Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:43:58.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confirmation and Resistance Mechanisms in Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Arkansas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chad E. Brewer  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Chad E. Brewer*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 W. Altheimer Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72704
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 W. Altheimer Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were established in Fayetteville, AR, to investigate glyphosate resistance in Arkansas common ragweed populations. Common ragweed seed were collected from plants in Pope and Jackson counties in Arkansas. Plants grown from seed were sprayed with one of seven glyphosate rates. Populations in Pope and Jackson counties were 21-fold and 10-fold more tolerant to glyphosate, respectively, than a known susceptible population. Based on 14C-glyphosate absorption and translocation studies, reduced glyphosate absorption or translocation was not the resistance mechanism in Arkansas glyphosate-resistant common ragweed. Shikimate accumulation did not differ among the known susceptible and the two resistant populations at 3 d after treatment (DAT). However, by 5 DAT, shikimate accumulation in the two resistant populations was lower than the known susceptible population. Data indicate that glyphosate-resistant common ragweed is present in at least two locations in Arkansas, and the resistance mechanism is not an insensitive target site or reduced glyphosate absorption or translocation.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBEL.Absorption, herbicide resistanceresistance mechanismshikimate pathwaytranslocation
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 6 , December 2009 , pp. 567 - 573
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

Amrhein, N., Deus, B., Gehrke, P., and Steinrucken, H. 1980. The site of inhibition of the shikimate pathway by glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 66:830–834.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. E. 2007. Arkansas Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). . Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas. 87.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. 1983. The influence of light, temperature, and humidity on the translocation and activity of glyphosate in Elymus repens (Agropyron repens). Weed Res. 23:347–355.CrossRefGoogle 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
Duncan, C. N. and Weller, S. C. 1987. Heritability of glyphosate susceptibility among biotypes of field bindweed. J. Hered. 78:257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, P. C., Tran, M., Chiu, T., Sammons, R. D., Heck, G. R., and Jacob, C. A. C. 2004. Investigations into glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis): retention, uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci. 52:498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grangeot, M., Chauvel, B., and Gauvrit, C. 2005. Spray retention, foliar uptake, and translocation of glufosinate and glyphosate in Ambrosia artemisiifolia . Weed Res. 46:152–162.Google Scholar
Heap, I. C. 2007. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: June 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Herrmann, K. M. and Weaver, L. M. 1999. The shikimate pathway. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 50:473–503.Google Scholar
Hess, M., Barralis, G., Bleiholder, H., Buhrs, L., Eggers, T. H., Hack, H., and Strauss, R. 1997. Use of the extended BBCH scale—general for the descriptions of the growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous weed species. Weed Res. 37:433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoss, N. E., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:110–117.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the toxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.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
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, K. N. 2005. Role of absorption and translocation in the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 53:84–89.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Shaner, D. L., Henry, W. B., Nadler-Hassar, T., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Assessment of two nondestructive assays for detecting glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 53:559–566.Google Scholar
Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Powles, S. B., Hawkes, T. R., Hollinshead, P. H., Warner, S. A. J., and Preston, C. 2003. Investigations into the glyphosate resistance mechanism in Lolium rigidum . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74:62–72.Google Scholar
Lund-Høie, K. 1979. The physiological fate of glyphosate-14C in Betula verrucosa and Fraxinus excelsior: the effect of ammonium sulphate and the environment on the herbicide. Meldinger fra Norges Landbrukshoiskole. 58:1–24.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Nafziger, E. D., Widholm, J. M., Steinrucken, H. C., and Killmer, J. L. 1984. Selection and characterization of a carrot cell line tolerant to glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 76:571–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paw, U. K. T. and Hotton, C. 1989. Optimum pollen and female receptor size for anemophily. Am. J. Bot. 76:445–453.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. M., Sellers, B. A., and Smeda, R. J. 2004. Differential response of common ragweed to glyphosate. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:27.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
Rubin, J., Gaines, R., and Jensen, R. 1982. Enzymological basis for herbicidal action of glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 70:833–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res. 20:195–200.CrossRefGoogle 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
Smart, C. C., Johänning, D., Müller, G., and Amrhein, N. 1985. Selective overproduction of 5-enol-pyruvylshikimic acid 3-phosphate synthase in plant cell culture which tolerates high doses of the herbicide glyphosate. J. Biol. Chem. 260:16,338–16,346.Google Scholar
Smith, C. M., Pratt, D., and Thompson, G. A. 1986. Increased 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid 3-phosphotase synthase activity in a glyphosate-tolerant variant strain of tomato cells. Plant Cell Rep. 5:298–301.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. X., Jones, J. D., Weller, S. C., and Goldsbrough, P. B. 1991. Expression and stability of amplified genes encoding 5-enolpyruvylshikimiate-3-phosphate synthase in glyphosate-tolerant tobacco cell lines. Plant Mol. Biol. 17:1127–1138.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H. and Weller, S. C. 1997. Cellular mechanisms influence differential glyphosate sensitivity in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, J. H., Yerkes, C. N., DeGennaro, F. P., and Weller, S. C. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45:658–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar