Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-b5nxq Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2021-05-13T04:26:56.163Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Characterization of Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibitor Resistance in Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2018

Vijay K. Varanasi
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Chad Brabham
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Robert C. Scott
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Arkansas Lonoke Agricultural Center, Lonoke, AR, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pennsylvania smartweed [Persicaria pensylvanica (L.) M. Gómez] is a common weed of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the midsouthern United States and has recently become a concern for farmers because of reduced tillage systems. Acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors have been extensively used for controlling smartweeds in imidazolinone-resistant and conventional rice. In the present study, we confirmed resistance to commonly used ALS inhibitors in rice and characterized the underlying resistance mechanism in a P. pensylvanica biotype from southeast Missouri. A dose–response experiment was conducted in the greenhouse using bensulfuron-methyl, imazethapyr, and bispyribac-sodium to determine the resistance index (resistance/susceptibility [R/S]) based on GR50 estimates. The target-site ALS gene was amplified from R and S plants, and sequences were analyzed for mutations known to confer ALS-inhibitor resistance. The P. pensylvanica biotype in question was found to be resistant to bensulfuron-methyl (R/S=2,330), imazethapyr (R/S=12), and bispyribac-sodium (R/S=6). Sequencing of the ALS gene from R plants revealed two previously known mutations (Pro-197-Ser, Ala-122-Ser) conferring resistance to sulfonylureas and imidazolinones. This is the first report of ALS-inhibitor resistance in P. pensylvanica.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 66 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 710 - 714
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018

Introduction

Pennsylvania smartweed [Persicaria pensylvanica (L.) M. Gómez], a member of the knotweed family (Polygonaceae), is a summer annual broadleaf weed distributed throughout the United States. Persicaria pensylvanica requires wet soil conditions to germinate and can grow up to 1.2m tall and produce 19,000 seeds plant−1 (Sankula and Gianessi Reference Sankula and Gianessi2003). The seed (botanically, achene) can remain viable in undisturbed soil for up to 30 yr and is an excellent source of food for various wildlife such as waterfowl (Sankula and Gianessi Reference Sankula and Gianessi2003; USDA-NRCS 2002). Depending on the plant density (8 to 240 plants 10 m−1 of row), P. pensylvanica can cause yield reductions of up to 62% in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Coble and Ritter Reference Coble and Ritter1978). Askew and Wilcut (Reference Askew and Wilcut2002) reported up to 60% reduction in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields at a density of 3 P. pensylvanica plants m−1 of crop row. Potential yield losses of up to 20% were reported in corn (Zea mays L.) (Sankula and Gianessi Reference Sankula and Gianessi2003). Due to its rapid growth rate, high fecundity, complex dormancy, and irregular germination, P. pensylvanica continues to spread to new agricultural production regions (Askew and Wilcut Reference Askew and Wilcut2002; Neubauer Reference Neubauer1971).

Acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors (WSSA Group 2) are one of the most common herbicide sites of action used in many cropping systems. These herbicides ultimately prevent biosynthesis of the branched-chain amino acids valine, leucine, and isoleucine (Umbarger Reference Umbarger1978). There are five different chemical classes of ALS inhibitors: sulfonylureas (SUs), imidazolinones (IMIs), triazolopyrimidines (TPs), pyrimidinylthiobenzoates (PTBs), and sulfonylamino-carbonyl-triazolinones (SCTs). The popularity of ALS-inhibiting herbicides in a wide variety of cropping systems has been attributed to their broad-spectrum weed control, low application rates and mammalian toxicity, and high selectivity (Bellinder et al. Reference Bellinder, Gummesson and Karlsson1994; Park and Mallory-Smith Reference Park and Mallory-Smith2004; Whitcomb Reference Whitcomb1999).

Extensive use of ALS-inhibiting herbicides has resulted in evolution of resistance, more so to these herbicides than to any other site of action (Heap Reference Heap2018). For instance, resistance to ALS inhibitors is now reported in 160 weed species worldwide. The most commonly identified mechanism for resistance to ALS inhibitors is target-site based, due to a missense mutation in the ALS enzyme resulting in herbicide insensitivity (Tranel and Wright Reference Tranel and Wright2002). In weeds, target-site mutations conferring ALS resistance have been reported at eight locations (based on amino acid sequence from Arabidopsis) spread over five different domains (A to E) in the ALS gene (Boutsalis et al. Reference Boutsalis, Karotam and Powles1999; Devine and Eberlein Reference Devine and Eberlein1997).

Persicaria pensylvanica is a common and problematic weed of rice (Oryza sativa L.) production and can reduce both yield and quality of rice (Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Burgos, Scott and Smith2006; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Flinchum and Seaman1977). Persicaria pensylvanica was previously reported to be resistant to atrazine (WSSA Group 5) in 1990 in a corn cropping system (Heap Reference Heap2018). However, resistance to ALS inhibitors in this species has not been reported in the United States or elsewhere. ALS-inhibiting herbicides, such as imazethapyr, are routinely used alone or in mixture with other herbicides for controlling smartweeds in imidazolinone-resistant rice (Scott et al. Reference Scott, Barber, Boyd, Selden, Norsworthy and Burgos2018). In the present study, we confirmed resistance to different ALS inhibitors and characterized the underlying mechanism of resistance in a P. pensylvanica biotype from southeast Missouri.

Materials and Methods

Seed Collection and Plant Material Preparation

The resistant (R) plants were collected in 2016 from a field near Hornersville, Dunklin County, southeast Missouri (36.06°N, 90.03°W) after reports of herbicide failure. The field was under a rice–soybean rotation and had a 10-yr history of ALS-inhibitor usage, specifically bispyribac-sodium for P. pensylvanica control in rice. A preliminary screen was conducted at Lonoke Extension Center, Lonoke, AR, on the plants taken from rootstocks obtained from the field. Seeds were collected from the survivors and sent to the Altheimer Laboratory, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, for further analysis.

Susceptible (S) seed, which was scarified to promote germination, was obtained from River Refuge Seed Company (Brownsville, OR). The R and S P. pensylvanica seeds were planted in plastic trays (25 cm by 55 cm) for germination. One week after germination, seedlings at the 1- to 2-leaf stage were transplanted into 50-well plastic trays (25 cm by 55 cm) filled with potting mix (Sunshine premix No. 1®; Sun Gro Horticulture, Bellevue, WA). Plants were grown in the greenhouse (16-h photoperiod and a 35/25 C day/night temperature) and were fertilized appropriately throughout the study with all-purpose plant food (Miracle-Gro®, Scotts, Marysville, OH).

Whole-Plant Herbicide Dose–Response Experiments

Preliminary experiments were conducted to determine the appropriate dose range for the ALS herbicides used in this study. The following herbicide rates were chosen for R plants: bensulfuron-methyl (Londax®, RiceCo, Memphis, TN) at 1x, 16x, 32x, 64x, 128x, and 256x (x=67.3 g ai ha−1); imazethapyr (Newpath®, BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC) at 0.031x, 0.125x, 0.5x, 1x, 4x, 8x, 16x, and 32x (x=105.8 g ai ha−1), and bispyribac-sodium (Regiment®, Valent USA, Walnut Creek, CA) at 0.062x, 0.5x, 1x, 4x, 8x, 16x, and 32x (x=31.9 g ai ha−1). Susceptible seedlings were treated with the above herbicides at 0.015x, 0.031x, 0.062x, 0125x, 0.25x, 0.5x, 1x, 2x. Fifty seedlings each of R and S P. pensylvanica were included as untreated controls. Once seedlings reached the 3- to 4-leaf stage, they were sprayed with the above herbicides using a research track sprayer equipped with two flat-fan spray nozzles (TeeJet® spray nozzles, Spraying Systems, Wheaton, IL) calibrated to deliver 187 L ha−1 of herbicide solution at 269 kPa, moving 1.6 km h−1. All herbicide treatments included label-recommended adjuvants: crop oil concentrate (Superb® HC, Winfield Solutions, St Paul, MN) at 1% v/v for bensulfuron-methyl, nonionic surfactant (Induce®, Helena Agri-Enterprises, Collierville, TN) at 0.25% v/v for imazethapyr, and a nonionic spray adjuvant and deposition aid (Dyne-A-Pak®, Helena Agri-Enterprises, Collierville, TN) at 2.5% v/v for bispyribac-sodium. Experiments were conducted in two runs with three replications (10 seedlings per replication). Aboveground dry biomass (oven-dried at 65 C) was determined at 3 wk after treatment (WAT).

Statistical Analysis

Aboveground dry biomass (expressed as a percentage of the untreated control) data were analyzed using the ‘drc’ package in R v. 3.1.2 (R Development Core Team 2017). The relationship (P<0.05) between herbicide rate and aboveground dry biomass was established using a four-parameter log-logistic model (Seefeldt et al. Reference Seefeldt, Jensen and Fuerst1995) described as follows:

(1) $$Y{\equals}C{\plus}{{D{\minus}C} \over {1{\plus}{\rm exp}\left\{ {b\left[ {{\rm log}\left( {x)]{\minus}{\rm log}\left( {{\rm GR}_{{50}} )\} } \right.} \right.} \right.} \right.}}$$

where Y is the response (dry biomass) expressed as a percentage of the nontreated control, C is the lower limit of Y, D is the upper limit of Y, b is the slope of the curve around GR50 (effective herbicide dose for 50% biomass reduction), and x is the herbicide dose. The resistance index (R/S) was calculated using GR50 values. There was no significant interaction between runs; therefore, data were pooled (P>0.05).

Genomic DNA Isolation

Leaf tissue was collected in liquid nitrogen from eight putative R and two S plants and stored at −80C until further use. Genomic DNA (gDNA) was isolated from the leaves using a modified cetyl trimethylammonium bromide protocol (Doyle and Doyle Reference Doyle and Doyle1987). The quantity and quality of gDNA were determined with a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop 1000, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and agarose gel electrophoresis.

Gene-Specific Primer Designing

Initial attempts to obtain the full-length ALS gene sequence from the P. pensylvanica using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were unsuccessful, because no full-length ALS gene sequence from the Polygonaceae family exists in the GenBank database. However, a partial sequence (630 bp) for wild buckwheat [Fallopia convolvulus (L.) Á. Löve] POLCO) (GenBank accession JF826440.1) was available and used in this study (Beckie et al. Reference Beckie, Warwick and Sauder2012). Gene-specific primers from Amaranthus (Diebold et al. Reference Diebold, McNaughton, Lee and Tardif2003) and Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus L.) (Warwick et al. Reference Warwick, Sauder and Beckie2010) were initially used to amplify and sequence the 3′ region of the ALS gene (630 bp) containing the Trp-574 amino acid site, previously associated with ALS-inhibitor resistance in weeds (Table 1). Additionally, primers were designed in the 5′ and 3′ regions of the ALS gene to amplify the remaining nucleic acid sites associated with resistance to ALS inhibitors (Table 1). The forward primer for amplifying the 5′ region of the ALS gene was designed based on the Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) ALS gene sequence, and the reverse primer was designed from the partial 3′ sequence we obtained. All primers were designed using OligoAnalyzer v. 3.1 (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA; IDT SciTools 2017) and checked for specificity using the BLAST tool at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, Bethesda, MD).

Table 1 Primers used for amplifying the ALS gene in Persicaria pensylvanica.

Polymerase Chain Reaction and ALS Gene Sequencing

A PCR was performed in a T100 thermal cycler (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) for amplification of the 5′ and 3′ regions of the ALS gene. The 50-µl reaction volume consisted of 10 µl of 5x GoTaq Flexi buffer (Promega, Madison, WI), 4 µl of 25 mM MgCl2 (Promega), 1 µl of 10 mM dNTP mix (Promega), 0.25 µl of GoTaq Flexi DNA Polymerase (Promega), 1 µl each of forward and reverse gene-specific primers (Table 1), 2 µl of gDNA and 30.75 µl of nuclease-free water (ThermoFisher Scientific). PCR conditions for amplifying the 5′ region of the ALS gene were 95.0 C for 3 min, 35 cycles of 95.0 C for 30 s, 53.0 C for 30 s, and 72.0 C for 1 min, followed by 72.0 C for 5 min. The PCR conditions for amplifying the 3′ region of the ALS gene were the same, except for the extension step (1.5 min). The PCR products were run on 0.8% agarose gel with 100- and 500-bp markers to confirm amplicon size, purified using the GeneJet PCR purification kit (ThermoFisher Scientific), and quantified with a NanoDrop spectrophotometer. The purified PCR products (25 to 50 ng µl−1) were sent for Sanger DNA sequencing (Genewiz, South Plainfield, NJ), and the resulting R and S ALS gene sequences were aligned using MultAlin to find point mutations (Corpet Reference Corpet1988).

Results and Discussion

Dose–Response Assay

Based on whole-plant dose–response studies, the P. pensylvanica biotype collected from southeast Missouri was found to be resistant to the ALS inhibitors bensulfuron-methyl (SU), imazethapyr (IMI), and bispyribac-sodium (PTB) (Figure 1A–C). The R biotype was highly resistant and exhibited minimal injury to increasing rates of bensulfuron-methyl at 3 WAT (Figure 1A). The bensulfuron-methyl rate that caused 50% reduction in biomass of the S biotype (GR50) was only 2.2 g ai ha−1, whereas for the R biotype, it was 5,127 g ai ha−1 (Table 2). Thus, based on GR50 values, the resistance index (R/S) for bensulfuron-methyl was estimated to be 2,330-fold.

Figure 1 Dose–response assay using four-parameter log logistic model for (A) bensulfuron-methyl, (B) imazethapyr, and (C) bispyribac-sodium herbicides in Persicaria pensylvanica resistant (R) and susceptible (S) biotypes. Each data point is a mean response of 30 plants (10 plants per replication).

Table 2 The effective dose that causes 50% inhibition (GR50) of growth in Persicaria pensylvanica for bensulfuron-methyl, imazethapyr, and bispyribac-sodium.

a Numbers in parenthesis of GR50 values represent SE.

b R/S is the resistance index for each herbicide calculated based on the GR50 values for resistant and susceptible biotypes.

In general, the R biotype survived up to 8x rates of imazethapyr (Figure 1B), showing lack of control at those rates when compared with the S standard. The R plants injured by imazethapyr at 8x rate recovered by 3 WAT. The GR50 for imazethapyr was estimated at 7.2 and 89.3 g ai ha−1, for S and R biotypes, respectively (Table 2). Therefore, the R/S for imazethapyr was estimated to be 12-fold.

Resistance to bispyribac-sodium was the least among the three ALS inhibitors tested (Figure 1C). The GR50 values for bispyribac-sodium were 0.8 and 5.0 g ai ha−1 for S and R P. pensylvanica biotypes, respectively, and the corresponding R/S was only 6-fold (Table 2). The results show that the P. pensylvanica biotype in question is highly resistant to bensulfuron-methyl with a lower level of resistance to imazethapyr and bispyribac-sodium.

Screening for ALS Gene Mutations

The most predominantly identified mechanism of resistance to ALS inhibitors in plants is the presence of amino acid changing point mutations spanning five highly conserved domains of the ALS enzyme (Yu and Powles Reference Yu and Powles2014). The levels of resistance and cross-resistance associated with ALS inhibitors depend on the type of ALS gene mutation and the weed species under investigation (Tranel and Wright Reference Tranel and Wright2002).

In this study, sequencing of the target-site ALS gene from two R plants (out of the eight sequenced) revealed two point mutations, a proline to serine (Pro-197-Ser) and an alanine to serine (Ala-122-Ser), known to cause ALS inhibitor resistance in weeds (Figure 2). Previously, high resistance levels (>340-fold) to the SU herbicides sulfosulfuron and sulfometuron in hare barley [Hordeum murinum L. ssp. leporinum (Link) Arcang.] were attributed to a Pro-197-Ser substitution in the ALS gene (Yu et al. Reference Yu, Nelson, Zheng, Jackson and Powles2007). In contrast, moderate to low levels of resistance to ethametsulfuron (30-fold) and thifensulfuron (~5-fold) were reported in wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) due to the presence of a Pro-197-Ser mutation in the ALS gene (Warwick et al. Reference Warwick, Sauder and Beckie2005). In most cases, point mutations at the Pro-197 position in the ALS gene confer no resistance to IMIs (Devine and Eberlein Reference Devine and Eberlein1997; Devine and Shukla Reference Devine and Shukla2000). It is possible to have the same target-site mutation confer varying levels of herbicide resistance depending on the weed species under study (Sibony and Rubin Reference Sibony and Rubin2003). An ALS mutation in a particular species could be either strong or weak depending on the level of herbicide binding with the target site. For example, both SUs and IMIs bind near, but never directly to, the active site of the ALS enzyme (Yu and Powles Reference Yu and Powles2014).

Figure 2 Two ALS gene mutations conferring ALS-inhibitor resistance in Persicaria pensylvanica. The underlined nucleotides (TCA and TCC) code for the amino acid serine instead of an alanine and proline at two different locations (122 and 197) of the ALS gene. R1, R2, and S refer to two resistant and one susceptible individuals, respectively.

The mutation Ala-122-Ser in the ALS gene reported in our study is an IMI-specific mutation conferring resistance to imazethapyr (Yu and Powles Reference Yu and Powles2014). The target-site mutations in the ALS gene could result in different cross-resistance patterns to ALS inhibitors (Tranel and Wright Reference Tranel and Wright2002; Tranel et al. Reference Tranel, Wright and Heap2018; Wright and Penner Reference Wright and Penner1998). The level of cross-resistance to ALS inhibitors depends on the specific amino acid substituted at the Pro-197 site of the ALS enzyme (Park et al. Reference Park, Kolkman and Mallory-Smith2012). The low-level resistance to bispyribac-sodium (R/S=6) observed in our R population is most likely due to cross-resistance because of the Pro-197-Ser mutation. Tal and Rubin (Reference Tal and Rubin2004) reported cross-resistance to pyrithiobac-sodium and other ALS-inhibiting herbicides in crown daisy [Glebionis coronaria (L.) Cass. ex Spach.] due to substitution of Pro-197 with either serine or threonine.

In this study, only two out of eight R plants sequenced revealed target-site mutations in the ALS gene. The mechanism of ALS-inhibitor resistance in the remaining six plants is unknown. Non–target site resistance mechanisms, such as differences in uptake and translocation or the detoxification of ALS inhibitors, were not investigated in this study. Hence, there is a possibility of having both target-site and non–target site mechanisms existing in the resistant P. pensylvanica biotype.

In summary, this study reports the first documented case, to our knowledge, of field-evolved resistance to ALS inhibitors in P. pensylvanica. We have demonstrated that a biotype collected from southeast Missouri is highly resistant to bensulfuron-methyl and moderately resistant to imazethapyr and bispyribac-sodium. Resistance to these ALS inhibitors will reduce control options for P. pensylvanica in rice under reduced-tillage systems. Use of herbicides with alternative modes of action such as propanil, along with PPO inhibitors such as carfentrazone and acifluorfen, is a good option for controlling ALS-inhibitor resistant P. pensylvanica (Scott et al. Reference Scott, Barber, Boyd, Selden, Norsworthy and Burgos2018).

Acknowledgments

The Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board provided funding for this research. The authors express their appreciation to Mallory Everett and Valent USA Corporation for their assistance with this research. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

References

Askew, SD Wilcut, JW (2002) Pennsylvania smartweed interference and achene production in cotton. Weed Sci 50:350356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Warwick, SI Sauder, CA (2012) Acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor-resistant wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) in Alberta. Weed Technol 26:156160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, RR, Gummesson, G Karlsson, C (1994) Percentage driven government mandates for pesticide reduction: the Swedish model. Weed Technol 8:350359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutsalis, P, Karotam, J Powles, SB (1999) Molecular basis of resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides in Sisymbrium orientale and Brassica tournefortii . Pestic Sci 55:507516 3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, HD Ritter, RL (1978) Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 26:556559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corpet, F (1988) Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. Nucleic Acids Res 16:1088110890 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devine, MD Eberlein, CV (1997) Physiological, biochemical and molecular aspects of herbicide resistance based on altered target sites. Pages 159185 in Roe RM, Burton JD & Kuhr RJ eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press Google Scholar
Devine, MD Shukla, A (2000) Altered target sites as a mechanism of herbicide resistance. Crop Prot 19:881889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, RS, McNaughton, KE, Lee, EA Tardif, FJ (2003) Multiple resistance to imazethapyr and atrazine in Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci 51:312318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, JJ Doyle, JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:1115 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: May 16, 2018Google Scholar
IDT SciTools (2017) A Suite for Analysis and Design of Nucleic Acid Oligomers. https://www.idtdna.com/calc/analyzer. Accessed: August 10, 2017Google Scholar
Neubauer, BF (1971) The development of the achene of Polygonum pensylvanicum: embryo, endosperm, and pericarp. Am J Bot 58:655664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, NR, Scott, RC Smith, KL (2006) Weed management needs in Arkansas rice. B.R. Wells Rice Res. Studies 550:184196 Google Scholar
Park, KW, Kolkman, JM Mallory-Smith, CA (2012) Point mutation in acetolactate synthase confers sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicide resistance in spiny annual sow-thistle [Sonchus asper (L.) Hill]. Can J Plant Sci 92:303309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, KW Mallory-Smith, CA (2004) Physiological and molecular basis for ALS inhibitor resistance in Bromus tectorum biotypes. Weed Res 44:7177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed: December 15, 2017Google Scholar
Sankula, S Gianessi, LP (2003) The Value of Herbicides in US Crop Production. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. http://www.ncfap.org/documents/FullText.pdf. Accessed: December 15, 2017Google Scholar
Scott, RC, Barber, LT, Boyd, JW, Selden, G, Norsworthy, JK Burgos, N (2018) Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Publication MP44. Pp 9195 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibony, M Rubin, B (2003) Molecular basis for multiple resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides and atrazine in Amaranthus blitoides (prostrate pigweed). Planta 216:10221027 Google Scholar
Smith, RJ, Flinchum, WT Seaman, DE (1977) Weed Control in US Rice Production. Agriculture Handbook No. 497. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp 6869. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87208535/PDF. Accessed: February 20, 2018 Google Scholar
Tal, A Rubin, B (2004) Occurrence of resistant Chrysanthemum coronarium to ALS inhibiting herbicides in Israel. Resist Pest Manag Newsl 13:3133 Google Scholar
Tranel, PJ Wright, TR (2002) Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned? Weed Sci 50:700712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, PJ, Wright, TR Heap, IM (2018) Mutations in herbicide- resistant weeds to ALS inhibitors. http://www.weedscience.org/Mutations/MutationDisplayAll.aspx. Accessed: February 7, 2018Google Scholar
Umbarger, HE (1978) Amino acid biosynthesis and its regulation. Annu Rev Biochem 47:533606 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (2002) Plant Fact Sheet: Pennsylvania Smartweed. https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_pope2.pdf. Accessed: February 7, 2018Google Scholar
Warwick, SI, Sauder, C Beckie, HJ (2005) Resistance in Canadian biotypes of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 53:631639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Sauder, CA Beckie, HJ (2010) Acetolactate synthase (ALS) target-site mutations in ALS inhibitor-resistant Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Weed Sci 58:244251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitcomb, CE (1999) An introduction to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Toxic. Ind Health 15:232240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TW Penner, D (1998) In vitro and whole-plant magnitude and cross-resistance characterization of two imidazolinone-resistant sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) somatic cell selections. Weed Sci 46:2429 Google Scholar
Yu, Q, Nelson, JK, Zheng, MQ, Jackson, M Powles, SB (2007) Molecular characterisation of resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides in Hordeum leporinum biotypes. Pest Manag Sci 63:918927 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Q Powles, SB (2014) Resistance to AHAS inhibitor herbicides: current understanding. Pest Manag Sci 70:13401350 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have Access
Open access

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.

Characterization of Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibitor Resistance in Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica)
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.

Characterization of Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibitor Resistance in Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica)
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.

Characterization of Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibitor Resistance in Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *