Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:41:13.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata) resistant to 2,4-D in Pennsylvania and alternative control options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2020

Travis R. Russell Open the ORCID record for Travis R. Russell [Opens in a new window] ,
Tim T. Lulis ,
Brian A. Aynardi ,
Kaiyuan T. Tang  and
John E. Kaminski Open the ORCID record for John E. Kaminski [Opens in a new window]
Travis R. Russell*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Tim T. Lulis
Affiliation:
Research Technician, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Brian A. Aynardi
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Scientist, PBI-Gordon Corp., Shawnee, KS, USA
Kaiyuan T. Tang
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
John E. Kaminski
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Travis R. Russell, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 21 Tyson Building, University Park, PA16802 Email: trr33@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Buckhorn plantain populations purportedly resistant to 2,4-D were identified in Pennsylvania following long-term, continual applications of the active ingredient to turfgrass. The research objectives of this study were to 1) confirm 2,4-D resistance with dose-response experiments, 2) confirm field resistance of buckhorn plantain to 2,4-D in Pennsylvania, and 3) evaluate alternative herbicides for 2,4-D-resistant buckhorn plantain. Greenhouse dose-response experiments evaluated the sensitivity of buckhorn plantain biotypes that were resistant or susceptible to 2,4-D, and to halauxifen-methyl, two synthetic auxin herbicides from different chemical families. The resistant biotype was ≥11.3 times less sensitive to 2,4-D than the susceptible biotype and required a 2,4-D dosage ≥4.2 times greater than the standard application rate to reach 50% necrosis. No cross-resistance was observed to halauxifen-methyl because both resistant and susceptible populations demonstrated similar herbicide sensitivity. Field experiments confirmed previous reports of ineffectiveness (≤30% reduction) with 2,4-D and other phenoxycarboxylic herbicides in potentially resistant buckhorn plantain biotypes. Treatments containing halauxifen-methyl resulted in a ≥70% reduction in resistant biotypes. This is the first known report of synthetic auxin herbicide resistance in any weed species in Pennsylvania and highlights emerging herbicide resistance challenges in turfgrass systems.

Keywords

2, 4-Dhalauxifen-methylbuckhorn plantain, Plantago lanceolata L. PLALAhalauxifen-methylherbicide resistance2, 4-D-resistancesynthetic auxin resistanceturfgrass weed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 297 - 303
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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: Patrick E. McCullough, University of Georgia

References

Beckie, HJ, Tardif, FJ (2012) Herbicide cross resistance in weeds. Crop Prot 35:15–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, JL, Schmitzer, PR, Robinson, AE (2014) Arylex™ mode and site of action characterization. Proceedings of the 2014 meeting of the Weed Science Society of America and Canadian Weed Science Society/Société Canadienne de Malherbologie. Vancouver, British Columbia, February 3–6, 2014Google Scholar
Branham, BE (1990) 1989 weed control update: III. Broadleaf weed control. Pages 22, 34–37 in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference. East Lansing, MI, January 15–17, 1990Google Scholar
Burke, IC, Yenish, JP, Pittmann, D, Gallagher, RS (2009) Resistance of a Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Biotype to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 23:586–591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavers, PB, Bassett, IJ, Crompton, CW (1980) The biology of Canadian Weeds: 47. Plantago lanceolata L. Canadian J Plant Sci 60:1269–1282 Google Scholar
Christoffoleti, PJ, Alves de Figueiredo, MR, Pereira Peres, LE, Nissen, S, Gaines, T (2015) Auxinic herbicides, mechanisms of action, and weed resistance: A look into recent. Sci Agric 72:356–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dharmasiri, N, Dharmasiri, S, Estelle, M (2005) The F-box protein TIR1 is an auxin receptor. Nature 435:441–445 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmore, C (1996) Use of 2,4-D in orchards, vineyards, and soft fruit in the United States. Pages 148–164 in Biologic and Economic Assessment of Benefits from Use of Phenoxy Herbicides in the United States. USDA/National Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Report No. 1-PA-96Google Scholar
Grube, A, Donaldson, D, Kiely, T, Wu, L (2011) Pesticides industry sales and usage, 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates. Washington D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 41 p Google Scholar
Heap, I (2020) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: October 1, 2020Google Scholar
Harrington, KC, Ward, AJ, Wells, D. (2001) Herbicide resistance in black nightshade and Onehunga weed. New Zeal Plant Prot 54:152–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jugulam, MJ, Hall, JC, Johnson, WG, Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2011) Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: Historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Sci 59:445–457 Google Scholar
McCarty, LB, Everst, JW, Hall, DW, Murphy, TR, Yelverton, F (2008) Color Atlas of Turfgrass Weeds: A Guide to Weed Identification and Control Strategies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 424 p Google Scholar
McCauley, CL, Johnson, WG, Young, BG (2018) Efficacy of halauxifen-methyl on glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). Weed Sci 66:758–763 Google Scholar
McCauley, CL, McAdam, SA, Bhide, K, Thimmapuram, J, Banks, JA, Young, BG (2020) Transcriptomics in Erigeron canadensis reveals rapid photosynthetic and hormonal responses to auxin herbicide application. J Exp Bot 71:3701–3709 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCauley, CL, Young, BG (2019) Differential response of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D, and dicamba. Weed Technol 33:673–679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, PE, Johnston, CR, Reed, TV, Yu, J (2015) Indaziflam enhances buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata) control from postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 29:147–153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milesi, C, Running, SW, Elvidge, CD, Dietz, JB, Tuttle, BT, Nemani, RR (2005) Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environ Manage 36:426–438 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, AJ, Elmore, M, Hoyle, J, Kao-Kniffin, J, Branham, B, Voigt, T, Christians, N, Thoms, A, Munshaw, G, Hathaway, A, Nikolai, T, Horgan, B, Miller, L, Xiong, X, Kreuser, W, Gaussoin, R, Gardner, D, Raudenbush, Z, Li, D, Landschoot, P, Soldat, D, Koch, P (2019) Turfgrass Weed Control for Professionals. Purdue University Extension Publication. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 128 p Google Scholar
Patton, AJ, Weisenberger, DV, Schortgen, GP (2018) 2,4-D-resistant buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in managed turf. Weed Technol 32:182–189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, G (1967) The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agric Hist 41:243–254 Google Scholar
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Skelton, J, Stahlman, PW (2016) 2,4-D past, present, and future: A review. Weed Technol 30:303–345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillmoor, JB, Gaunt, JK (1981) Behaviour and mode of action of the phenoxyacetic acids in plants. Pages 147–218 in Progress in Pesticide Biochemistry. Chichester, UK: Wiley Google Scholar
Preston, C, Dolman, FC, Boutsalis, P (2013) Multiple resistance to acetohydroxyacid synthase–inhibiting and auxinic herbicides in a population of oriental mustard (Sisymbrium orientale). Weed Sci 61:185–192 Google Scholar
Rey-Caballero, J, Menéndez, J, Giné-Bordonaba, J, Salas, M, Alcántara, R, Torra, J (2016) Unravelling the resistance mechanisms to 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in corn poppy (Papaver rhoeas). Pestic Biochem Physiol 133:67–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitzer, PR, Balko, TW, Daeuble, JF, Epp, JB, Satchivi, NM, Siddall, TL, Weimer, MR, Yerkes, CN (2015) Discovery and SAR of halauxifen methyl: A novel auxin herbicide. ACS Symp Ser 1204:247–260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014) Dow AgroScience petitions (09-233-01p, 09-349-01p and 11-234-01p) for determinations of non-regulated status for 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybean varieties. Riverdale, MD: Biotechnology Regulatory Services. 223 p Google Scholar
Uva, RH, Neal, JC, DiTomaso, JM (1997) Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 397 p Google Scholar
Watschke, TL (1983) Broadleaf weed control in low maintenance turf. Proc Annu Meet Northeast Weed Sci Soc 37:377–378 Google Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018) Weed control with halauxifen-methyl applied alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:597–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar