Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T12:55:50.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological fitness of acetolactate synthase inhibitor–resistant and –susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kee Woong Park ,
Carol A. Mallory-Smith ,
Daniel A. Ball  and
George W. Mueller-Warrant
Kee Woong Park
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3002
Daniel A. Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Pendleton, OR 97801-0370
George W. Mueller-Warrant
Affiliation:
National Forage Seed Production Research Center, USDA-ARS, 3450 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR 97331-7102
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the relative fitness and competitive ability of an acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor–resistant (R) downy brome biotype compared with a susceptible (S) biotype. In previous research, the mechanism of resistance was determined to be an altered ALS enzyme. Seed germination of the R biotype was compared with that of the S biotype at 5, 15, and 25 C. There were no different germination characteristics between R and S biotypes at 15 and 25 C. However, the R biotype germinated 27 h earlier than the S biotype and had reached over 60% germination when the S biotype initially germinated at 5 C. Under noncompetitive greenhouse conditions, growth of the R biotype was similar to that of the S biotype on the basis of shoot dry weight, leaf area, and plant height. Seed production of the R biotype was 83%, when compared with the S biotype, but seeds of the R biotype were larger than those of the S biotype. Replacement series experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine the relative competitive ability of R and S biotypes. No difference in competitive ability was observed between R and S biotypes on the basis of shoot dry weight, leaf area, or plant height. Thus, it appears that ALS-resistance trait is not associated with growth penalty in either noncompetitive or competitive conditions. In the absence of ALS inhibitors, these results suggest that the R biotype would remain at a similar frequency in a population of R and S biotypes.

Keywords

Downy brome, Bromus tectorum L. BROTEHerbicide resistanceALS inhibitorfitnessgerminationcompetition
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 768 - 773
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992a. Differential competitiveness of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 6:303–309.Google Scholar
Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992b. Seed biology of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 6:858–864.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2000. Sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in downy brome. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci 53:41–42.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. and Mayer, D. G. 1988. Representing cumulative germination. 2. The use of the Weibull function and other empirically derived curves. Ann. Bot 61:127–138.Google Scholar
Christoffoleti, P. J., Westra, P., and Moore, F. III. 1997. Growth analysis of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci 45:691–695.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. E., Chee, P. W., and Fay, P. K. 1993. Rapid germination of sulfonylurea-resistant Kochia scoparia accessions is associated with elevated seed levels of branched chain amino acids. Weed Sci 41:18–22.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol 75:349–371.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. Pages 325–347 in LeBaron, H. and Gressel, J. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2004. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold. Pp. 128–143.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., Alcocer-Ruthling, M., and Thompson, C. 1992. Growth comparisons of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible biotypes. Pages 301–303 in Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Volume 2. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Science Society of Victoria.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., and Dial, M. J. 1990. Identification of herbicide resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 4:163–168.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol 4:2–13.Google Scholar
Park, K. W. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2004. Physiological and molecular basis for ALS inhibitor resistance in Bromus tectorum biotypes. Weed Res 44:71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook: Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Lincoln, NE: Association of Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
Purrington, C. B. and Bergelson, J. 1997. Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana . Genetics 145:807–814.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. J. Exp. Bot 10:290–300.Google Scholar
Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci 18:614–616.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 83–139 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1987. SAS/STAT™ Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Shafii, B., Price, W. J., Swensen, J. B., and Murray, G. A. 1991. Nonlinear estimation of growth curve models for germination data analysis. Pages 19–42 in Milliken, G. A. and Schwenke, J. R. eds. Proceedings of 1991 Kansas State University Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1994a. Germination characteristics of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci 42:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1994b. Growth and competitiveness of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci 42:172–179.Google Scholar