Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:16:13.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
David L. Jordan ,
Alan C. York ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Charles W. Cahoon ,
Aman Chandi  and
Matthew D. Inman
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 author’s E-mail: schaudh@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

2,4-DatrazinedicambafomesafenglufosinateglyphosateparaquattembotrionethifensulfuronPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.corn, Zea mays L.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Drought stressherbicide responseshikimate assayweed interference.
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

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

References

Literature Cited

Baucom, RS, Mauricio, R (2004) Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13386–13390 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 51:37–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, J, Purrington, CB (1996) Surveying patterns in the costs of resistance in plants. Am Nat 148:536–558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson IV, DO (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367–371 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 2013:10.1155/2013/823913CrossRefGoogle 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 61:259–266 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 61:136–145 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 54:620–626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssen, AS, Skinner, DZ, Al-Khatib, K, Horak, MJ (2001) Pollen morphological differences in Amaranthus species and interspecific hybrids. Weed Sci 49:732–737 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 59:5886–5889 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacomini, D, Westra, P, Ward, SM (2014) Impact of genetic background in fitness cost studies: an example from glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Weed Sci 62:29–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harring, T, Streibig, JC, Husted, S (1998) Accumulation of shikimic acid: a technique for screening glyphosate efficacy. J Agri Food Chem 46:4406–4412 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 82:914–918 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 5:27–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 CrossRefGoogle 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 49:202–208 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 61:517–525 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 15:408–412 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 51:680–684 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 60:179–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noldin, JA, Chandler, JM, Ketchersid, ML, McCauley, GN (1999) Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology. II. Ecotype sensitivity to herbicides. Weed Technol 13:19–24 CrossRefGoogle 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 22:108–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padzoldt, WL, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG (2002) Variable herbicide response among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot 21:707–712 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 8:258–268 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 145:807–814 CrossRefGoogle 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 166:449–460 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 14:122–126 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 59:321–325 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 60:366–373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardif, FJ, Leroux, GD (1991) Response of quackgrass biotypes to glyphosate and quazalofop. Can J Plant Sci 71:803–810 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 239:793–801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Black, LD (1994) Relative fitness of herbicide-resistant and susceptible populations of weeds. Phytoprotection 75:37–49 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 291–306 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 62:267–279 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 24:403–410 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 25:183–191 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