Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T22:08:02.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Development of Dinitroaniline-Susceptible and -Resistant Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) Biotypes Under Noncompetitive Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Tim R. Murphy ,
Billy J. Gossett  and
Joe E. Toler
Tim R. Murphy
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC, 29631
Billy J. Gossett
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC, 29631
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Exp. Statistics Unit, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC, 29631
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparative study of the growth and development of several populations of dinitroaniline-susceptible (DS) and -resistant (DR) goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEIN] biotypes was conducted under noncompetitive field conditions. Plant height and width, number of tillers, aboveground dry weight, relative growth rate (RGR), number of inflorescences/plant, total inflorescence dry weight, individual inflorescence dry weight, number of spicate branches/inflorescence, and flag leaf length and width were recorded periodically during the growing season. There were no significant differences between biotypes in most characteristics with the exception of total inflorescence dry weight. The DS biotype produced more total inflorescence dry weight than the DR biotype at 8 and 13 weeks after transplanting. Significant variation among DS and DR populations occurred in 37 and 33 of 56 evaluations, respectively. When variation existed within a biotype, populations exhibited broad ranges of response for the various growth parameters. With the exception of total inflorescence dry weight, DS and DR biotypes generally exhibited similar ranges of variability.

Keywords

Weed biotypesherbicide resistancetrifluralinELEIN
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , September 1986 , pp. 704 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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.Google Scholar
2. Conard, 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.Google Scholar
3. 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.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1984. Weed survey – southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 37:192–198.Google Scholar
5. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.Google Scholar
6. Holt, J. S. and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 31:112–120.Google Scholar
7. Lebaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. 1982. Summary of accomplishments, conclusions, and future needs. Pages 349–362 in Lebaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
8. 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.Google Scholar
9. McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1976. Comparative morphological development of six johnsongrass ecotypes. Weed Sci. 24:270–275.Google Scholar
10. Mudge, L. C., Gossett, B. J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Resistance of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:591–594.Google Scholar
11. Radford, P. J. 1967. Growth analysis formulae – their use and abuse. Crop Sci. 7:171–175.Google Scholar
12. Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth between and within triazine-resistant and triazine-susceptible biotypes of Senecio vulgaris L. Weed Res. 20:299–303.Google Scholar