Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:53:47.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chlorophyll fluorescence for rapid detection of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Ronald E. Talbert  and
Robert E. Hoagland
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Robert E. Hoagland
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Repeated use of propanil to control barnyardgrass (BYG) and other weeds in rice has led to the development of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (R-BYG). R-BYG possesses elevated aryl acylamidase activity levels, which cause rapid metabolism of propanil analogous to propanil degradation in rice. The current screening method for determining propanil resistance in BYG requires about 10 mo. The present study examined the use of chlorophyll fluorescence as a more rapid method to identify propanil resistance in BYG soon after it is suspected. Chlorophyll fluorescence data from excised BYG leaf tissue (R-BYG and susceptible-BYG [S-BYG]; 13- to 41-d-old) exposed to 100 μM propanil for 2 h indicated a 95 to 100% inhibition of electron transport (photosynthesis inhibition) in both R- and S-BYG. However, when incubated in water in the dark for 22 h after the initial 2-h treatment, metabolism in R-BYG was sufficient to reduce levels of absorbed propanil and facilitate recovery. Lack of metabolism of propanil prevented recovery in S-BYG, thus allowing the two biotypes to be distinguished easily by the chlorophyll fluorescence assay. Further studies using this 2-h exposure to 100 μM propanil followed by a 22-h recovery period evaluated several assay parameters. A longer recovery time and the effects of various propanil concentrations were also evaluated. A herbicide dose-response curve showed the greatest difference in photosynthesis inhibition for both biotypes at about 100 μM propanil, but both biotypes were inhibited > 95% when treated with 400 μM propanil. Inhibition of photosynthesis in both biotypes was greatest when the recovery incubation temperature was 35 C compared to 20, 25, and 30 C. Fluorescence data from harvested tissue stored moist in plastic bags at 23 C (to simulate shipment) showed that biotypes could be differentiated even when received as late as 4 d after harvest. Thus, samples can be harvested from the field soon after propanil failure and resistance or susceptibility to propanil determined after only a few days. This technique can greatly reduce the time, space, and labor currently required to determine propanil resistance in BYG.

Keywords

Propanilbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGBiotypeherbicide resistancepropanil resistancechlorophyll fluorescencephotosynthesis inhibitionphotosystem IIECHCGriceOryza sativa L.
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 163 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Ahrens, W. H. 1989. Uptake and action of metribuzin in soybeans (Glycine max) and two weed species as monitored by chlorophyll fluorescence. Weed Sci. 37: 631–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, W. H., Arntzen, C. J., and Stoller, E. W. 1981. Chlorophyll fluorescence assay for the determination of triazine resistance. Weed Sci. 29: 316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, A., Fuerst, E. P., Arntzen, C. J., and Machado, V. S. 1986. Stability of chloroplastic triazine resistance in rutabaga backcross generations. Plant Physiol. 80: 511–514.Google Scholar
Carey III, V. F., Duke, S. O., Hoagland, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1995a. Resistance mechanism of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass: absorption, translocation, and site of action studies. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 52: 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey III, V. F., Hoagland, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1995b. Verification and distribution of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 9: 366–372.Google Scholar
Carey III, V.F., Hoagland, R.E., and Talbert, R.E. 1997. Resistance mechanism of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass: II. In-vivo metabolism of the propanil molecule. Pestic. Sci. 49: 333–338.Google Scholar
Daniell, H., Kumarachinnayan, P., and Kulandaivelu, G. 1981. Action of propanil on in vivo chlorophyll a fluorescence in (Echinochloa crus-galli) and rice. Weed Res. 21: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C., eds. 1993. Herbicide inhibition of photosynthetic electron transport. Pages 113–140 in Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ducruet, J. M., Sixto, H., and Garcia-Baudin, J. M. 1993. Using chlorophyll fluorescence induction for a quantitative detoxification assay with metribuzin and chlorotoluron in excised wheat (Triticum aestivum and Triticurn durum) leaves. Pestic. Sci. 38: 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. J., Chavez, A. L., Raminez, H. V., and Varela, D. N. 1996. Propanil degradation and resistance in junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] assessions from Colombian rice fields. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts 36: 10.Google Scholar
Frear, D. S. and Still, G. G. 1968. The metabolism of 3,4-dichloropropionanilide in plants. Partial purification and properties of an aryl aclyamidase from rice. Phytochemistry 7: 913–920.Google Scholar
Gleiter, H. M. and Renger, G. 1993. A simple fluorometric detection of photosystem II inhibitors. Pages 69–74 in Böger, P. and Sandmann, G., eds. Target Assays for Modern Herbicides and Related Phytotoxic Compounds. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Habash, D., Percival, M. P., and Baker, N. R. 1985. Rapid chlorophyll fluorescence technique for the study of penetration of photosynthetically active herbicides into leaf tissue. Weed Res. 25: 389–395.Google Scholar
Harris, M. and Camlin, M. S. 1988. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a rapid test for reaction to urea herbicides in winter wheat. J. Agric. Sci. 110: 627–632.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1982. The role of metabolism in herbicide selectivity in higher plants. Pages 83–92 in Metabolism of Herbicides in Higher Plants. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publ.Google Scholar
Hoagland, R. E. 1978. Isolation and some properties of an aryl acylamidase from red rice, (Oryza sativa), that metabolizes 3',4'-dichloropropionanilide. Plant Cell Physiol. 19: 1019–1027.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. H. 1971. Influence of environment on metabolism of propanil in rice. Weed Sci. 19: 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstra, G. and Switzer, C. M. 1968. The phytotoxicity of propanil. Weed Sci. 16: 23–28.Google Scholar
Judy, B. M., Lower, W. R., Thomas, M. W., Krause, G. F., and Astraw, A. 1990. The chlorophyll fluorescence assay as a rapid indicator of herbicide toxicity. Proc. Sourh. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 358–361.Google Scholar
Jun, C. J. and Matsunaka, S. 1990. The propanil hydrolyzing enzyme aryl acylamidase in the wild rices of genus Oryza . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 38: 26–33.Google Scholar
Leah, J. M., Caseley, J. C., Riches, C. R., and Valverde, B. E. 1995. Age-related mechanisms of propanil tolerance in jungle-rice, (Echinochloa colona). Pestic. Sci. 45: 347–354.Google Scholar
Ruff, D. F. 1993. Physiological response, cultivar response, and potential residues of fomesafen in snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). . University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 120 pp.Google Scholar
Schrieber, U., Fink, R., and Vidaver, W. 1977. Fluorescence induction in whole leaves: differentiation between the two sides of adaptation to different light regimes. Planta 133: 122–129.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1961. 3,4-Dichloropropionanalide for control of barnyardgrass in rice. Weeds 9: 318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. and Baltazar, A. M. 1993. Control of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 92.Google Scholar
Truelove, B. and Hensley, J. R. 1982. Methods of testing for herbicide resistance. Pages 117–131 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Voss, M., Renger, G., Kotter, C., and Graber, P. 1984. Fluorometric detection of photosystem II herbicide penetration and detoxification in whole leaves. Weed Sci. 32: 675–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, N. and Nakamura, H. 1963. Chemical control of plant growth and development. (3) Some herbicidal properties of Stam F-34 (3,4-dichloropropionanilide). Proc. Crop Sci. Soc. Japan 32: 69–76.Google Scholar