Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:35:01.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Contemporary and Historical Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Accessions to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dean S. Volenberg ,
William L. Patzoldt ,
Aaron G. Hager  and
Patrick J. Tranel
Dean S. Volenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
William L. Patzoldt
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Aaron G. Hager
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Patrick J. Tranel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dean.volenberg@ces.uwex.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Anecdotal reports suggest waterhemp is becoming more difficult to control with glyphosate. Waterhemp accessions collected primarily in Illinois before 1996, in 1998 to 1999, and in 2003, were evaluated for differential responses to glyphosate treatment. The pre-1996 group consisted of 10 accessions, whereas the 1998 to 1999 and 2003 groups consisted of 45 accessions each. Plants 10 to 12 cm in height from each waterhemp accession were treated with 0 or 220 g ae ha−1 glyphosate. Although shoot dry biomass 14 d after treatment, expressed as a percentage of the untreated, varied within and among accessions, the mean responses of the three groups were similar. However, when glyphosate responses were divided into 10 arbitrary classes (0 to 10, 11 to 20, …, and 81 to 90; > 91% of untreated), the number of plants within each class differed among groups. Most notably, the proportion of plants in the range of 0 to 30% of the untreated control decreased with time when progressing from the pre-1996 to the 2003 accessions. The relative frequency of waterhemp plants that were ≥ 100% of the untreated plants (i.e., uninjured by glyphosate) in the pre-1996, 1998 to 1999, and 2003 groups were 5, 6, and 5%, respectively. In a separate trial, waterhemp populations that exhibited the least sensitivity to glyphosate at 220 g ha−1 were controlled by 870 g ha−1 glyphosate. These results suggest that waterhemp, as a whole, within Illinois has not become less sensitive to glyphosate over the past few years. However, the proportion of plants that are most sensitive to glyphosate may be decreasing within populations.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea & Tardif AMATAtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. tuberculatus (Sauer) Costea & Tardif AMATUSelection intensityherbicide resistancedifferential response
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 327 - 333
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

Costea, M. and Tardif, F. J. Conspectus and notes on the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae) in Canada. Rhodora. 2003. 105:260–281.Google Scholar
Costea, M., Weaver, S. E., and Tardif, F. J. The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada, 3: Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea & Tardif. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2005. 85:507–522.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers 1970. Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd. Pages 78–113.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. Molecular Biology of Weed Control 2002. New York Taylor and Francis. Pages 115–117.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W. 1994. Resistance to photosystem II inhibiting herbicides. Pages 27–60. in Powles, S.B., Holtum, J.A.M. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL Lewis.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. 50:607–610.Google Scholar
Hartzler, B., Kolln, J., and Refsell, D. 2002. Variable Glyphosate Tolerance in Iowa Waterhemp. http://www.weeds.iastate.edu.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Battles, B. A., and Nordby, D. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci. 52:242–245.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2006. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 1996. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1996 Fields Crops Summary. http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1997 Fields Crops Summary. http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2000. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2000 Fields Crops Summary. http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2003. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2003 Fields Crops Summary. http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2004. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2004 Fields Crops Summary. http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest. Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Dixon, B. S., and Tranel, P. J. 2003. Triazine resistance in Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq) Sauer that is not site-of-action mediated. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:1134–1142.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Variable herbicide response among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop. Prot. 21:707–712.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2005. A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci. 53:30–36.Google Scholar
Pratt, D. B. and Clark, L. G. 2001. Amaranthus rudis and Amaranthus tuberculatus—one species or two? J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128:282–296.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 83–140. in Powles, S.B., Holtum, J.A.M. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL Lewis.Google Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 51:145–150.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J. and Schuster, C. L. 2002. Differential sensitivity to glyphosate among biotypes of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer). Pages 630–633. in Spafford, J.H., Dodd, J., Moore, J.H., eds. 13th Australian Weeds Conference. Perth, Australia Shannon Books.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed. Res. 37:93–101.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004. Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol. 18:947–952.Google Scholar
Trucco, F., Jeschke, M. R., Rayburn, A. L., and Tranel, P. J. 2005. Promiscuity in weedy amaranths: high frequency of female tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) × smooth pigweed (A. hybridus) hybridization under field conditions. Weed Sci. 53:46–54.Google Scholar
University of Missouri 2005. Waterhemp Potentially Resistant to Herbicide Found in Northwest Missouri Soybean Fields. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org.Google Scholar
Volenberg, D. S. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Altered acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase confers resistance to clethodim, fluazifop, and sethoxydim in Wisconsin giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.) and large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop]. Weed Res. 42:342–350.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 20:301–307.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, D. K. 2005. Differential response of Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq ex DC) JD Sauer to glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:936–950.Google Scholar