Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:44:07.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Resistance to Propanil or Clomazone Alter the Growth and Competitive Abilities of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan ,
Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Prashant Jha  and
Kenneth Smith
Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Prashant Jha
Affiliation:
Weed Science, Southern Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, 748 Railroad Highway, Huntley, MT 59037
Kenneth Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: muthu@uark.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barnyardgrass biotypes resistant (R) to propanil (PR) or clomazone (CR) have been confirmed in rice production systems in Arkansas. However, it is not clear whether resistance to these herbicides impose any fitness cost on the R biotypes compared to susceptible barnyardgrass (S). The overall objective of this experiment was to determine if the growth and competitiveness of barnyardgrass is altered by resistance to propanil or clomazone and to establish a competitive hierarchy among the S, PR, and CR biotypes. A replacement series study was conducted in a greenhouse using five proportions of S and R biotypes (0 : 100, 25 : 75, 50 : 50, 75 : 25, and 100 : 0). The study was carried out in a completely randomized design (CRD) with four replications. The variables, including plant height, number of tillers, number of leaves, and shoot dry weight, were used for quantifying the differences in competitive abilities. Replacement series indices were calculated to explore the competitiveness. Expected (He) and observed (Ho) values for relative yield (RY) and relative yield total (RYT) were compared for number of tillers, number of leaves, and shoot dry weight for each biotype comparison. Other replacement series indices including competitive ratio (CR), relative crowding coefficient (RCC), and aggressiveness index (AI) also were calculated for these variables. The results showed that there were no major differences among the S and R biotypes for these variables, indicating that in the absence of selection pressure, resistance to propanil or clomazone does not influence the growth and competitiveness of barnyardgrass. The findings will be useful for predicting the dynamics of resistant populations in the absence of herbicide selection and for designing suitable management strategies.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) BeauvCompetitivenessherbicide resistancemutual interferencereplacement series indicesfitness cost
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 353 - 358
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 Mallory-Smith, C. 1992. Monitoring the occurrence of sulfonylurea-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 6:437–440.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1994. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 8:576–581.Google Scholar
Baucom, R. S. and Mauricio, R. 2004. Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101:13386–13390.Google Scholar
Bergelson, J. and Purrington, C. B. 1996. Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. Am. Nat. 148:536–558.Google Scholar
Coats, R. 2010. Arkansas' Multi-Billion Dollar Crop. Farm Bureau Arkansas Newsletter. http://www.arfb.com/news_information/ark_agri/2010v7i3/ricecrop.aspx; Accessed: October 9, 2010.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., and Chapin, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science. 230:895–899.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. 1988. What is wrong with replacement series? Trends Ecol. Evol. 3:24–26.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and O'Neill, M. 1993. Density dependence of replacement series experiments. Oikos. 66:347–352.Google Scholar
Darmency, H. and Pernes, J. 1989. Agronomic performance of triazine resistant foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.). Weed Res. 29:147–150.Google Scholar
Darmency, H., Picard, J. C., and Wang, T. 2011. Fitness costs linked to dinitroaniline resistance mutation in Setaria . Heredity. In press. DOI:10.1038/hdy.2010.169.Google Scholar
Duff, G., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2009. Relative competitiveness of protoporphyrinogen oxidase-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 57:169–174.Google Scholar
Dunnett, C. W. 1955. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 50:1096–1121.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Estorninos, L. E. Jr., Gbur, E. E., and Chavez, R. S. C. 2005. Interference interactions of two rice cultivars and their F3 cross with barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in a replacement series study. Weed Sci. 53:323–330.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87:1–16.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C. and Romano, M. L. 1995. Morphological and physiological differences between the auxinic herbicide-susceptible (S) and herbicide-resistant (R) wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) biotypes. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 52:149–155.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. London Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Hart, J. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Stemler, A. 1992. Influence of light intensity on growth of triazine-resistant rapeseed (Brassica napus). Weed Res. 32:349–356.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. and Buhler, D. D. 2002. Utilizing Sorghum as a functional model of crop–weed competition. I. Establishing a competitive hierarchy. Weed Sci. 50:466–472.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Thill, D. C. 1994. Growth and productivity of resistant plants. Pages 299–316 in Powles, S. B., and Holtum, J. A. M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Howell, T. A. 1990. Grain, dry matter yield relationships for winter wheat and grain sorghum—Southern High Plains. Agron. J. 82:914–918.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A. 2000. The replacement series. J. Ecol. 88:371–385.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.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Al-Khatib, K., Amand, P. S., and Miller, J. F. 2005. Relative fitness of imazamox-resistant common sunflower and prairie sunflower. Weed Sci. 53:166–174.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., Scott, R. C., and Smith, K. L. 2007. Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol. 81:832–839.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Scott, R., Smith, K., Still, J., Estorninos, L. E. Jr., and Bangarwa, S. 2009. Confirmation and management of clomazone-resistant barnyardgrass in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 62:210 [Abstract].Google Scholar
Park, K. W., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Ball, D. A., and Mueller-Warrant, G. W. 2004. Ecological fitness of acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant and -susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotypes. Weed Sci. 52:768–773.Google Scholar
Purrington, C. B. and Bergelson, J. 1997. Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana . Genetics. 145:807–814.Google Scholar
Reboud, X. and Till-Boutraud, I. 1991. The cost of herbicide resistance measured by a competition experiment. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82:690–696.Google Scholar
Ricroch, A., Mousseau, M., Darmency, H., and Pernes, J. 1987. Comparison of triazine-resistant and -susceptible cultivated Setaria italica: growth and photosynthetic capacity. Pl. Physiol. BioChem. 25:29–34.Google Scholar
Stubbs, W. C., Dodson, W. R., and Brown, C. A. 1904. Rice: History, Preparation of Soil, Planting, Flooding, Harvesting, Noxious Weeds in Rice Fields, Feeding Rice Bran and Rice Polish, and Determination of Digestible Nutrients. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull., 2nd Series. 77:362–428.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shaffi, B. 1994. Growth and competition of sulfonylurea-resistant and susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 42:172–179.Google Scholar
Vila-Aiub, M. M., Neve, P., and Powles, S. B. 2009. Fitness costs associated with evolved herbicide resistance alleles in plants. New Phytol. 184:751–767.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
Westhoven, A. M., Kruger, G. R., Gerber, C. K., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2008. Characterization of selected common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotypes with tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 56:685–691.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. E., Runsick, S. K. Jr., and Mazzanti, R. 2010. Trends in Arkansas rice production. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser. 581. 21 p.Google Scholar
Yu, Q., Collavo, A., Zheng, M. Q., Owen, M., Sattin, M., and Powles, S. B. 2007. Diversity of acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase mutations in resistant Lolium populations: evaluation using clethodim. Plant Physiol. 145:547–558.Google Scholar