Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T15:13:53.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and development of imidazolinone-resistant and -susceptible smooth pigweed biotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Daniel H. Poston ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Henry P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to compare the growth and development of one imidazolinone-susceptible (S) and four -resistant (R1, R2, R3, and R4) smooth pigweed biotypes under noncompetitive and competitive conditions. Under noncompetitive conditions in the greenhouse, S plants accumulated biomass, grew faster during early seedling development, and accumulated leaf area sooner than plants from R2, R3, and R4 biotypes. At various times during the experiment, S plants grew faster and more efficiently used leaf area to accumulate more biomass than did R2, R3, and R4 plants. In addition, leaves emerged faster on S plants than on R2, R3, and R4 plants. R3 and R4 biotypes had significantly less chlorophyll per gram of plant tissue compared with S. In contrast, most growth parameters measured for S and R1 plants were similar. Biomass production in the field under intra- and interbiotypic competition was similar for S and all R biotypes. Findings from noncompetitive growth studies in the field were inconclusive, and further investigations are warranted. On the basis of these findings, S displayed an advantage in vegetative growth and development over three out of four imidazolinone-resistant biotypes during the early stages of development, but competitive differences were not confirmed in the field.

Keywords

Smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHAcetolactate synthaseALScompetitionherbicide resistanceimidazolinonesimidazolinone resistancefitness
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 485 - 493
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

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
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
Anderson, D. D., Higley, L. G., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1996. Competition between triazine-resistant and -susceptible common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, D. J. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris . Plant Physiol. 24:1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arntz, A. M., DeLucia, E. H., and Jordan, N. 2000. From fluorescence to fitness: variation in photosynthetic rate affects fecundity and survivorship. Ecology 81:2567–2576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible and resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. D., Gill, G. S., and Speijers, J. 1997. Comment: number of sample populations required to determine the effects of herbicide resistance on plant growth and fitness. Weed Res. 37:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Control and cross-resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol. 11:132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. L. 1985. Growth and development. Pages 187–208 In Physiology of Crop Plants. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S., Cousens, R. D., and Allan, M. R. 1996. Germination, growth and development of herbicide resistant and susceptible populations of Lolium rigidum . Weed Sci. 44:252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate and appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. Pages 325–348 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modeling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2002. International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee and Weed Science Society of America. Web page: http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: January 2002.Google Scholar
Hinz, R. R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, J. D. and Israelstram, G. F. 1979. A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissue without maceration using dimethyl sulphoxide. Can. J. Bot. 57:1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brûle-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N., Kelrick, M., and Kinerk, W. 1999. Biorational management tactics to select against triazine-resistant smooth pigweed: a field trial. J. Appl. Ecol. 36:123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:789–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus) to several imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Poston, D. H., Hirata, C. M., and Wilson, H. P. 2002. Response of acetolactate synthase from imidazolinone-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed populations to various ALS inhibitors. Weed Sci. 50:306–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2000. Imidazolinone resistance in several Amaranthus hybridus populations. Weed Sci. 48:508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibitor herbicides. Pages 83–139 In Powles, S. B. and Holton, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. E., Barrett, M., and Witt, W. E. 1997. An investigation of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:296.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. W. 1982. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. London: Longman. p. 209.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1994. Growth and competitiveness of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 42:172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar