Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:51:51.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritability of Glyphosate Resistance in Indiana Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vince M. Davis ,
Greg R. Kruger ,
Steven G. Hallett ,
Patrick J. Tranel  and
William G. Johnson
Vince M. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
Steven G. Hallett
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
Patrick J. Tranel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Horseweed has rapidly become a major weed in soybean and cotton production fields of the United States, and Indiana farmers ranked horseweed as one of the five worst weeds in their fields during a mail survey in 2003. Glyphosate resistance in horseweed is conferred by a single, incompletely dominant gene. Horseweed populations possess a high level of variability in their response to glyphosate. Horseweed has also evolved resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, and biotypes resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides and glyphosate are in many of the same areas. An experiment was designed to determine whether glyphosate resistance can be transferred by pollen. We found glyphosate-resistant plants in 1.1 to 3.8% of the progeny. Segregation ratios fit the expected 3 : 1 resistant : sensitive ratios confirming that glyphosate resistance in horseweed can transfer to closely located glyphosate-susceptible biotypes under open-pollinated conditions at low frequencies. The hypothesis of a follow-up experiment was that first-generation progeny of parent plants, selected on a continuum of low to high phenotypic response to glyphosate, will inherit respective low to high phenotypic responses to glyphosate. The variability in field-collected populations (low-level to high-level glyphosate resistance) ranged from 2 to 14 times the commonly recommended field use rate of glyphosate. However, low- and high-levels of glyphosate resistance were not observed in first-generation progeny. We conclude that differential glyphosate responses observed among parental populations was due to different frequencies of the resistance allele within the populations, rather than the presence of different resistance alleles.

Keywords

Glyphosatehorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Dose–responserealized heritability
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 30 - 38
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

Beckie, H. J., Heap, I. M., Smeda, R. J., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Screening for herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Technol. 14:428–445.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Bekech, M. M. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence and distribution in no-till and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agron. Trends Agric. Sci. 1:67–71.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Nonchemical options for delaying weed resistance to herbicides in Midwest cropping systems. Weed Technol. 13:636–642.Google Scholar
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1989. An equation to describe dose responses where there is stimulation of growth at low dose. Weed Res. 29:93–96.Google Scholar
Dauer, J. T., Mortensen, D. A., and Humston, R. 2006. Controlled experiments to predict horseweed (Conyza canadensis) dispersal distances. Weed Sci. 54:484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Bauman, T. T., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. Influence of weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horseweed population dynamics and crop yield. Weed Sci. 55:508–516.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., and Johnson, W. G. 2008. A field survey to determine distribution and frequency of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 22:331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, V. M. and Johnson, W. G. 2008. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean. Weed Sci. 56:231–236.Google Scholar
Dinelli, G., Marotti, I., Bonetti, A., Minelli, M., Catizone, P., and Barnes, J. 2006. Physiological and molecular insight on the mechanisms of resistance to glyphosate in Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. biotypes. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 86:30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Tran, M., Chiu, T., Sammons, R. D., Heck, G. R., and CaJacob, C. A. 2004. Investigations into glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis): retention, uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci. 52:498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 2007. Review of glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicide crop resistance and resistant weed management. Weed Technol. 21:547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfhill, M. D., Good, L. L., Basu, C., Burris, J., Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2007. Transformation and segregation of GFP fluorescence and glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) hybrids. Plant Cell Rep. 26:303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heap, I. M. 2008. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: November 2008.Google Scholar
Horvath, B. and Vargas, J. Jr. 2005. Analysis of dollar spot disease severity using digital image analysis. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 10:196–201.Google Scholar
Inman, C. F., Rees, L. E. N., Barker, E., Haverson, K., Stokes, C. R., and Bailey, M. 2005. Validation of computer-assisted, pixel-based analysis of multiple-colour immunofluorescence histology. J. Immunol. Methods. 302:156–167.Google Scholar
Karcher, D. E. and Richardson, M. D. 2003. Quantifying turfgrass color using digital image analysis. Crop Sci. 43:943–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Streibig, J. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose–response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21:840–848.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Kruger, G. R., Davis, V. M., Johnson, W. G., and Weller, S. C. 2008. Response of selected Indiana horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations to glyphosate and cloransulam. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 63:124.Google Scholar
Loux, M., Stachler, J., Johnson, B., Nice, G., Davis, V., and Nordby, D. 2006. The Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crop Series: Biology and Management of Horseweed. West Lafayette, IN Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service GWC-9. http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-9-W.pdf. Accessed: March 2008.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Neve, P. 2007. Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution and management: 50 years after Harper. Weed Res. 47:365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regehr, D. L. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The population dynamics of Erigeron canadensis, a successional winter annual. J. Ecol. 67:923–933.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. D., Karcher, D. E., and Purcell, L. C. 2001. Quantifying turfgrass cover using digital image analysis. Crop Sci. 41:1884–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivoal, J., Smith, C. R., Moraes, T. F., Turpin, D. H., and Plaxton, W. C. 2002. A method for activity staining after native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis using a coupled enzyme assay and fluorescence detection: application to the analysis of several glycolytic enzymes. Anal. Biochem. 300:94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, E. J., Dauer, J. T., VanGessel, M. J., and Neumann, G. 2006. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed collected in the planetary boundary layer. Weed Sci. 54:1063–1067.Google Scholar
Smisek, A. 1995. Resistance to Paraquat in Erigeron canadensis L. . London, ON, Canada University of Western Ontario. 82–84.Google Scholar
Stallings, G. P., Thill, D. C., Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Shafii, B. 1995. Pollen-mediated gene flow of sulfonylurea-resistant kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 43:95–102.Google Scholar
Swanson, J. D., Carlson, J. E., and Guiltinan, M. J. 2006. Use of image analysis software as a tool to visualize non-radioactive signals in plant in situ analysis. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 24:105a–105e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trainer, G. D., Loux, M. M., Harrison, S. K., and Regnier, E. 2005. Response of horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 19:231–236.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wright, T. R. 2002. Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned? Weed Sci. 50:700–712.Google Scholar
Trucco, F., Jeschke, M. R., Rayburn, A. L., and Tranel, P. J. 2005. Amaranthus hybridus can be pollinated frequently by A. tuberculatus under field conditions. Heredity. 94:64–70.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2008. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. Washington, DC USDA-NASS. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass. Accessed: November 2008.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:714–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. The biology of Canadian weeds, 115: Conyza canadensis . Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:867–875.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A., Owen, M. D. K., and VanGessel, M. J. 2004. Inheritance of evolved glyphosate resistance in Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Theor. Appl. Genet. 110:58–70.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A., Owen, M. D. K., and VanGessel, M. J. 2007. Transfer of glyphosate resistance: evidence of hybridization in Conyza (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot. 94:660–673.Google Scholar