Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:50:35.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative fitness of imazamox-resistant common sunflower and prairie sunflower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rafael A. Massinga ,
Kassim Al-Khatib ,
Paul St. Amand  and
Jerry F. Miller
Rafael A. Massinga
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Paul St. Amand
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Jerry F. Miller
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Northern Crop Science Laboratory, Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resistance to imidazolinone (IMI) herbicides has been incorporated recently into domesticated sunflower through conventional breeding methods. However, there are concerns regarding gene flow of the IMI-resistance trait to wild species and possible accompanying ecological consequences. Hybrids of domesticated sunflower with both common sunflower and prairie sunflower were created, with and without the imazamox-resistance trait. The relative fitness of imazamox-resistant (IMI-R) hybrids was compared with their imazamox-susceptible (IMI-S) counterparts. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to study the growth of IMI-R and IMI-S common and prairie sunflower hybrids under noncompetitive conditions. The photosynthesis rate of IMI-S prairie sunflower was slightly higher than that of IMI-R plants. However, relative growth rate, net assimilation rate, leaf area, and total dry weight were similar in IMI-R and IMI-S common and prairie sunflower, whereas plant height of IMI-S hybrid was greater than that of IMI-R common sunflower hybrids. A replacement series study was conducted under field conditions in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate the relative competitiveness of IMI-R and IMI-S common and prairie sunflower. IMI-R and IMI-S hybrids of both sunflower species were equally competitive. The results suggest that, in the absence of IMI herbicides, genes controlling IMI-R do not reduce or increase the competitive ability of either common or prairie sunflower. Therefore, if the IMI-resistant trait is incorporated in these species, the frequency of IMI-resistance genes is unlikely to decrease, even in the absence of IMI selection pressure.

Keywords

Imazamoxcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.prairie sunflower, Helianthus petiolaris NuttFitnessgene flowimidazolinone herbicides
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 166 - 174
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

Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shaffii, B. 1992. Differential competitiveness of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 6:303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci 46:403–407.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Miller, J. 1998. Progress in development Pursuit/Raptor herbicide resistant sunflower. Proc. Natl. Sunfl. Assoc 20:56–59.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Miller, J. F. 2000. Registration of four genetic stocks of sunflower resistant to imidazolinone herbicides. Crop Sci 40:869–870.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. D., Higley, L. G., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1996. Competition between triazine-resistant and susceptible waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci 44:853–859.Google Scholar
Arriola, P. E. and Ellstrand, N. C. 1996. Crop-to-weed gene flow in the genus Sorghum (Poaceae): spontaneous interspecific hybridization between Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, and crop sorghum, S. bicolor . Am. J. Bot 83:1153–1160.Google Scholar
Arriola, P. E. and Ellstrand, N. C. 1997. Fitness of interspecific hybrids in the genus Sorghum (Poaceae): persistence of crop genes in wild populations. Ecol. Appl 7:512–518.Google Scholar
BASF. 2003. CLEARFIELD Hybrids with No GMO Traits. www.clearfieldsystem.com/html/gmo.html/.Google Scholar
Beversdorf, W. D., Hume, D. J., and Donnelly-Vanderloo, M. J. 1988. Agronomic performance of triazine-resistant and susceptible reciprocal spring canola hybrids. Crop Sci 28:932–934.Google Scholar
Brown, J. and Brown, A. P. 1996. Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Ann. Appl. Biol 129:513–522.Google Scholar
Bruniard, J. M. and Miller, J. F. 2001. Inheritance of imidazolinone-herbicide resistance in sunflower. Helia 24:11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conard, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotype susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol 16:171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, J. D. and Hall, A. 1997. Sunflower physiology. Pages 67–113 in Schneiter, A. A. ed. Sunflower Technology and Production. Agronomy Monograph 35. Madison, WI: ASA/CSSA/SSSA.Google Scholar
Dale, P. J. 1994. The impact of hybrids between genetically modified crop plants and their related species: general considerations. Mol. Ecol 3:31–36.Google Scholar
Darmency, H. and Pernès, J. 1989. Agronomic performance of triazine resistant foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv). Weed Res 29:147–150.Google Scholar
Desrochers, A. and Rieseberg, L. H. 1998. Mentor effects in wild species of Helianthus (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot 85:770–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley. Pp. 15–76, 135–169, 505–553.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1996. Will herbicide resistance ultimately benefit agriculture?. Pages 322–330 in Prado, R. D., Jorrin, J., and Garcia-Torres, L. eds. Weed and Crop Resistance to Herbicides. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. E., Chee, P. W., and Fay, P. K. 1993. Rapid germination of sulfonylurea resistant Kochia scoparia L. accessions associated with elevated seed levels of branched chain amino acid. Weed Sci 41:18–22.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. 1988. Pollen as vehicle for the escape of engineered genes. Trends Ecol. Evol 3:30–32.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C., Prentice, H. C., and Hancock, J. F. 1999. Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst 30:539–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fick, G. N. 1978. Breeding and genetics. Pages 395–428 in Carter, J. F. ed. Sunflower Science and Technology. Agronomy Monograph 19. Madison, WI: ASA/CSSA/SSSA.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: J. Wiley-Interscience. Pp. 85–129.Google Scholar
Hall, L., Topinka, K., Huffman, J., Davis, L., and Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 48:688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology. London: Edward Arnold. 67 p.Google Scholar
Langevin, S. A., Clay, K., and Grace, J. 1990. The incidence and effects of hybridization between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L). Evolution 44:1000–1008.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Eberlein, C. V. 1996. Possible pleiotropic effects in herbicide resistant crops. Pages 201–210 in Duke, S. O. ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Manasse, R. S. 1992. Ecological risks of transgenic plants: effects of spatial dispersion of gene flow. Ecol. Appl 2:431–438.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. 2001. Gene flow, growth, and competitiveness of imazethapyr resistant common sunflower. Weed Sci 49:14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Al-Khatib, K., St. Amand, P., and Miller, J. F. 2003. Gene flow from imidazolinone-resistant domesticated sunflower to wild relatives. Weed Sci 51:854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. F. and Al-Khatib, K. 2002. Registration of imidazolinone herbicide-resistant sunflower maintainer (HA 425) and fertility restorer (RHA 426 and RHA 427) germplasms. Crop Sci 42:988–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, M. G., Higley, L. G., Christianssen, C. A., and Rowling, W. A. 1993. Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. trieseriatus (Diptera: Culcidae) through replacement series experiments. Environ. Entomol 22:311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poston, H. D., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Growth and development of imidazolinone-resistant and susceptible smooth pigweed biotypes. Weed Sci 50:485–503.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J., and Ghersa, G. 1997. Weed demography and population dynamics. Pages 103–159 in Weed Ecology: Implication for Management. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Rieseberg, L. H., Desrochers, A. M., and Youn, S. J. 1995a. Interspecific pollen competition as a reproductive barrier between sympatric species of Helianthus (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot 82:515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieseberg, L. H., Linder, C. R., and Seiler, G. 1995b. Chromosomal and genic barriers to introgression in Helianthus . Genetic 141:1163–1171.Google Scholar
Schilling, E. E. and Heiser, C. B. 1981. Intrageneric classification of Helianthus (Compositae). Taxon 30:393–403.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Zemetra, R., Young, F. L., and Jones, S. S. 1998. Production of herbicide-resistant jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) × wheat (Triticum aestivum) hybrids in the field by natural hybridization. Weed Sci 46:632–634.Google Scholar
Seiler, G. J. and Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. Systematics, origin, and germplasm resources of the wild and domesticated sunflower. Pages 21–65 in Schneiter, A. A. ed. Sunflower Technology and Production. Agronomy Monograph 35. Madison, WI: ASA/CSSA/SSSA.Google Scholar
Snow, A. A. and Moran-Palma, P. 1997. Commercial cultivation of transgenic crops: potential ecological risks. Bioscience 47:86–97.Google Scholar
Snow, A. A., Moran-Palma, P., Rieseberg, L. H., Wszelaki, A., and Seiler, G. J. 1998. Fecundity, phenology and seed dormancy of F1 wild-crop hybrids in sunflower (Helianthus annuus, Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot 85:794–801.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shaffi, B. 1994. Growth and competition of sulfunylurea-resistant and susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci 42:172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wright, T. R. 2002. Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have been learned? Weed Sci 50:700–712.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1994. Relative fitness of herbicide-resistant and susceptible biotypes of weeds. Phytoprotection 75:37–49.Google Scholar
Whitton, D., Wolf, E., Arias, D. M., Snow, A. A., and Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. The persistence of cultivar alleles in wild populations of sunflowers five generations after hyrbridization. Theor. Appl. Genet 95:33–40.Google Scholar