Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T22:27:52.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pitted and Hybrid Morningglory Accessions Have Variable Tolerance to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke ,
Krishna N. Reddy  and
Charles T. Bryson
Ian C. Burke*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Johnson Hall 201, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Charles T. Bryson
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: icburke@wsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two greenhouse studies were conducted to investigate the variability in tolerance to a sublethal dose of glyphosate among accessions of pitted morningglory, hybrid morningglory (a fertile hybrid between pitted and sharppod morningglory), and sharppod morningglory, collected from several states in the southern United States. The first study was conducted to evaluate the variability in tolerance to glyphosate among accessions. Glyphosate at 420 g ae/ha was applied to plants at the four- to five-leaf stage, and control (percent shoot fresh weight reduction) was determined 2 wk after treatment (WAT). Pitted morningglory response ranged from −9% (indicating no response to glyphosate) to 39% control. A similar trend was observed in hybrid morningglory. Control of two related species, cypressvine morningglory and red morningglory, averaged 40 and 29%, respectively, and was similar to control of the most susceptible pitted morningglory and hybrid morningglory accessions. Ivyleaf morningglory control was 9%. Sharppod morningglory control was highest (48%) among the morningglories studied. A second study was conducted to determine levels of tolerance to glyphosate based on GR50 (dose required to cause a 50% reduction in plant growth) in 10 accessions that were least to most sensitive to glyphosate (7 pitted, 2 hybrid, and 1 sharppod morningglory). Glyphosate GR50 doses ranged from 0.65 to 1.23 kg/ha, a two-fold variability in tolerance to glyphosate among the 7 pitted morningglory accessions. Increasing levels of tolerance were associated with the absence of a leaf notch. These results indicate the existence of variable tolerance to a sublethal dose of glyphosate among accessions of pitted morningglory.

Keywords

Glyphosatecypressvine morningglory, Ipomoea quamoclit L. IPOQUhybrid morningglory, Ipomoea × leucantha Jacqivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAred morningglory, Ipomoea coccinea L. IPOCCsharppod morningglory, Ipomoea cordatotriloba Dennst. IPOTCBiotypeherbicide tolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 592 - 598
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

Anonymous, , 2007. Roundup WeatherMax label. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Baucom, R. S. and Mauricio, R. 2004. Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. PNAS 101:13386–13390.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Reddy, K. N., and Burke, I. C. 2008. Morphological comparison of morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.) populations from the southeastern United States. Weed Sci 56:692–698.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control with glyphosate and 2,4-DB mixtures in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 15:56–61.Google Scholar
DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci 32:472–476.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
Ellis, M. and Kay, Q. O. N. 1975. Genetic variation in herbicide resistance in scentless mayweed [Tripleurospermum inodurm (L.) Schultz Bip.] I. Differences between populations in response to MCPA. Weed Res 15:317–326.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1986. Mode of reproduction and inheritance of leaf shape in Ipomoea hederacea. Weed Sci 34:391–395.Google Scholar
Ennos, R. A. 1981. Quantitative studies of the mating system in 2 sympatric species of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae). Genetica 57:93–98.Google Scholar
Herrmann, K. M. and Weaver, L. M. 1999. The shikimate pathway. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Mol. Biol 50:473–503.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. J. and Putwain, P. D. 1980. Evolution of herbicide resistance in Senecio vulgaris: variation in susceptibility to simazine between and within populations. J. Appl. Ecol 17:779–791.Google Scholar
Jaworski, E. G. 1982. Mode of action of N-phosphonomethylglycine: inhibition of aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. J. Agric. Food Chem 20:1195–1198.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., and Reddy, K. N. 2004. Effect of glyphosate spray coverage on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Technol 18:124–130.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, K. N. 2005. Glyphosate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Sci 53:277–283.Google Scholar
Kohler, E. A., Throssell, C. S., and Reicher, Z. J. 2004. Ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea) populations respond differently to 2,4-D or triclopyr. Weed Technol 18:566–574.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsFC/AgriChemUsFC-05-21-2008.txt. Accessed: December 29, 2008.Google Scholar
Neve, P. and Powles, S. B. 2005. Recurrent selection with reduced herbicide rates results in the rapid evolution of herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum . Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110:1154–1166.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725–731.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 50:26–33.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. W. 2002. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem 50:506–512.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants:biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol 20:282–289.Google Scholar
Price, S. C., Hill, J. E., and Allard, R. W. 1983. Genetic variability for herbicide reaction in plant populations. Weed Sci 31:652–657.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Rimando, A. M., Duke, S. O., and Nandula, V. K. 2008. Aminomethylphosphonic acid accumulation in plant species treated with glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem 56:2125–2130.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol 14:204–211.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S., Jensen, J., and Fuerst, P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Siehl, D. L. 1997. Inhibitors of EPSPS synthase, glutamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. Pages 37–67. in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
Singh, B. K. and Shaner, D. L. 1998. Rapid determination of glyphosate injury to plants and identification of glyphosate resistant plants. Weed Technol 12:527–530.Google Scholar
Steinrücken, H. C. and Amrhein, N. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimic acid 3-phosphate synthase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Community 94:1207–1212.Google Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Oliver, L. R., and Bond, J. A. 2007. Response of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) accessions to chlorimuron, fomesafen, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 17:179–185.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economies in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:586–593.Google Scholar