Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:38:33.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variability for resistance to trifluralin in Zea mays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Pierangelo Landi ,
Elisabetta Frascaroli  and
Marcella M. Giuliani
Elisabetta Frascaroli
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agronomia, Universita’ di Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6, 40126 Bologna, Italy
Marcella M. Giuliani
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agronomia, Universita’ di Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6, 40126 Bologna, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soil carryover of the herbicide trifluralin can injure Zea mays. Therefore, the development of resistant hybrids can be an important breeding objective. This research was conducted to study the genetic variability for trifluralin resistance in Z. mays, the effects of genes controlling resistance, and the seed lipid content of resistant (R) and susceptible (S) inbreds. Twenty inbreds were tested under greenhouse conditions at three trifluralin rates (0, 12.5, and 125 g ai ha−1). Lo1067 was the most resistant, and A632 was the most susceptible inbred. Hybrids among R and S inbreds were tested, along with their parents, under greenhouse conditions (using the same three rates) and in the field (at 0, 0.4, and 0.8 kg ai ha−1). Under both greenhouse and field conditions, inbreds R were more resistant than S. Hybrids R × R were more resistant than S × S, indicating that additive effects were important. Hybrids R × S and S × R did not significantly differ, indicating that reciprocal effects were not important. On average, hybrids R × S and S × R were intermediate between R × R and S × S, suggesting that nonadditive effects were negligible. The difference between the mean across hybrids and the mean across parents (further estimating the importance of nonadditive effects) was significant only for parameters investigated in the greenhouse. Greenhouse data were correlated with field data, but the coefficients of determination were < 50%. The ability to predict hybrid resistance on the basis of parental mean was higher in the greenhouse (r 2 = 0.78) than in the field (r 2 = 0.47). R and S inbreds also differed in seed lipid content, but correlations were negligible with greenhouse and field data. Data indicated the presence of genetic variability for trifluralin resistance, that additive effects were prevailing, and that the resistance level was not related to seed lipid content.

Keywords

TrifluralinZea mays L. (corn)Gene effectsherbicide resistancehybridsinbred lines
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1999 , pp. 369 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Ashton, F. M., Devilliers, O. T., Glen, R. K., and Duke, W. B. 1977. Localization of metabolic sites of action of herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 7:122–141.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Fat (crude) or ether extract in animal feed. Page 79 in Helrich, K., ed. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., Abernathy, J. R., and Wiese, A. F. 1978. Tolerance of 52 corn lines to trifluralin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31:123.Google Scholar
Helling, C. S. 1976. Dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. J. Environ. Qual. 5:1–15.Google Scholar
Hilton, J. L. and Christiansen, M. N. 1972. Lipid contribution to selective action of trifluralin. Weed Sci. 20:290–294.Google Scholar
McAlister, F. M., Holtum, J.A.M., and Powles, S. B. 1995. Dinitroaniline herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 43:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndon, B. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1981. Effects of seed and root lipids on the susceptibility of plants to trifluralin and oryzalin. Weed Sci. 29:420–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, D., Roggenbuck, F. C., and Rossman, E. C. 1986. Tolerance of corn inbreds and hybrids to the herbicide trifluralin. Proc. Annu. Corn Sorghum Conf. 41:155–159.Google Scholar
Probst, G. W. and Tepe, J. B. 1969. Trifluralin and related compounds. Pages 255–282 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Degradation of Herbicides. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C. and Penner, D. 1987. Factors influencing corn (Zea mays) tolerance to trifluralin. Weed Sci. 35:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C., Rossman, E. C., and Penner, D. 1984. Trifluralin tolerance in corn. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:38.Google Scholar
Tomlin, C., ed. 1994. The Pesticide Manual. 10th ed. Bath, Great Britain: Bath Press, pp. 1025–1026.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. and Lehnen, L. P. Jr. 1991. Mitotic disrupter herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:450–457.Google Scholar
Wych, R. D. and Schoper, J. B. 1987. Evaluation of herbicide tolerance of Z. mays inbred lines. Proc. Annu. Corn Sorghum Conf. 42:141–160.Google Scholar