Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-q7jt5 Total loading time: 0.395 Render date: 2021-02-26T04:45:04.353Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Productivity and Intraspecific Competitive Ability of a Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Biotype Resistant to Atrazine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James A. Gray
Affiliation:
Environ. Tox. Ctr., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Nelson E. Balke
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Environ. Tox. Ctr., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the relative competitive ability and productivity of an atrazine-resistant biotype (WRB1) and an atrazine-susceptible accession (WSA1) of velvetleaf from Wisconsin. Noncompetitive productivity studies conducted in the field and greenhouse during 1992 and 1993 showed that instantaneous relative growth rate, net assimilation rate, and leaf area ratio of the WRB1 biotype and WSA1 accession were similar. There were no consistent differences between the WRB1 biotype and WSA1 accession in plant height, shoot dry biomass, and leaf area over time. The WRB1 biotype and WSA1 accession did not differ in noncompetitive seed yield. A replacement series experiment conducted in the field in 1992 and 1993 showed that the WRB1 biotype and WSA1 accession did not differ in shoot dry biomass or seed yield at densities of 36, 64, and 100 plants m−2. Results suggest that resistance to atrazine has not reduced the noncompetitive productivity or the intraspecific competitive ability of the WRB1 biotype relative to the WSA1 accession. Thus, even in the absence of atrazine selection intensity, the frequency of atrazine resistance gene(s) is unlikely to decrease in the velvetleaf population from which the WRB1 biotype was selected.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate, and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31:438444.Google Scholar
2. Andersen, R. N. 1988. Outcrossing in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 36:599602.Google Scholar
3. Andersen, R. N. and Gronwald, J. W. 1987. Noncytoplasmic inheritance of atrazine tolerance in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:496498.Google Scholar
4. Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Steinback, K. E. 1982. The mechanism of chloroplast triazine resistance: alterations in the site of herbicide action. Pages 185214 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
5. Bowes, J., Crofts, A. R., and Arntzen, C. J. 1980. Redox reactions on the reducing side of photosystem II in chloroplasts with altered herbicide binding properties. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 200:303308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Conard, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gray, J. A., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Balke, N. E. Absence of herbicide cross-resistance in two atrazine-resistant velvetleaf (Abutilon theophasti) biotypes. Weed Sci. 43:352357.Google Scholar
9. Gray, J. A., Balke, N. E., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1995. Enhanced detoxification is the mechanism of atrazine resistance in a Wisconsin velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) biotype. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 35:66.Google Scholar
10. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:349371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Herbicide rotations and mixtures: effective strategies to delay resistance. Pages 430458 in Green, M. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. ACS Symp. Ser. 421, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12. Hirschberg, J. and McIntosh, L. 1983. Molecular basis of herbicide resistance in Amaranthus hybridus . Science. 222:1341349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Holt, J. S. 1988. Reduced growth, competitiveness, and photosynthetic efficiency of triazine-resistant Senecio vulgaris from California. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:307318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Holt, J. S. and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 31:112120.Google Scholar
15. Holt, J. S., Stemler, A. J., and Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Differential light response of photosynthesis by triazine-resistant and triazine-susceptible Senecio vulgaris biotypes. Plant Physiol. 67:744748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Hunt, R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology No. 96. Edward Arnold Publishers, London. 67 pp.Google Scholar
17. Ireland, C. R., Telfer, A., Covello, P. S., Baker, N. R., and Barber, J. 1988. Studies on the limitations to photosynthesis in leaves of the atrazine-resistant mutant of Senecio vulgaris L. Planta. 173:459467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. Pages 125 in Powles, S. and Holtum, J., eds., Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
19. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Moss, S. R. and Rubin, R. 1993. Herbicide-resistant weeds: a worldwide perspective. J. Agric. Sci. 120:141148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Ort, D. R., Ahrens, W. H., Martin, B., and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Comparison of photosynthetic performance in triazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Amaranthus hybridus . Plant Physiol. 72:925930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Powles, S. B. and Matthews, J. M. 1991. Multiple herbicide resistance in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum): a driving force for the adoption of integrated weed management Pages 7587 in Denholm, I., Devonshire, A. L., and Hollomon, D. W., eds. Resistance 91: Achievements and Developments in Combating Pesticide Resistance. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
23. Radosevich, S. R., Maxwell, B. D., and Roush, M. L. 1991. Managing herbicide resistance through fitness and gene flow. Pages 129143 in Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Reboud, X. and Till-Bottraud, I. 1991. The cost of herbicide resistance measured by a competition experiment. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82:690696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276284.Google Scholar
26. Ritter, R. L. 1986. Triazine resistant velvetleaf and giant foxtail control in no-tillage corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 40:5052.Google Scholar
27. Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614616.Google Scholar
28. van Oorschot, J. L. P. and van Leeuwen, P. H. 1983. Comparison of the photosynthetic capacity between intact leaves of triazine-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of six weed species. Z. Naturforsch. 39c:440442.Google Scholar
29. Warwick, S. I. 1991. Herbicide resistance in weedy plants: physiology and population biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22:95114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1981. The relative competitiveness of atrazine susceptible and resistant populations of Chenopodium album and C. strictum . Can. J. Bot. 59:689693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1986. Genecological variation in recently established populations of Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf). Can. J. Bot. 64:16321643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Weaver, S. E. and Warwick, S. I. 1982. Competitive relationships between atrazine resistant and susceptible populations of Amaranthus retoflexus and A. powellii from southern Ontario. New Phytol. 92:131139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 6 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Productivity and Intraspecific Competitive Ability of a Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Biotype Resistant to Atrazine
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Productivity and Intraspecific Competitive Ability of a Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Biotype Resistant to Atrazine
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Productivity and Intraspecific Competitive Ability of a Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Biotype Resistant to Atrazine
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *