Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:27:45.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Biotypes to Glyphosate in the Presence and Absence of Soil Microorganisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jessica R. Schafer ,
Steven G. Hallett  and
William G. Johnson
Jessica R. Schafer*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Steven G. Hallett
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: schafer3@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In previous research conducted on nonweed species, the efficacy of glyphosate was shown to be greater in unsterile soils compared to sterile soils and soil microorganisms were found to play an important role in glyphosate efficacy. Conducting greenhouse studies in microbe-free soil may therefore produce unreliable data, leading to erroneous conclusions. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of soil microorganisms on the response of glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of three problematic weeds of the midwestern United States: giant ragweed, horseweed, and common lambsquarters. A greenhouse dose–response study was conducted on each of the three weed species grown in sterile and unsterile field soil, and the dry weight response of roots and shoots was measured. The three weed species responded differently to glyphosate when grown in the sterile and unsterile soil; that is, in the presence and absence of soil microbes. Soil microbes influenced the response of the susceptible and resistant giant ragweed biotypes and the susceptible common lambsquarters, but not the tolerant common lambsquarters or either horseweed biotype. The different responses of the three species to glyphosate in the presence and absence of soil microbes demonstrates that rhizosphere interactions are fundamental to the mode of action of glyphosate. These findings suggest that the range of tolerance to glyphosate observed in weeds and the evolution of resistance in weed biotypes may also be influenced by rhizosphere interactions. The soil media used in dose–response screenings to identify susceptible and resistant weed biotypes is very important. Unsterile field soil should be incorporated into growth media when conducting dose–response screenings to avoid false-positive results. In addition, researchers performing glyphosate dose–response assays should be aware of these findings.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICADose–responseglyphosate-resistanceglyphosate-tolerancesoil-borne plant pathogens
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 641 - 649
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

Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effect of herbicides on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361–385.Google Scholar
Berns, A. E., Philipp, H., Narres, H.-D., Burauel, P., Vereecken, H., and Tappe, W. 2008. Effect of gamma-sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV, and fluorescence spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59:540–550.Google Scholar
Brabham, C. B., Gerber, C. K., and Johnson, W. G. 2011. Fate of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in the presence and absence of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 59:506–511.Google Scholar
Cerdeira, A. L. and Duke, S. O. 2006. The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 35:1633–1658.Google Scholar
Corry, J. E. L., ed. 1982. Quality assessment of culture media by the Miles-Misra method. Darmstadt, Germany G.I.T. Verlag-Ernst Giebeler. Pp. 21–37.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., and Johnson, W. G. 2008. A field survey to determine distribution and frequency of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conzya canadensis) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 22:331–338.Google Scholar
Descalzo, R. C., Punja, Z. K., Lévesque, C. A., and Rahe, R. E. 1997. Glyphosate treatment of bean seedlings causes short-term increases in Pythium populations and damping off potential in soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 8:25–33.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. and Powles, S. B. 2008. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:319–325.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2012. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 13, 2012.Google Scholar
Isaac, R. A. and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue, using a block digestor. J. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem. 59:98–100.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. L., Henley, R. W., and Yeager, T. H. 1993. Growth media for container grown ornamental plants. Bulletin 241. Florida Cooperative Extension Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Johal, G. S. and Rahe, J. E. 1984. Effect of soilborne plant-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology. 74:950–955.Google Scholar
Johal, G. S. and Rahe, J. E. 1988. Glyphosate, hypersensitivity, and phytoalexin accumulation in the incompatible bean anthracnose host-parasite interaction. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 32:267–281.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the toxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Streibig, J. C., and Ritz, C. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21:840–848.Google Scholar
Kruger, G. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Owen, M. D. K., Shaw, R. D., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Wilson, R. G., Bernards, M. L., and Young, B. G. 2009. U.S. grower views on problematic weeds and changes in weed pressure in glyphosate-resistant corn, cotton, and soybean cropping systems. Weed Technol. 23:162–166.Google Scholar
Lévesque, A. C. and Rahe, J. E. 1992. Herbicide interaction with fungal root pathogens, with special reference to gyphosate. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 30:579–602.Google Scholar
Liu, L., Punja, Z. K., and Rahe, J. E. 1995. Effect of Pythium spp. and glyphosate on phytoalexin production and excudation by bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) roots grown in different media. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 47:391–405.Google Scholar
Liu, L., Punja, Z. K., and Rahe, J. E. 1997. Altered root exudation and suppression of induced lignification as mechanisms of predisposition by glyphosate of bean roots (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to colonization by Pythium spp. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 51:111–127.Google Scholar
McNamara, N. P., Black, H. I. L., and Parekh, N. R. 2003. Effects of acute gamma irradiation on chemical, physical, and biological properties of soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 24:117–132.Google Scholar
Mithila, J., Swanton, C. J., Blackshaw, R. E., Cathcart, R. J., and Hall, J. C. 2008. Physiological basis for reduced glyphosate efficacy on weeds grown under low soil nitrogen. Weed Sci. 56:12–17.Google Scholar
Moosavi-Nia, H. and Dore, J. 1979. Factors affecting glyphosate activity in Imperata cylindrica (L) Beau, and Cyperus votundus L. I. Effect of soil moisture. Weed Res. 19:137–143.Google Scholar
Pline-Srnic, W. 2005. Technical performance of some commercial glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:225–234.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol. 20:282–289.Google Scholar
Rahe, J. E., Levesque, C. A., and Johal, G. S. 1990. Synergistic role of soil fungi in the herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate. Microbes and Microbial Products as Herbicides. Washington, DC American Chemical Society. Pp. 260–275.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2007. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statistical Software. 12:1–22.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Shoup, D. E., and Al-Khatib, K. 2007. Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate as affected by growth stage. Weed Sci. 55:147–151.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2001. Environmental factors affecting absorption and bio-efficacy of glyphosate in Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Crop Prot. 20:511–516.Google Scholar
Sharon, A., Amsellem, Z., and Gressel, J. 1992. Glyphosate suppression of an elicited defense response: increased susceptibility of Cassia obtusifolia to a mycoherbicide. Plant Physiol. 98:654–659.Google Scholar
Sivesind, E. C., Gaska, J. M., Jeschke, M. R., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2011. Common lambsquarters response to glyphosate across environments. Weed Technol. 25:44–50.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A. and Hallett, S. G. 2006. Interactions between chemical herbicides and the candidate bioherbicide Microsphaeropsis amaranthi . Weed Sci. 54:532–537.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Absorption, action, and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 23:235–240.Google Scholar
Stachler, J. M. 2008. Chracterization and management of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida (L.)) and horseweed [Conzya canadensis (L.) Cronq.]. Ph.D Dissertation Columbus, OH. The Ohio State University. 124.Google Scholar
Steinrücken, H. C. and Amrhein, N. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase. Biochem. Bioph. Res. Commun. 94:1207–1212.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. P. 1990. Soil sterilization methods to show VA-mycorrhizae aid P and Zn nutrition of wheat in vertisols. Soil Biol. Biochem. 22:229–240.Google Scholar
Waldecker, M. A. and Wyse, D. L. 1985. Soil moisture effects on glyphosate absorption and translocation in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Weed Sci. 33:299–305.Google Scholar
Westhoven, A. M., Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2008a. Field presence of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes with elevated tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 22:544–548.Google Scholar
Westhoven, A. M., Kruger, G. R., Gerber, C. K., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2008b. Characterization of selected common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotypes with tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 56:685–691.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1978. Factors affecting toxicity and translocation of glyphosate in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:509–513.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1998. Herbicide resistance and herbicide tolerance defined. Weed Technol. 12:789–790.Google Scholar