Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:09:32.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of Selected Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Biotypes with Tolerance to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew M. Westhoven ,
Greg R. Kruger ,
Corey K. Gerber ,
Jeff M. Stachler ,
Mark M. Loux  and
William G. Johnson
Andrew M. Westhoven
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Corey K. Gerber
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Jeff M. Stachler
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biotypes of common lambsquarters with tolerance to glyphosate have been identified in a number of states, but little is known about their fitness characteristics. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to characterize the response of selected glyphosate-tolerant common lambsquarters biotypes to glyphosate, and also their biological and reproductive characteristics. In a greenhouse dose-response study, GR50 and GR90 values for four tolerant biotypes ranged from 1.48 to 3.22 and 8.73 to 18.7 kg ae ha−1, respectively, compared to 0.57 and 2.39 kg ae ha−1, respectively, for a glyphosate-sensitive biotype. In a field dose-response study, the GR50 and GR90 values were 0.06 and 0.48 kg ae ha−1, respectively, for a tolerant biotype, compared to 0.036 and 0.19 kg ae ha−1, respectively, for the sensitive biotype. The growth rate, time until flowering, and seed production of eight tolerant and two sensitive biotypes was evaluated in a field study. The tolerant biotypes grew taller, amassed more leaf area and dry weight, and advanced through growth stages more rapidly than sensitive biotypes during the early portion of the growing season. The tolerant biotypes were taller than sensitive biotypes at 6 and 10 wk after transplanting, but had lower dry weight at maturity. Tolerant biotypes initiated flower primordia approximately 6 to 8 wk after transplanting, whereas sensitive biotypes required 12 wk. However, no apparent fitness penalties were observed in glyphosate-tolerant biotypes based on seed-production estimates.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.Fitnessglyphosate dose responseglyphosate tolerance
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 685 - 691
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

Boerboom, C. M., Stoltenberg, D. E., Jeschke, M. R., Trower, T. L., and Gaska, J. M. 2006. Factors affecting glyphosate control of common lambsquarters. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:54.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and Hunter, J. S. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. New York Wiley. 10,158–10,180.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., Forcella, F., and Gunsolas, J. 1997. Relative Emergence Sequences of Weeds of Corn and Soybeans. Publication SA-11. Ames, IA Iowa State University Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Bulke, R., De Vleeschauwer, J., Vercruysse, J., and Stryckers, J. 1985. Comparison between triazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Chenopodium album L. and Solanum nigrum L. Meded. Fac. Landbouwkd. 50:211–220.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Stoltenberg, D. E., Boerboom, C. M., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Predicting soybean yield loss in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) communities. Weed Sci. 51:402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) competition and time of removal in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:358–364.Google Scholar
Culpepper, S. A. 2006. Glyphosate-induced weed shifts. Weed Technol. 20:277–281.Google Scholar
Culpepper, S. A., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Curran, B. 2005. Herbicide Resistance Weed Update. http://weeds.cas.psu.edu/New_2005/resistance05.html. Accessed September 2007.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. A field survey to determine distribution and frequency of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 22:331–338.Google Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:472–476.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, J. B., Vencill, W. K., Culpepper, S., and Grey, T. L. 2007. Physiological response of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:269.Google Scholar
Harder, D. B., Sprague, C. L., Difonzo, C. D., Renner, K. A., Ott, E. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. Influence of stem-boring insects on common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in soybean with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 21:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:113–118.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2007. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.com. Accessed September 2007.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004. Weed management in a glyphosate resistant soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technol. 18:284–291.Google Scholar
Hite, G. A., King, S. R., Hagood, E. S., and Holtzman, G. I. 2007. Differential response of a Virginia common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) collection to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 56:203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocombe, S. D. 1961. Simple Experiments on the Greenhouse Germination of Some East African Weed Species. Miscellaneous Report No. 285. Arusha, Tanzania Colonial Pesticides Research Unit. P. 8.Google Scholar
Jansen, M. A. K., Hobé, J. H., Wesselius, J. C., and van Rensen, J. J. S. 1986. Comparison of photosynthetic activity and growth performance in triazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Chenopodium album . Physiol. Vég. 24:475–484.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
Kniss, A. R., Miller, S. D., and Wilson, R. G. 2005. Common lambsquarters control with glyphosate: What's the problem. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:200.Google Scholar
Kniss, A. R., Miller, S. D., Westra, P. H., and Wilson, R. G. 2007. Glyphosate susceptibility in common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) is influenced by parental exposure. Weed Sci. 55:572–577.Google Scholar
Kniss, A. R., Miller, S. D., Wilson, R. G., and Westra, P. H. 2006. Response of two common lambsquarters biotypes to glyphosate. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:168.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Stachler, J. M., Miller, B. A., and Taylor, J. B. 2005. Response of common lambsquarters to glyphosate in the greenhouse and growth chamber. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:202.Google Scholar
Mager, H. J., Young, B. G., and Preece, J. E. 2006. Characterization of compensatory weed growth. Weed Sci. 54:274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 21:9–15.Google Scholar
Neve, P., Sadler, J., and Powles, S. B. 2004. Multiple herbicide resistance in a glyphosate-resistant rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) population. Weed Sci. 52:920–928.Google Scholar
Ng, C. H., Ratnam, W., Surif, S., and Ismail, B. S. 2004. Inheritance of glyphosate resistance in goosegrass (Elusine indica). Weed Sci. 52:564–570.Google Scholar
Parks, R. J., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1996. Herbicide susceptibility and biological fitness of triazine-resistant and susceptible common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 44:517–522.Google Scholar
Perez, A. and Kogan, M. 2003. Glyphosate resistant Lolium multiflorum in Chilean orchards. Weed Res. 43:12–19.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
Sellers, B. A., Pollard, J. M., and Smeida, R. J. 2004. Comparative biology of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible common ragweed. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:54.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A. and Hallett, S. G. 2006. Variable response of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations and individuals to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 20:466–471.Google Scholar
Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., Johnson, W. G., and Westhoven, A. M. 2007. Characterizing the response to glyphosate of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes from Ohio and Indiana. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:23.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B., Miller, B. A., Loux, M. M., and Stachler, J. M. 2005. Field response of six Ohio common lambsquarters populations to glyphosate. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:201.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Légère, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci. 52:874–880.Google Scholar
Urbano, J. M., Borrego, A., Torres, V., Leon, J. M., Jimenez, C., Dinelli, G., and Barnes, J. 2007. Glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) in Spain. Weed Technol. 21:396–401.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and Tomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY Cornell University Press. 110, 204.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Haider, J. B., Grey, T. L., and Culpepper, A. S. 2006. Physiological aspects of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:96.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Westhoven, A. M. 2008. Distribution, biology, and management of glyphosate-tolerant common lambsquarters. . West Lafayette, IN 47907 Purdue University.Google Scholar