Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T18:38:26.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition Between Triazine-Resistant and -Susceptible Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel D. Anderson ,
Leon G. Higley ,
Alex R. Martin  and
Fred W. Roeth
Daniel D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Leon G. Higley
Affiliation:
Dep. Entom., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Fred W. Roeth
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative competitiveness of triazine-resistant (TR) and -susceptible (TS) common waterhemp, as a component of fitness, was assessed using TR and TS biotypes collected from the same field in Fillmore County, Nebraska. Competition between biotypes was evaluated under greenhouse conditions using a set of replacement series experiments with five ratios of TR:TS (1:0, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, and 0:4) and four plant densities (50, 100, 150, and 300 plants m−2). No difference in final individual plant weight between TR and TS plants was observed in the absence of interbiotypic competition at all plant densities examined. Interbiotypic competition was indicated by ANOVA of plant weight and modified relative crowding coefficients (RCC) for plant weight, height, and volume. Replacement series diagrams showed TS plants were more competitive than TR plants, as measured by plant weight at densities of 50, 100, and 150 plants m−2. TS and TR plants were equally competitive at 300 plants m−2. Individual TS plant weight for 50, 100, and 150 plants m−2 was greatest at the 3:1 ratio (TR:TS) and decreased as the proportion of susceptible plants increased. Individual TR plant weight for 50, 100, and 150 plants m−2 was greatest at the 1:0 ratio and decreased as the TR proportion decreased. Lack of interbiotypic competition at 300 plants m−2 and decreasing TS plant weight with increasing ratios suggest intrabiotypic competition. RCC values for volume and height were calculated weekly during the experiment and indicated the competitive advantage of TS plants was constant from transplanting through harvest.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer ♯ AMATAReplacement seriesrelative crowding coefficientsherbicide resistance
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 853 - 859
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

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: 438–444.Google Scholar
2. Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Steinbeck, K. E. 1982. The mechanism of chloroplast triazine resistance: alterations in the site of herbicide action. Pages 185–214 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
3. Beversdorf, W. D., Hume, D. J., and Donnelly-Vanderloo, M. J. 1988. Agronomic performance of triazine-resistant and susceptible reciprocal spring canola hybrids. Crop Sci. 28: 932–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C., Salhoff, C. R., and Martin, A. R. 1979. Kochia resistance to atrazine. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 34: 64.Google Scholar
5. 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: 171–177.Google Scholar
6. Elliot, J. R. and Peirson, D. R. 1983. Growth analysis of atrazine-resistant and atrazine-sensitive biotypes of Chenopodium album . Ann. Bot. 51: 727–739.Google Scholar
7. Haack, A. E. 1987. Geographic distribution of triazine-resistant kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) in Nebraska and response to selected herbicides. , Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 64 pp.Google Scholar
8. Harper, J. 1977. Pages 255–260 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
9. Hart, J. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Stemler, A. 1992. Influence of light intensity on growth of triazine-resistant rapeseed (Brassica napus). Weed Res. 32: 349–356.Google Scholar
10. Holt, J. S. 1988. Reduced growth, competitiveness, and photosynthetic efficiency of triazine-resistant Senecio vulgaris from California. J. Appl. Ecol. 25: 307–318.Google Scholar
11. Jansen, M., Hobe, J., Wesselius, J., and van Rensen, J. 1986. Comparison of photosynthetic activity and growth performance in triazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Chenopodium album . Physiol. Veg. 24: 475–484.Google Scholar
12. Marriage, P. B. and Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth and response to atrazine between and within susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 20: 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Novak, M., Higley, L., Christianssen, C., and Rowley, W. 1993. Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) through replacement series experiments. Environ. Entomol. 22: 311–318. (Note formula correction in Environ. Entomol. 23(6):ii.)Google Scholar
14. Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18: 616–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. SAS Institute Inc. 1990. Pages 891–996 in SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6.0. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
16. Schleufer, I. L., Roeth, F. W., and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. Triazine resistant Amaranthus control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 20–21.Google Scholar
17. Schonfeld, M., Yaacoby, T., Michael, O., and Rubin, B. 1987. Triazine resistance without reduced vigor in Phalaris paradox . Plant Physiol. 83: 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Sundby, C., Chow, W. S., and Anderson, J. M. 1993. Effects on photosystem II function, photoinhibition, and plant performance of the spontaneous mutation of serine-264 in the photosystem II reaction center D1 protein in triazine-resistant Brassica napus L. Plant Physiol. 103: 105–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Warwick, S. I. 1991. Herbicide resistance in weedy plants: Physiology and population biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar