Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:27:36.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Picloram-resistant and -susceptible yellow starthistle accessions have similar competitive ability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tracy M. Sterling ,
Norman K. Lownds  and
Leigh W. Murray
Norman K. Lownds
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Leigh W. Murray
Affiliation:
University Statistics Center, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative competitive abilities of yellow starthistle accessions that are resistant (R) and susceptible (S) to picloram were compared using a replacement series experiment. With no herbicide treatment, total shoot dry weights at vegetative and early reproductive stages of plant growth were similar for the two accessions, although S plants accumulated more total shoot dry weight by the late reproductive stage, mainly as a result of a greater contribution of vegetative growth. Without herbicide, relative yield of total biomass or reproductive structures did not differ from theoretical competitive equivalence at any accession ratio, thereby indicating that interaccession interference was similar. For picloram-treated plants, R plants accumulated more total, vegetative, and reproductive dry weight than did S plants at the early and late reproductive stages, and there was no difference between S and R plants at the vegetative growth stage. Seed production by R plants was 10-fold greater than that observed in S plants, but seed size remained unchanged, regardless of accession ratio. With herbicide present, the relative yield of S plants differed from theoretical competitive equivalence as S:R accession ratios decreased, but relative yield of R plants did not. Therefore, only in the presence of picloram will R plants have a competitive advantage over S plants. Some of the progeny from mixed populations of S and R plants that were cross-pollinated, even at low R frequency (25%), expressed resistance to picloram.

Keywords

Picloramyellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. CENSOAuxinic herbicidereplacement series
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 42 - 47
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

Bourdôt, G. W., Saville, D. J., and Hurrell, G. A. 1996. Ecological fitness and the decline of resistance to the herbicide MCPA in a population of Ranunculus acris . J. Appl. Ecol. 33:151–160.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Schirman, R. W., and Northam, F. E. 1990. Picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 31:31.Google Scholar
Coupland, D., Cooke, D. T., and James, C. S. 1991. Effects of 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxypropionate (an auxin analogue) on plasma membrane ATPase activity in herbicide-resistant and herbicide-susceptible biotype of Stellaria media L. J. Exp. Bot. 42:1065–1071.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreuil, D. J., Friesen, L. F., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. Growth and seed return of auxin-type herbicide resistant wild mustard (Brassica kaber) in wheat. Weed Sci. 44:871–878.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. and van den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition among herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Sterling, T. M., Norman, M. A., Prather, T. S., Irzyk, G. P., Wu, Y., Lownds, N. K., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Physiological characterization of picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 56:149–161.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Balke, N. E. 1995. Productivity and intraspecific competitive ability of a velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) biotype resistant to atrazine. Weed Sci. 43:619–626.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2000. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Available at http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed March 23, 2000.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Thill, D. C. 1994. Growth and productivity of resistant plants. Pages 299–316 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plant: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, A. D. 1995. An assessment, using a modelling approach, of inbreeding as a possible cause of reduced competitiveness in triazine-resistant weeds. Weed Res. 35:289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, D. M., Mayfield, A., and Poritz, N. H. 1985. Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci. 33:315–327.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmánková, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.Google Scholar
Roché, C. T., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1997. Reproductive phenology in yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 45:763–770.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1999. Yellow starthistle. Pages 408–416 In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sterling, T. M. and Hall, J. C. 1997. Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111–141 In Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Sun, M. and Ritland, K. 1998. Mating system of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a successful colonizer in North America. Heredity 80:225–232.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. 1991. Herbicide resistance in weedy plants: physiology and population biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22:95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1993. Relative fitness of herbicide-resistant and susceptible biotypes of weeds. Phytoprotection 75 (Suppl.): 37–49.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996a. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant and susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 44:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996b. Similar fitness between large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) accessions resistant or susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Technol. 10:42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar