant weeds

Broad-spectrum herbicide

17
 05. Directions for use
Proud to offer the best
solution for each crop

Cotton

To control weeds, apply along furrows, when plants are 40 cm high.

For Eleusine indica (Indian goosegrass)**, Digitaria horizontalis**

(crabgrass), Brachiaria plantaginea (signalgrass) and Sorghum halepense
(Johnson grass)**, apply at early tillering. For Acanthospermum
hispidum, Commelina benghalensis L. (Bengal dayflower),
Amaranthus viridis (slender amaranth)**, Pterogyne nitens,
Amaranthus blitum (purple amaranth)**, Bidens pilosa and Cassia
occidentalis L**, apply when weeds have 4 to 8 leaves.

A single application of 2.0L/ha per crop cycle is recommended.

* *

*Registered for application with directed spray.

Application on crops resistant to glufosinate awaiting registration approval.
**Awaiting registration approval.
Beans

For desiccation in beans for consumption:

apply 1.8 L/ha, when approximately 50% of pods are dry.

For desiccation in beans for seeds: apply 2.0 L/ha, when approximately 70% of pods are dry.

A single application per crop cycle is recommended.

Corn

Apply along furrows with a directed jet.

Apply at early tillering of Digitaria horizontalis** and Brachiaria plantaginea**.
For all other weeds, apply when weeds have 4 to 8 leaves.
A single application of 1.5 to 2.0 L/ha per crop cycle is recommended.
Use a higher dose if more grasses are present.

*Registered for application with directed spray.

Application on crops resistant to glufosinate awaiting registration approval.
**Awaiting registration approval.

19
Soybean

For application in a no-tillage system: apply at pre-sowing stage, after emergence of weeds,
over the entire area.

For Amaranthus viridis and Bidens pilosa, best control is when weeds have up to 6 leaves.

For Conyza spp., apply when weeds are up to 12 cm high.

In Digitaria insularis**, apply on weeds developed from seeds up to the development stage of
3 tillers.

For pre-planting desiccation: use 2.5 L/ha of the product.

For pre-harvesting desiccation: use 2.0 L/ha of the product + 0.7 L/ha (0.2% w/v) of
vegetable or mineral oil, applied to the crop 10 days before harvesting.

A single application per crop cycle is recommended.

*Application on crops resistant to glufosinate awaiting registration approval.

**Awaiting registration approval.

 06. About crops resistant to
glufosinate ammonium*
The ideal herbicide resistance partner

De Block et al. (1987) produced the first genetically modified plant that
exhibited resistance to glufosinate by inserting the bar gene found in
Streptomyces hygroscopicus into the tobacco genome, where it was
able to withstand application of the herbicide. This gene encodes the PAT
enzyme, capable of metabolizing glufosinate ammonium to co-products
that are non-lethal to treated plants. However, resistance to glufosinate
ammonium occurred previously, with Donn et al. (1984), in vitro, conferring
resistance to alfalfa cells by overexpressing production of the GS enzyme.

As is the case with the bar gene, the PAT gene isolated from
Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tü494 (Strauch et al., 1988) encodes
the phophinothricin-N-acetyltransferase enzyme, which also catalyzes an
acetylation reaction of NH2 found in ammonium glufosinate, deactivating
the NH2 and resulting in the same inactive form. Both genes are highly
homologous (Vasil, 1996) and are structurally equal, functionally equivalent and
offer comparable performance in transgenic plants; finally, the enzyme encoded
by these genes, PAT, is also similar in both cases (Wehrmann et al., 1996).

In Brazil, the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) has

approved the sale of a few transgenic crops for glufosinate resistance: soybean
(since 2010), corn (since 2007) and cotton (since 2008). More recently, new
events exhibiting resistance to multiple herbicides have been regulated, such
as the sale of soybeans resistant to auxinic herbicides and to glufosinate
ammonium within the same organism, and cotton and corn resistant to
glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium (Oliverira and Brunharo, 2016).

*Taken from Christoffoleti and Nicolai, 2016.

21
The absorption of ammonium glufosinate is carried out exclusively by green tissues and roots,
whereas the lignified tissues do not function as a point of entry for the herbicide. Mostly,
however, ammonium glufosinate was widely used in perennial crops, desiccation operations
and with a directed jet. However, after the introduction of crops that are tolerant to this
herbicide, its use has become widespread.

Using crops that are tolerant to multiple action mechanisms gives the producer new opportunities
for chemical management during the harvest, especially when resistant biotypes are present,
such as Digitaria insularis and Conyza spp. However, the advantages of these technologies
are not limited to reactive strategies: according to Neve et al. (2011), rotating herbicides for a
given crop reduces the risk of selection of resistant biotypes by 50%.

Braz et al. (2012) analyzed the selectivity of cotton resistant to glufosinate ammonium and
reported that, even after three applications of the herbicide, the seed or fiber production were
not affected. The authors also noted the absence of visual symptoms on the plants at the
end of the evaluations, demonstrating that this technology is safe.

Integrated weed management, which employs chemical, mechanical and cultural practices, is
always recommended, especially to reduce the probability of selecting herbicide-resistant weed
biotypes. Despite being one of the biggest problems faced by farmers, the management
of herbicide-resistant biotypes and the elimination of herbicides from the supply chain are
economically prohibitive. In the US, it is estimated that eliminating herbicides from agricultural
supply chains would reduce productivity by 20% (Gianessi and Reigner, 2007).

Since the commercial use of crops genetically modified for glufosinate ammonium resistance
was approved, farmers now have an alternative to integrated weed management, given that
rotating crops and action mechanisms is recommended in order to preserve technology, as
well as to manage herbicide resistance.
THE IDEAL
HERBICIDE
RESISTANCE
PARTNER
 APPENDICES

RESISTANT SPECIES/COMMON NAME YEAR MODE OF ACTION

1 Bidens pilosa 1993 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

2 Euphorbia heterophylla 1993 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

3 Bidens subalternans 1996 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

4 Urochloa plantaginea 1997 ACCase inhibitors (A/1)

(=Brachiaria plantaginea)

5 Sagittaria montevidensis 1999 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

6 Echinochloa crus-pavonis 1999 Synthetic auxins (O/4)

7 Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli 1999 Synthetic auxins (O/4)

8 Cyperus difformis 2000 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

9 Fimbristylis miliacea 2001 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

10 Raphanus sativus 2001 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

11 Digitaria ciliaris 2002 ACCase inhibitors (A/1)

12 Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum 2003 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

13 Eleusine indica 2003 ACCase inhibitors (A/1)

14 Euphorbia heterophylla 2004 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
PPO inhibitors (E/14)

15 Parthenium hysterophorus 2004 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

16 Conyza bonariensis 2005 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

17 Conyza canadensis 2005 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

18 Oryza sativa var. sylvatica 2006 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

19 Bidens subalternans 2006 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Photosystem II inhibitors (C1/5)

20 Digitaria insularis 2008 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

21 Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli 2009 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Synthetic auxins (O/4)

22 Sagittaria montevidensis 2009 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
PSII inhibitors (Nitriles) (C3/6)

23 Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum 2010 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

24 Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum 2010 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ACCase inhibitors (A/1)
EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)
25 Conyza sumatrensis 2010 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

26 Avena fatua 2010 ACCase inhibitors (A/1)

27 Conyza sumatrensis 2011 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

28 Conyza sumatrensis 2011 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action
ALS inhibitors (B/2)
EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

29 Amaranthus retroflexus 2011 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Photosystem II inhibitors (C1/5)

30 Amaranthus viridis 2011 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Photosystem II inhibitors (C1/5)

31 Amaranthus retroflexus 2012 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

32 Raphanus raphanistrum 2013 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

33 Ageratum conyzoides 2013 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

34 Chloris elata 2014 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

35 Amaranthus retroflexus 2014 PPO inhibitors (E/14)

36 Cyperus iria 2014 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

37 Amaranthus palmeri 2015 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

38 Echium plantagineum 2015 ALS inhibitors (B/2)

39 Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli 2015 Multiple resistance: 3 sites of action

ACCase inhibitors (A/1)
ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Cellulose inhibitors (L/26)

40 Eleusine indica 2016 EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

41 Amaranthus palmeri 2016 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

42 Digitaria insularis 2016 ACCase inhibitors (A/1)

43 Bidens pilosa 2016 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
Photosystem II inhibitors (C1/5)

44 Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum 2016 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action
ACCase inhibitors (A/1)
ALS inhibitors (B/2)

45 Conyza sumatrensis 2016 PSI Electron Diverter (D/22)

46 Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum 2017 Multiple resistance: 2 sites of action

ALS inhibitors (B/2)
EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9)

47 Conyza sumatrensis 2017 PPO inhibitors (E/14)

25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE - ARS. Pesticide Properties DataBase. Retrieved from: <https://www.ars.usda.gov/
ARSUserFiles/00000000/DatabaseFiles/PesticidePropertiesDatabase/IndividualPesticideFiles/GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM.TXT>.
Accessed on: July 4, 2017.

ANDERSON, D. M. et al. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Research, v. 33,
p. 139-147, 1993.

BERNARD, S.M. et al. Gene expression, cellular localization and function of glutamine synthetase isozymes in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).
Plant Molecular Biology, v. 67, p. 89–105, 2008.

BUSI, R.; POWLES. S. Evolution of glyphosate resistance in a Lolium rigidum population by glyphosate selection at sublethal doses.
Heredity, v. 103, p. 318–325, 2009.

BRAZ, G. B. P. et al. Seletividade do amônio-glufosinato isolado e em mistura com pyrithiobac-sodium em algodoeiro transgênico LL.
Planta Daninha, v. 30, p. 853-860, 2012.

BRUNHARO, C. A.C. G. et al. Aspectos do mecanismo de ação do amônio glufosinato: culturas resistentes e resistência de plantas
daninhas. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas, v. 13, p. 163-177, 2014.

CARBONARI, C.A. et al. Resistance to glufosinate is proportional to phosphinothricin acetyltransferase expression and activity in
LibertyLink® and WideStrike® cotton. Planta, v.243, n.4, p.925-933, 2016.

CHRISTOFFOLETI, P.J., NICOLAI, M. Aspectos de resistência de plantas daninhas e herbicidas. 4th Edition. Piracicaba: HRAL - BR, 262 p. 2016

DAYAN F.E., DUKE S.O. Natural compounds as next generation herbicides. Plant Physiol. 2014;166:1090–1105. doi: 10.1104/pp.114.239061.

DAYAN F.E. et al. Natural products in crop protection. Bioorg Med Chem. 2009;17:4022–4034. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2009.01.046.

DE BLOCK, M., et al. Engineering herbicide resistance in plants by expression of a detoxifying enzyme. The EMBO Journal, v. 6, p. 2513-2518, 1987.

DONN, D. et al. Herbicide-resistant alfalfa cells: an example of gene amplification in plants. Journal of Molecular and Applied Genetics, v. 2,
p. 621-635, 1984.

FORNAROLLI D.A. Eficácia e seletividade do Herbicida UPL 323 A FP (Glufosinato-sal-de-amônio, 200 g/L, SL) na dessecação de plantas
daninhas antes da semeadura da soja. Fornarolli Ciência Agrícola Ltda. Paraná. 2016.

GIANESSI, L. P., REIGNER, N. P.; The value of herbicides in U.S. crop production. Weed Technology, v. 21, p. 559-566, 2007.

GUIZ, C. et al. Occurrence and influence of light on the relative proportions of two glutamine synthetase in rice leaves. Plant Science Letters,
v. 15, p. 271-277, 1979.

HABASH, D.Z. et al. The role of cytosolic glutamine synthetase in wheat. Annals of Applied Biology, v. 138, p. 83–89, 2001.

HEAP I., The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Online. Internet. Retrieved from: <www.weedscience.org>.
Accessed on July 4, 2017.

HOERLEIN, G. Glufosinate (phosphinothricin), a natural amino acid with unexpected herbicidal properties. Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, v.138, p.73-145, 1994.

KISHORE, G. M., SHAH, D. M. Amino acid biosynthesis inhibitors as herbicides. Annual Review of Biochemistry, v. 57, p. 627-663, 1988.

KRIEG, L. C. et al. Growth, ammonia accumulation and glutamine synthetase activity in alfafa (Medicago sativa L.) shoots and cells treated
with phosphinothricin. Plant Cell Reports, v. 9, p. 80-83, 1990.
LAM, H. M. et al. Use of Arabidopsis mutants and genes to study amide amino acid biosynthesis. Plant Cell, v. 7, p. 887–898, 1995.

LEA, P.J. The inhibition of ammonia assimilation: a mechanism of herbicide action. In: Baker, N. R.; Percival, M. P. (eds.). Herbicides.
New York/Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 267-297, 1991.

LEITE C.R.F. Laudo de Praticabilidade e Eficiência Agronômica de UPL 323 A FP (Glufosinato-sal de amônio 200 gi.a./L) no manejo da
planta daninha Conyza bonariensis, para a semeadura de soja (Glycine max L.). Spray Drop – Pesquisas e Desenvolvimento e Assistência
Técnica Agro-Industrial S/S Ltda. Paraná. 2015.

MERSEY, B. G. et al. Factors affecting the herbicidal activity of glufosinate-ammonium: absorption, translocation, and metabolism in barley
and green foxtail. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, v. 37, p. 90-98, 1990.

METZ, P. et al. A transgene-centered approach to the biosafety of transgenic phosphinothricin-tolerant plants. Molecular Breeding, v.4, n.4,
p.335–341, 1998.

MOSS, S.R., RUBIN, B. Herbicide-resistant weeds: a worldwide perspective. Journal of Agricultural Science, v. 120, p. 141-148, 1993.

MULLNER, H. et al. Engineering crop resistance to the naturally occurring glutamine synthetase inhibitor phosphinothricin. In Pest Control
with Enhanced Environmental Safety. DUKE, S.O. et al. Eds. Washington D.C., American Chemical Society. Chap. v.3, p.38-47, 1993.

NEVE, P. et al. Modeling glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed
Technology, v. 25, p. 335-343, 2011.

NEVE, P., POWLES, S. High survival frequencies at low herbicide use rates in populations of Lolium rigidum result in rapid evolution of
herbicide resistance. Heredity, v.95, p. 485–492, 2005.

NORSWORTHY, J. K. Repeated sublethal rates of glyphosate lead to decreased sensitivity in Palmer amaranth. CropManag. doi:
10.1094/CM-2012-0403-01-RS, 2012.

OLIVEIRA, T., BRUNHARO, C.A.C.G. Resistência de plantas daninhas a herbicidas inibidores da glutamina sintetase (GS) (Grupo H).
In: CHRISTOFFOLETI, P.J.; NICOLAI, M. (Coord.). Aspectos de resistência de plantas daninhas a herbicidas. 4th edition. Piracicaba:
Associação Brasileira de Ação à Resistência de Plantas aos Herbicidas - HRAC-BR, p.251-262. 2016.

RODRIGUES, B.N., ALMEIDA, F.S. Guia de herbicidas. 6. RODRIGUES, B.N.; ALMEIDA, F.S. (Editors): Londrina, p. 84, 2011.

SELLERS, B. A. et al. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technology, v. 17, p. 302-306, 2003.

STRAUCH, E. et al. Cloning of the phosphinothricinN-acetyl-transferase gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tü494 and its
expression in Streptomyces lividans and Escherichia coli. Gene, v.63, n.1, p.65-74, 1988.

TAIRA, M. et al. Arabidopsis thaliana GLN2-encoded glutamine synthetase is dual targeted to leaf mitochondria and chloroplasts. Plant Cell,
v.16, p. 2048–2058, 2004.

TOBIN A.K. et al. Changes in the activities of chloroplast and cytosolic isoenzymes of glutamine synthetase during normal leaf growth and
plastid development in wheat. Planta, v. 163, p. 544–548, 1985.

ULLRICH, W.R. et al. Uptake of glufosinate and concomitant membrane potential changes in Lemna gibba. Pesticide Biochemistry and
Physiology, v.37, p 1-11, 1990.

VIDAL, R.A. et al. Impacto da temperatura, irradiância e profundidade das sementes na emergência e germinação de Conyza bonariensis e
Conyza canadensis resistentes ao glyphosate. Planta Daninha, v.25, n.2, p.309-315, 2007.

WEHRMANN, A. et al. National Biotechnology, v.14, n.1, p.1274-1278, 1996.

27
 THE IDEAL HERBICIDE RESISTANCE PARTNER

This product is hazardous to humans, animals and the environment. Read carefully and follow the instructions on the label,

WARNING the package insert and the prescription. Always use personal protective equipment. Never allow minors to use the product.

ALWAYS CONSULT AN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER. SOLB BY PRESCRIPTION ONLY.

formation
For more in
go to:
m.br
UPL BRASIL Rua José Geraldo Ferreira, 105 - Notre Dame - Campinas - SP uplbrasil.co
ZIP 13092-807 | Tel. +55 19 3794 5600