Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:38:23.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene flow, growth, and competitiveness of imazethapyr-resistant common sunflower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael W. Marshall ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Thomas Loughin
Michael W. Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Thomas Loughin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was conducted to ascertain movement potential of imazethapyr resistance and to measure the relative growth and productivity of imazethapyr-resistant (IR) and imazethapyr-susceptible (IS) biotypes of common sunflower under noncompetitive and competitive conditions. Susceptible biotypes of common sunflower were planted in the field in concentric circles at distances of 5.5, 8.0, 15.0, and 30.0 m around a center of densely planted IR biotypes in four locations in northeast Kansas in 1998 and 1999. Pollen movement was analyzed by sampling the IS progeny for the presence of imazethapyr resistance. The distance in which resistance is first detected from the IR pollen source, first unnatural resistant distance (FURD), ranged from 12.1 to 15.5 m. Wind direction was highly correlated with FURD; the north sections had larger FURD. Greenhouse studies were conducted to study growth of IR and IS biotypes under noncompetitive and competitive conditions. Under noncompetitive conditions, leaf area and dry weight were slightly greater for the IR than the IS biotype at early growth stages, but photosynthesis and height were similar. Under competitive conditions, photosynthesis, leaf area, height, and dry weight of IR and IS biotypes were similar. As a result, IR–IR and IS–IS intracompetition equaled IR–IS intercompetition. Gene flow from IR to IS biotypes occurred with movement up to 15.5 m. The lack of differences between growth of the IR and IS biotype at late growth stages in noncompetitive conditions and similar growth of IR and IS biotypes under competitive conditions indicated no competitive advantage from imazethapyr resistance.

Keywords

Imazethapyrcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. HELANALS inhibitorsgenetic exchangeherbicide resistancepollen transferHELAN
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 14 - 21
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

Agricultural Statistics Service Staff. 1998. Agricultural chemical usage: 1997 field crops summary. ERS-NASS Ag. Ch. 1(98), May 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Differential competitiveness of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 6:303–309.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 46:403–407.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. D., Higley, L. G., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1996. Competition between triazine-resistant and -susceptible common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:853–859.Google Scholar
Arias, D. M. and Rieseberg, L. H. 1994. Gene flow between cultivated and wild sunflowers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 89:655–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arriola, P. E. and Ellstrand, N. C. 1996. Crop-to-weed gene flow in the genus Sorghum (Poaceae): spontaneous interspecific hybridization between Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, and crop sorghum, S. bicolor . Am. J. Bot. 83 (9): 1153–1160.Google Scholar
Baranger, A., Chevre, A. M., Eber, F., and Renard, M. 1995. Effect of oilseed rape genotype on the spontaneous hybridization rate with a weedy species: an assessment of transgene dispersal. Theor. Appl. Genet. 91:956–963.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J. R., Al-Khatib, K., and Currie, R. S. 1999. Survey of common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) resistance to imazethapyr and chlorimuron in northeast Kansas. Weed Technol. 13:510–514.Google Scholar
Bestman, H. D., Devine, M. D., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1990. Herbicide chlorsulfuron decreases assimilate transport out of treated leaves of field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) seedlings. Plant Physiol. 93:1441–1448.Google Scholar
Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D.D. 1988. Sulfonylureas. Pages 117–189 In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Dekker.Google Scholar
Boudry, P., Moerchen, H. C., Saumitou-Laprade, P., Vernet, P., and Van Dijk, H. 1993. The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets. Theor. Appl. Genet. 87:471–478.Google Scholar
Brown, J. and Brown, A. P. 1996. Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Ann. Appl. Biol. 129:513–522.Google Scholar
Christoffoleti, P. J., Westra, P., and Moore, F. 1997. Growth analysis of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 45:691–695.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171–177.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
Darmency, H. and Pernes, J. 1989. Agronomic performance of a triazine resistant foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.). Weed Res. 29:147–150.Google Scholar
Doebley, J. 1990. Molecular evidence for gene flow among Zea species. BioScience 40:443–448.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Maddux, L. D., Moshier, L. J., and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 10:317–321.Google Scholar
Gillespie, G. R. and Miller, S. D. 1984. Sunflower competition in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. A., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Balke, N. E. 1995. Productivity and intraspecific competitive ability of a velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) biotype resistant to atrazine. Weed Sci. 43:619–626.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2000. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Online. Internet, http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Thill, D. C. 1994. Growth and productivity of resistant plants. Pages 299–316 In Powles, S. B. and Holtrum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology No. 96. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. 67 p.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M. J., Brule-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langevin, S. A., Clay, K., and Grace, J. 1990. The incidence and effects of hybridization between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L.). Evol. 44:1000–1008.Google Scholar
LaRossa, R. A. and Schloss, J. V. 1984. The sulfonylurea herbicide sulfom-eturon methyl is an extremely potent and selective inhibitor of acetolactate synthase in Salmonella typhimurium . J. Biol. Chem. 259:8753–8758.Google Scholar
Leroux, G. D. 1993. Relative fitness of s-triazine susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album . Phytoprot. 74 (3): 143–152.Google Scholar
Luby, J. J. and McNicol, R. J. 1995. Gene flow from cultivated to wild raspberries in Scotland: Developing a basis for risk assessment for testing and deployment of transgenic cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90:1133–1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Eberlein, C. V. 1996. Possible pleiotropic effects in herbicide-resistant crops. Pages 201–210 In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., and Dial, M. J. 1990. Identification of sulfonylurea herbicide resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 4:163–168.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. M. 1994. Management of herbicide resistant weed populations. Pages 317–335 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. Pages 1–26 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McHughen, A. and Holm, F. 1991. Herbicide resistant transgenic flax field test: Performance in normal and sulfonylurea-containing soils. Euphytica. 55:49–56.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. 1987. Sunflower. Pages 626–668 In Fehr, W. R., ed. Principles of Cultivar Development. Volume 2. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Novak, M. G., Higley, L. G., Christianssen, C. A., and Rowling, W. A. 1993. Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. triseriatus (Diptera: Culcidae) through replacement series experiments. Environ. Entomol. 22 (2): 311–318.Google Scholar
Olmo, H. P. and Koyama, A. 1980. Natural hybridization of indigenous Vitis californica and V. girdiana in California. Pages 31–44 In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Grape Breeding. Davis, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ott, R. L. 1993. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. pp. 146–155.Google Scholar
Plowman, A. B. and Richards, A. J. 1997. The effect of light and temperature on competition between atrazine susceptible and resistant Brassica rapa . Ann. Bot. 80:583–590.Google Scholar
Primiani, M. M., Cotterman, J. C., and Saari, L. L. 1990. Resistance of kochia (Kochia scoparia) to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:169–172.Google Scholar
Radford, P. J. 1967. Growth analysis formulae—their use and abuse. Crop Sci. 7:171–175.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron, inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1986. Sulfonylurea herbicides as inhibitors of amino-acid biosynthesis in plants. Trends Biochem. Sci. 11:180–183.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Peterson, D. E., Ohlenbusch, P. D., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2000. Chemical weed control for field crops, pastures, rangeland, and noncropland, 2000. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. Prog. 846:1–72.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. E., Thompson, T. E., and Seiler, G. J. 1982. Sunflower species of the United States. Bismarck, ND: National Sunflower Association. 75 p.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. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Santoni, S. and Berville, A. 1992. Evidence for gene exchanges between sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and wild beets: consequences for transgenic sugar beets. Plant Mol. Biol. 20:578–580.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514–519.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 129–137 In Shaner, D. L. and O’Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones. Potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.Google ScholarPubMed
Sieler, G. J. and Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. Systematics, origin, and germplasm resources of the wild and domesticated sunflower. Pages 21–65 In Schneiter, A. A., ed. Sunflower Technology and Production. Agron. Monogr. 35. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.Google Scholar
Snaydon, R. W. 1991. Replacement or additive designs for competition studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:930–946.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1994. Growth and competitiveness of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 42:172–179.Google Scholar
Whitton, J., Wolf, D. E., Arias, D. M., Snow, A. A., Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. The persistence of cultivar alleles in wild populations of sunflowers five generations after hybridization. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95:33–40.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant and susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 44:18–24.Google Scholar
Wilson, H., Lira, R., and Rodriguez, I. 1994. Crop/weed gene flow: Cucurbita argyrosperma Huber and C. fraternal L. H. Bailey (Cucurbitaceae). Econ. Bot. 48:293–300.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. and Manhart, J. 1993. Crop/weed gene flow: Chenopodium quinoa Willd. and C. berlandieri Moq. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86:642–648.Google Scholar