Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:23:27.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of a paraquat-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) population from a central Alabama vegetable production field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

J. Scott McElroy Open the ORCID record for J. Scott McElroy [Opens in a new window] ,
James R. Harris ,
Andrew Price ,
Alex Harkess  and
Xiao Li
J. Scott McElroy*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
James R. Harris
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Andrew Price
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, USDA-ARS Soil Dynamics Lab, Auburn, Al, USA
Alex Harkess
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Xiao Li
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: J. Scott McElroy, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL36849. (Email: jsm0010@auburn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.] population uncontrolled by paraquat (R) in a vegetable production field in St. Clair County, AL, was collected in summer 2019. Research was conducted to assess the level of resistance of the suspected resistant population compared with three populations with no suspected paraquat resistance (S1, S2, and S3). Visual injury at all rating dates and biomass reduction at 28 d after treatment (DAT) of S populations occurred exponentially to increasing paraquat rates. S biotypes were injured more than R at 3 DAT, with biomass recovery at 28 DAT only occurring at rates <0.28 kg ha−1. Plant death or biomass reduction did not occur for any rate at any date for R. Paraquat rates that induced 50% or 90% injury or reduced biomass 50% or 90% compared with the non-treated (I50 or I90, respectively) ranged from 10 to 124 times higher I50 for R compared with S and 54 to 116 times higher I90 for R compared with S biotypes. These data confirm a paraquat-resistant E. indica biotype in Alabama, providing additional germplasm for study of resistance to photosystem I electron-diverting (PSI-ED) resistance mechanisms.

Keywords

Herbicide resistanceoxidative stressphotosystem I
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 69 , Issue 6 , November 2021 , pp. 648 - 652
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Mithila Jugulam, Kansas State University

References

Babbs, CF, Pham, JA, Coolbaugh, RC (1989) Lethal hydroxyl radical production in paraquat-treated plants. Plant Physiol 90:1267–1270 10.1104/pp.90.4.1267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bi, B, Wang, Q, Coleman, JJ, Porri, A, Peppers, JM, Patel, JD, Betz, M, Lerchl, J, McElroy, JS (2020) A novel mutation A212T in chloroplast protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO1) confers resistance to PPO inhibitor oxadiazon in Eleusine indica . Pest Manag Sci 76:1786–1794 10.1002/ps.5703CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, NS (2014) Pepper and tomato root uptake of paraquat and flumioxazin. Weed Technol 28:626–632 10.1614/WT-D-13-00177.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunharo, CACG, Hanson, BD (2017) Vacuolar sequestration of paraquat is involved in the resistance mechanism of Lolium perenne L. spp. multiflorum . Front Plant Sci 8:1485 10.3389/fpls.2017.01485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buker, RS, Steed, ST, Stall, WM (2002) Confirmation and control of a paraquat-tolerant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) biotype. Weed Technol 16:309–313 10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0309:CACOAP]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, AD, Harris, N, Baldwin, BC (1970) The mode of action of paraquat and diquat. Biochem J 118:43–44 10.1042/bj1180043PCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuerst, EP, Nakatani, HY, Dodge, AD, Penner, D, Arntzen, CJ (1985) Paraquat resistance in Conyza . Plant Physiol 77:984–989 10.1104/pp.77.4.984CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuerst, EP, Vaughn, KC (1990) Mechanisms of paraquat resistance. Weed Technol 4:150–156 10.1017/S0890037X0002515XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funderburk, HH Jr, Lawrence, JM (1964) Mode of action and metabolism of paraquat and diquat. Weeds 12:259–264 10.2307/4040748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, TR (2013) Mechanism of resistance to paraquat in plants. Pest Manag Sci 70:1316–3123 10.1002/ps.3699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2021) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed February 5, 2021Google Scholar
Johnson, BJ (1977) Winter annual weed control in dormant bermudagrass turf. Weed Technol 25:145–150 10.1017/S0043174500033142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoczki, E, Laskay, G, Szigeti, Gaal I (1992) Mode of action of paraquat in leaves of paraquat-resistant Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Plant Cell Environ 15:531–539 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1992.tb01486.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Q, Wei, J, Dong, Z, Shen, X, Chen, Y (2019) Differences of endogenous polyamines and putative genes associated with paraquat resistance in goosegrass (Eleusine indica L.). PLoS ONE 14:e0216513 10.1371/journal.pone.0216513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, JS, Head, WB, Wehtje, GR, Spak, D (2017) Identification of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) biotypes resistant to preemergence-applied oxadiazon. Weed Technol 31:675–681 10.1017/wet.2017.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pp Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Swann, CW (1990) Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci 38:558–562 10.1017/S0043174500051481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Q, Cairns, A, Powles, SB (2004) Paraquat resistance in a population of Lolium rigidum . Funct Plant Biol 31:247–254 10.1071/FP03234CrossRefGoogle Scholar