Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-j4m62 Total loading time: 0.368 Render date: 2021-05-05T23:02:17.027Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Biology and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Phenotypes from a Segregating Population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Sushila Chaudhari
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, William Neal Reynolds Professor, William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, and Graduate Student, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, William Neal Reynolds Professor, William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, and Graduate Student, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, William Neal Reynolds Professor, William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, and Graduate Student, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Charles W. Cahoon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420
Aman Chandi
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, DuPont Crop Protection, Newark, DE 19714
Matthew D. Inman
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, William Neal Reynolds Professor, William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, and Graduate Student, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Palmer amaranth is the most economically damaging glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed in the southern United States. An understanding of the basic biology, including relative growth and competitiveness of GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) Palmer amaranth phenotypes from a segregating population collected from the same geographical location, may yield information helpful in the management of resistant populations. A segregating population of Palmer amaranth collected in North Carolina during 2010 was used as a plant source for both GR and GS traits. Research was conducted in the greenhouse to compare the following: level of resistance and shikimate accumulation in GR and GS phenotypes following glyphosate application; interference from GR and GS phenotypes on early-season vegetative growth of corn, cotton, and peanut; effect of various durations of imposed drought stress on GR and GS phenotypes; and response of GR and GS phenotypes to POST-applied herbicides. The GR50 (glyphosate rate providing 50% reduction in shoot dry biomass) was 17 times greater with the GR phenotype compared with the GS phenotype. Shikimate accumulated in both GR and GS phenotypes following glyphosate application, but greater concentrations were found in GS plants. The GR and GS phenotypes responded similarly when subjected to drought stress; grown with corn, cotton, and peanut; or treated with 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, fomesafen, glufosinate, paraquat, tembotrione, and thifensulfuron. These results indicate that in the absence of glyphosate selection pressure, resistance to glyphosate does not influence the growth and competitiveness of GR and GS Palmer amaranth phenotypes collected from the same geographical location.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 65 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 755 - 768
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan, Texas A&M.

References

Baucom, RS, Mauricio, R (2004) Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:1338613390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:3743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, J, Purrington, CB (1996) Surveying patterns in the costs of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson IV, DO (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandi, A, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Burton, J, Milla-Lewis, SR, Spears, J, Whitaker, JR, Wells, R (2013a) Response of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to drought stress. Int J Agron 2013:10.1155/2013/823913Google Scholar
Chandi, A, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Milla-Lewis, SR, Burton, JD, Culpepper, AS, Whitaker, JR (2013b) Interference and control of glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations under greenhouse conditions. Weed Sci 61:259266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandi, A, Milla-Lewis, SR, Giacomini, D, Westra, P, Preston, C, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Burton, JD, Whitaker, JR (2012) Inheritance of evolved glyphosate resistance in a North Carolina Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Int J Agron 2012:10.1155/2012/176108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandi, A, Milla-Lewis, SR, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Burton, JD, Zuleta, MC, Whitaker, JR, Culpepper, AS (2013c) Use of AFLP markers to assess genetic diversity in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations from North Carolina and Georgia. Weed Sci 61:136145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107112 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franssen, AS, Skinner, DZ, Al-Khatib, K, Horak, MJ (2001) Pollen morphological differences in Amaranthus species and interspecific hybrids. Weed Sci 49:732737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, TA, Shaner, DL, Ward, SM, Leach, JE, Westra, P (2011) Mechanism of resistance of evolved glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). J Agric Sci Food Chem 59:58865889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, D, Westra, P, Ward, SM (2014) Impact of genetic background in fitness cost studies: an example from glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Weed Sci 62:2937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harring, T, Streibig, JC, Husted, S (1998) Accumulation of shikimic acid: a technique for screening glyphosate efficacy. J Agri Food Chem 46:44064412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2016) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: December 28, 2016Google Scholar
Henry, WB, Koger, CH, Shaner, DL (2005) Accumulation of shikimate in corn and soybean exposed to various rates of glyphosate. Crop Manage DOI: 10.1094/CM-2005-1123-01-RS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, TA (1990) Grain, dry matter yield relationships for winter wheat and grain sorghum—Southern High Plains. Agron J 82:914918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isleib, TG, Milla-Lewis, SR, Pattee, HE, Copeland, SC, Zuleta, MC, Shew, BB, Hollowell, JE, Sanders, TH, Dean, LO, Hendrix, KW, Balota, M, Chapin, JW (2011) Registration of ‘Bailey’ peanut. J Plant Regist 5:2739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199204 Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523527 Google Scholar
Ma, XY, Wu, HW, Jiang, WL, Ma, YJ, Ma, Y (2015) Interference between redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.): growth analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0130475 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massinga, RA, Curie, RS, Horak, MJ, Boyer, J Jr (2001) Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Schroeder, J, Ashigh, J (2013) Mechanism of resistance and inheritance in glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations from New Mexico, USA. Weed Sci 61:517525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Chandler, JM (2001) Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol 15:408412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Massey, JH, Hayes, RM, Main, CL, Stewart, CN Jr (2003) Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J Agric Food Chem 51:680684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Reddy, KN, Kroger, CH, Poston, DH, Rimando, AM, Duke, SO, Bond, JA, Ribeiro, DN (2012) Multiple resistance to glyphosate and pyrithiobac in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mississippi and response to flumiclorac. Weed Sci 60:179188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noldin, JA, Chandler, JM, Ketchersid, ML, McCauley, GN (1999) Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology. II. Ecotype sensitivity to herbicides. Weed Technol 13:1924 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padzoldt, WL, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG (2002) Variable herbicide response among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot 21:707712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, BP, Neve, P, Andreasen, C, Powles, SB (2007) Ecological fitness of a glyphosate-resistant Lolium rigidum population: growth and seed production along a competition gradient. Basic Appl Ecol 8:258268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, AH, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Chandi, A, Everman, WJ, Whitaker, JR (2014) Distribution of glyphosate- and thifensulfuron-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in North Carolina. Int J Agron 2014:10.1155/2014/747810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purrington, CB, Bergelson, J (1997) Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana . Genetics 145:807814 Google ScholarPubMed
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Bond, JA, Bararpour, MT, Wilson, MJ, Scott, RC (2012). Resistance of Echinochloa crus-galli populations to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Int J Agron 2012:10.1155/2012/893953Google Scholar
Roux, F, Gasquez, J, Reboud, X (2004) The dominance of the herbicide resistance cost in several Arabidopsis thaliana mutant lines. Genetics 166:449460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, DT, Baker, RV, Steele, GL (2000) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14:122126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Kichler, JM, Wallace, RD, Culpepper, AS (2011) Multiple resistance in Palmer amaranth to glyphosate and pyrithiobac confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 59:321325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Webster, TM, Kichler, JM, MacRae, AW, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2012) Pollen-mediated dispersal of glyphosate-resistance in Palmer amaranth under field conditions. Weed Sci 60:366373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardif, FJ, Leroux, GD (1991) Response of quackgrass biotypes to glyphosate and quazalofop. Can J Plant Sci 71:803810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vila-Aiub, MM, Goh, SS, Gaines, TA, Han, H, Busi, R, Yu, Q, Powles, SB (2013) No fitness cost of glyphosate resistance endowed by massive EPSPS gene amplification in Amaranthus palmeri . Planta 239:793801 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Black, LD (1994) Relative fitness of herbicide-resistant and susceptible populations of weeds. Phytoprotection 75:3749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WebHADSS. (2004). HADSS decision program 2004.0.3. North Carolina Database. http://www.webhadss.ncsu.edu. Accessed: August 24, 2016Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2005) Weed survey—southern states. Pages 291306 in Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society. Las Cruces, NM: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Werle, R, Sandell, LD, Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG, Lindquist, JL (2014) Predicting emergence of 23 summer annual weed species. Weed Sci 62:267279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR (2009) Distribution, Biology, and Management of Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth in North Carolina. Ph.D dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 231 pGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, Burton, JD, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Chandi, A (2013) Physiology of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations collected from North Carolina. Int J Agron 2013:10.1155/2013/429294Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol 25:183191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2015 Survey of the Most Common and Troublesome Weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-Weed-Survey_FINAL1.xlsx. Accessed: December 28, 2016Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Biology and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Phenotypes from a Segregating Population
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Biology and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Phenotypes from a Segregating Population
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Biology and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Phenotypes from a Segregating Population
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *