Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T19:39:28.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In field identification of herbicide resistant Apera spica-venti using chlorophyll fluorescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

P. Wang
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
G. G. Peteinatos*
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
R. Gerhards
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The WEED-PAM® is a chlorophyll fluorescence sensor. It has already been applied in the detection of herbicide resistant Alopecurus mysuroides populations with promising results. Yet more work needs to be done in order to validate the system’s capabilities in different species. In this study, field experiments were conducted at three sites to clarify the capability of this sensor to detect herbicide resistant Apera spica-venti populations. The plants were treated with five different herbicides: three ALS-, one ACCase- and one PS II- inhibitor. Five days after the herbicide treatment, sensor data were gathered. These data were compared with a visual assessment, performed 21 days after the herbicide application. The populations that exhibited a strong resistance to the ALS and PS II inhibitors could be differentiated from the sensitive ones. Yet the Apera spica-venti population with a low resistance level to the ACCase inhibitors cannot be differentiated from the sensitive population.

Type
Crop Protection
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 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.)

References

Baker, N 2008. Chlorophyll fluorescence: A probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annual Review Plant Biology 59, 89113.Google Scholar
Beffa, R, Figge, A, Lorentz, L, Hess, M, Laber, B and Ruiz-Santaella, JP 2012. Weed resistance diagnostic technologies to detect herbicide resistance in cereal growing areas. A review. In: Julius-Kühn-Archiv 434, Proceedings 25th German Conference on Weed Biology and Weed Control, edited by Nordmeyer H and Ulber L, Braunschweig, Germany, 75–80.Google Scholar
Burnet, MWM, Hildebrand, OB, Holtum, JAM and Powles, SB 1991. Amitrole, triazine, substituted ureas and metribuzin resistance in biotype of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Science 39, 317323.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Y, Menegat, A and Gerhards, R 2013. Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging: a new method for rapid detection of herbicide resistance in Alopecurus myosuroides . Weed Research 53, 399406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klem, K, Špundová, M, Hrabalova, H, Nauš, J, Váňová, M, Masojidek, J and Tomek, P 2002. Comparison of chlorophyll fluorescence and whole-plant bioassays of isoproturon. Weed Research 42, 335341.Google Scholar
Massa, D and Gerhards, R 2011. Investigations on herbicide resistance in European silky bent grass (Apera spica-venti) populations. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 118, 3139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, K and Johnson, GN 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence–a practical guide. Journal of Experimantal Botany 51, 659668.Google Scholar
Moss, SR 1990. Herbicide Cross-Resistance in Slender Foxtail (Alopecurus myosuroides). Weed Science 38, 492496.Google Scholar
Moss, SR, Clarke, JH, Blair, AM and Culley, TN 1999. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant grass-weeds in the United Kingdom and a new system for designating resistance in screening assays. In: Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference on Weeds. Hampshire, UK, 179–184.Google Scholar
Moss, SR, Perryman, SA and Tatnell, LV 2007. Managing herbicide-resistant blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides): theory and practice. Weed Technology 21, 300309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Talbert, RE and Hoagland, RE 1998. Chlorophyll fluorescence for rapid detection of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass. Weed Science 46, 163169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oettmeier, W 1999. Herbicide resistance and supersensitivity in photosystem II. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 55, 12551277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfister, K and Arntzen, CJ 1979. The mode of action of photosystem II-specific inhibitors in herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 34, 9961009.Google Scholar
Pfister, K, Steinback, KE, Gardner, G and Arntzen, CJ 1981. Photoaffinity labeling of an herbicide receptor protein in chloroplast membranes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 78 981-985.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2013. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, JLF and van Leeuwen, PH 1992. Use of fluorescence induction to diagnose resistance of Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. (black-grass) to chlorotoluron. Weed Research 32, 473482.Google Scholar
Wang, P, Li, H and Gerhards, R 2016a. Chlorophyll fluorescence response to herbicide stress in Alopecurus myosuroides. In: Julius-Kühn-Archiv 452, Proceedings 27th German Conference on Weed Biology and Weed Control, edited by Nordmeyer H and Ulber L, Braunschweig, Germany, 57–67.Google Scholar
Wang, P, Peteinatos, G, Li, H and Gerhards, R 2016b. Rapid in-season detection of herbicide resistant Alopecurus myosuroides using a mobile fluorescence imaging sensor. Crop Protection 89, 170177.Google Scholar
Whitcomb, CE 1999. An introduction to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Toxicology and Industrial Health 15, 231239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiong, J, Subramaniam, S and Govindjee, 1996. Modeling of the D1/D2 proteins and cofactors of the photosystem II reaction center: Implications for herbicide and bicarbonate binding. Protein Science 5, 20542073.Google Scholar
Zhang, CJ, Lim, SH, Kim, JW, Nah, G, Fischer, A and Kim, DS 2016. Leaf chlorophyll fluorescence discriminates herbicide resistance in Echinochloa species. Weed Research 56, 424433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar