Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:38:28.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Response of a Virginia Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Collection to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Grace A. Hite ,
Steven R. King ,
Edward S. Hagood  and
Golde I. Holtzman
Grace A. Hite
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060
Steven R. King
Affiliation:
Southern Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Huntley, MT 59037
Edward S. Hagood*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060
Golde I. Holtzman
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: shagood@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of common lambsquarters with POST applications of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant crops generally has been effective. In 2002, common lambsquarters plants from Westmoreland County, VA, were identified after not being controlled with a POST glyphosate application in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Plants from this site that survived glyphosate were collected in both 2002 and 2004. The objective of this research was to evaluate the susceptibility of F1 and F2 progeny from these common lambsquarters plants, relative to the susceptibility of common lambsquarters collected in Montgomery County, VA. F1 progeny of the Westmoreland plants from both the 2002 and 2004 collections showed reduced response to glyphosate relative to the Montgomery collection. Vigor reduction of F1 progeny from three 2004 Westmoreland source plants with 0.84 kg ae ha−1 of glyphosate ranged from 66 to 85% at 28 d after treatment (DAT), compared with 89% for the Montgomery collection. Evaluation of four Westmoreland F2 common lambsquarters lines derived from 2002 collections indicated significant differences in glyphosate sensitivity. Fifteen F2 lines were generated from 2004 collections from each of three Westmoreland source plants and from the Montgomery source. For the least sensitive Westmoreland source, vigor reduction ranged from only 24 to 36% across F2 lines in response to 1.68 kg ha−1 of glyphosate at 28 DAT relative to 55 to 100% for the Montgomery source. I50 estimates for fresh weight reduction were 0.91 and 0.32 kg ha−1, for these sources, respectively. Sequential treatments of 0.42, 1.26, and 1.68 kg ha−1 applied at 3-wk intervals to the least susceptible 2004 Westmoreland F2 line resulted in only 37% vigor reduction and no mortality among 360 treated plants.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALsoybean, Glycine max L. MerrHerbicide resistance
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 203 - 209
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

Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1988. Interference of four annual weeds in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:764–769.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Interference of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Technol. 2:505–508.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W., Li, J., and Monnig, N. H. 2006. Greenhouse investigations of suspected glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp populations from Missouri. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 46:206.Google Scholar
Chu, C., Ludford, P. M., Ozbun, J. L., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop Sci. 18:308–310.Google Scholar
Conn, J. S. and Deck, R. E. 1995. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 9.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci. 43:583–585.Google Scholar
Crook, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) competition and time of removal in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:358–364.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://weedscience.org. Accessed May 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI University Press of Hawaii. 84–91.Google Scholar
Kramer, C. Y. 1956. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics. 12:309–310.Google Scholar
Lee, L. J. and Ngim, J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn) in Malaysia. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:336–339.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Stachler, J. M., Miller, B. A., and Taylor, J. B. 2005. Response of common lambsquarters to glyphosate in the greenhouse and growth chamber. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:202.Google Scholar
Mithila, J., Swanton, C. J., and Hall, J. C. 2006. Physiological basis of decreased weed sensitivity to glyphosate under low nitrogen conditions. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 46:145. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Lemieux, C., and Leroux, G. D. 1999. Prediction of corn (Zea mays) yield loss from early observations of the relative leaf area and the relative leaf cover of weeds. Weed Sci. 47:297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, A. and Kogan, M. 2003. Glyphosate-Resistant Lolium multiflorum in Chilean orchards. Weed Res. 43:12–19.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46:604–607.Google Scholar
Pratley, J., Urwin, N., Stanton, R., Baines, P., Broster, J., Cullis, K., Schafer, D., Bohn, J., and Krueger, R. 1999. Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum . I. Bioevaluation. Weed Sci. 47:405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S. 2006. Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005. Washington, DC National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 110. p.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Shoup, D. E., and Al-Khatib, K. 2007. Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate as affected by growth stage. Weed Sci. 55:147–151.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 52:591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. B., Miller, B. A., Loux, M. M., and Stachler, J. M. 2005. Field response of six Ohio common lambsquarters populations to glyphosate. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:201.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-Resistant horseweed from Delware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–274.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. M. and Binning, L. K. 1987. Calculating the threshold temperature of development for weeds. Weed Sci. 35:177–179.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Sci. 39:238–242.Google Scholar