Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T03:54:09.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Development of Organic Arsenical-Susceptible and -Resistant Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) Biotypes Under Noncompetitive Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William E. Haigler ,
Billy J. Gossett ,
James R. Harris  and
Joe E. Toler
William E. Haigler
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Billy J. Gossett
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
James R. Harris
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Exp. Stat. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth, development, and reproductive potential of several populations of organic arsenical-susceptible (S) and -resistant (R) common cocklebur biotypes were compared under noncompetitive field conditions. Plant height, leaf area, aboveground dry weights, and relative growth rate (RGR) were measured periodically during the growing season. Days to flowering, bur dry weight, and number of burs per plant were also recorded. Arsenical S- and R-biotypes were similar in all measured parameters of growth, development, and reproductive potential. Populations within each biotype varied occasionally in plant height, leaf area, aboveground dry weights, and reproductive potential.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTWeed biotypesherbicide resistancefitnessXANST
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 154 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31:438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Differential competitiveness of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 6:303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Conrad, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:349–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Haigler, W. E. 1986. Resistance of common cocklebur to organic arsenical herbicides. M.S. thesis, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634. 41 p.Google Scholar
8. Haigler, W. E., Gossett, B. J., Harris, J. R., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Resistance of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) to the organic arsenical herbicides. Weed Sci. 36:24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Holt, J. S. and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 31:112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Holt, J. S. 1990. Fitness and ecological adaptability of herbicide-resistant biotypes. P. 419–429 in Green, M. B., Moberg, W. K., and LeBaron, H., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Jacobs, B. F., Duesing, J. H., Antonovics, J., and Patterson, D. T. 1988. Growth performance of triazine-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of Solanum nigrum over a range of temperatures. Can. J. Bot. 66:847–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. 1982. Summary of accomplishments, conclusions, and future needs. P. 349–362 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
13. Marriage, P. B. and Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth and response to atrazine between and within susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 20:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Murphy, T. R., Gossett, B. J., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Growth and development of dinitroaniline-susceptible and -resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) biotypes under noncompetitive conditions. Weed Sci. 34:704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Radford, P. J. 1967. Growth analysis formulae—their use and abuse. Crop Sci. 7:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Rouse, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Maxwell, B. D. 1990. Future outlook for herbicide-resistance research. Weed Technol. 4:208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 30:553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Valverde, B. E., Radosevich, S. R., and Appleby, A. P. 1988. Growth and competitive ability of dinitroaniline herbicide resistant and susceptible goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 41:81.Google Scholar
20. Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth between and within triazine-resistant and triazine-susceptible biotypes of Senecio vulgaris L. Weed Res. 20:299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1981. The relative competitiveness of atrazine susceptible and resistant populations of Chenopodium album and C. strictum . Can. J. Bot. 59:689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar