Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:26:11.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ploidy Variations in Floridone-Susceptible and -Resistant Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Biotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Atul Puri ,
Gregory E. MacDonald  and
William T. Haller
Atul Puri*
Affiliation:
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110610, Gainesville, FL 21611
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 21611
William T. Haller
Affiliation:
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110610, Gainesville, FL 21611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: atul779@ufl.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hydrilla is one of the most serious aquatic weed problems in the United States, and fluridone is the only U.S. Environment Protection Agency (USEPA)–approved herbicide that provides relatively long-term systemic control. Recently, hydrilla biotypes with varying levels of fluridone resistance have been documented in Florida. Fluridone-susceptible (S) and several fluridone-resistant (R1 to R5) hydrilla biotypes varying in resistance levels were maintained in 950-L tanks under ambient sunlight and day-length conditions. To correlate varying levels of fluridone resistance to ploidy in hydrilla, flow cytometric analysis was performed. Differential ploidy levels (diploid, 2n = 2x = 16; triploid, 2n = 3x = 24; and tetraploid, 2n = 4x = 32) were reported among different hydrilla biotypes, plants within each biotype, and within shoot tissues of the same plant. Triploid plants were predominant in all biotypes. Diploid plants were observed in all hydrilla biotypes except the susceptible hydrilla (S). Plants with tetraploidy were rare within biotypes. The diploid, triploid, and tetraploid plants had nuclear DNA contents of 2.43 to 2.73 pg, 3.44 to 3.71 pg, and 4.64 to 4.90 pg, respectively, and no differences were observed among plants with same ploidy for nuclear DNA content in different hydrilla biotypes. Endoreduplication patterns were observed in diploid plants of R1 and R3 biotypes. However, no plant with higher ploidy levels (triploid or tetraploid) in any hydrilla biotypes showed endoreduplication.

Keywords

Fluridonehydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle HYLLI.Ploidygenetic variationaquatic weedinvasive speciesendoreduplication
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 578 - 583
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

Bennett, M. D., Bhandol, P., and Leitch, I. J. 2000. Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms and their modern uses—807 new estimates. Ann. Bot. 86:859–909.Google Scholar
Bennet, M. D. and Smith, J. B. 1976. Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 274:227–274.Google Scholar
Biradar, D. P., Rayburn, A. L., and Bullock, D. G. 1993. Endopolyploidy in diploid and tetraploid maize (Zea mays L.). Ann. Bot. 71:417–421.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, J. B. and Sharma, A. 1978. Cytological studies on three aquatic members of Hydrocharitaceae in relation to their morphological and ecological characteristics. Cytologia (Tokyo) 43:1–20.Google Scholar
Cook, C. D. K. and Lüönd, R. 1982. A revision of the genus Hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquat. Bot. 13:485–504.Google Scholar
Davenport, L. J. 1980. Chromosome number reports. LXVII. Taxon. 29:351.Google Scholar
Doong, R. L., MacDonald, G. E., and Shilling, D. G. 1993. Effect of fluridone on chlorophyll, carotenoids and anthocyanin content of hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 31:55–59.Google Scholar
Emshwiller, E. 2002. Ploidy levels among species in the “Oxalis tuberosa alliance” as inferred by flow cytometry. Ann. Bot. 89:741–753.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D. W. 1990. Flow cytometric analysis of plant genomes. Methods Cell Biol. 33:549–561.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D. W., Harkins, K. R., and Knapp, S. 1991. Systemic endopolyploidy in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. 96:985–989.Google Scholar
Haller, W. T., Miller, J. L., and Garrard, L. A. 1976. Seasonal production and germination of hydrilla vegetative propagules. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 14:26–29.Google Scholar
Harlan, S. M., Davis, G. J., and Pesacreta, G. J. 1985. Hydrilla in three North Carolina lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 23:68–71.Google Scholar
Hofstra, D. E., Clayton, J., Green, J. D., and Adam, K. D. 2000. RAPD profiling and isozyme analysis of New Zealand Hydrilla verticillata . Aquat. Bot. 66:153–166.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A. 1989. Karyotypes of hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae) populations in the United States. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 27:111–115.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A., Shilling, D. G., Carter, J., Laroche, F., Steward, K. K., and Madiera, P. 1992. Chromosome morphology and number in various populations of Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle. Aquat. Bot. 42:253–263.Google Scholar
Loveless, M. D. and Hamrick, J. L. 1984. Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:65–95.Google Scholar
Lyśák, M. A., Rostková, A., Dixon, J. M., Rossi, G., and Dole, J. 2000. Limited genome size variation in Sesleria albicans . Ann. Bot. 86:399–403.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. and Van de Peer, Y. 2003. ‘Natural selection merely modified while redundancy created’—Susumu Ohno's idea of the evolutionary importance of gene and genome duplications. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics. 3:7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, A., Scheffler, B. E., Arias, R. S., Duke, S. O., Netherland, M., and Dayan, F. E. 2004. Somatic mutation-mediated evolution of herbicide resistance in the non-indigenous invasive plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). Mol. Ecol. 13:3229–3237.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T. and Kodono, Y. 1992. Chromosome number and geographical distribution of monoecious and dioecious Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae) in Japan. Acta. Phytotaxon. Geobot. 44:123–140.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T., Suzuki, T., and Kadono, Y. 1998. A comparative study of isozymes of Hydrilla verticillata (L.f) Royle in Japan. J. Plant Res. 111:581–585.Google Scholar
Nandini, A. V., Murray, B. G., O' Brien, I. E. W., and Hammett, K. R. W. 1997. Intra- and interspecific variation in genome size in Lathyrus (Leguminosae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 125:359–366.Google Scholar
Netherland, M. D. and Getsinger, K. D. 1995. Laboratory evaluation of threshold fluridone concentrations under static conditions for controlling hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 33:33–36.Google Scholar
Puri, A., MacDonald, G. E., and Haller, W. T. 2007. Ploidy variations in floridone-susceptible and -resistant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) biotypes. Weed Science. 55:578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puri, A., MacDonald, G. E., Haller, W. T., Singh, M., Bowes, G., Altpeter, F., and Shilling, D. G. 2005. Fluridone dose response and physiology of selected hydrilla populations in Florida lakes. Pages 3–5. in. the Proceedings of Florida Weed Science Society 28. Lake Alfred, FL Florida Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Puri, A., MacDonald, G. E., Singh, M., and Haller, W. T. 2006. Phytoene and β-carotene response of fluridone-susceptible and -resistant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) biotypes to fluridone. Weed Sci. 54:995–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocher, E. J. D., Harkins, K. R., Galbraith, D. W., and Bohnert, H. J. 1990. Developmentally regulated systemic endopolyploidy in succulents with small genomes. Sci. 250:99–101.Google Scholar
Sliwinska, E. and Lukaszewska, E. 2005. Polysomaty in growing in vitro sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L.) seedlings of different ploidy level. Plant Sci. 168:1067–1074.Google Scholar
Smulders, M. J. M., Rus-Kortekaas, W., and Gillissen, L. J. W. 1994. Development of polysomaty during differentiation in diploid and tetraploid tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants. Plant Sci. 97:53–60.Google Scholar
Smulders, M. J. M., Rus-Kortekaas, W., and Gillissen, L. J. W. 1995. Natural variation in patterns of polysomaty among individual tomato plants and their regenerated progeny. Plant Sci. 106:129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triest, L. 1991. Conservation of genetic diversity in water plants. Pages 201–240. in Triest, L. ed. Isozymes in Water Plants. Opera Botanica Belgica 4, Meise, Belgium National Botanical Garden of Belgium.Google Scholar
Verkleij, J. A. C., Pieterse, A. H., Horneman, G. J. T., and Torenbeek, M. 1983. A comparative-study of the morphology and isoenzyme patterns of Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle. Aquat. Bot. 17:43–59.Google Scholar
Wardlaw, C. W. 1968. Morphogenesis in Plants. London Methuen Publications. 315.Google Scholar
Wendel, J. F. Genome evolution in polyploids. Plant Mol. Biol. 2000. 42:225–249.Google Scholar
Yang, J. 2001. The formation and evolution of polyploid genomes in plants. Acta. Phytol. Sin. 39:357–371.Google Scholar