Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:28:43.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Variability for Response to Herbicides in Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kiet M. Thai
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. and Plant Ecology Dep.
Sakti Jana
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. and Plant Ecology Dep.
James M. Naylor
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol. (deceased September 5, 1984), Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0W0

Abstract

Reaction of some wild oat (Avena fatua L. ♯4 AVEFA) populations to the herbicide triallate [S-(2,3,3-trichloroallyl)diisopropylthiocarbamate] was investigated in a controlled-environment chamber. Under specified conditions, 1.0 mg active ingredient of triallate incorporated in 1 kg of soil was a satisfactory diagnostic rate for 14-day-old seedlings. Five seedling growth parameters were studied. These parameters were emergence, survival to produce first leaf, mesocotyl length, first-leaf length, and seedling height. Of these, mesocotyl length was least affected by triallate treatment, and significant differences in variability for triallate reaction were found within and among historically triallate unexposed, as well as exposed populations. Within-population variation for seedling emergence and survival was higher in unexposed than in exposed populations. Populations with recurrent exposure to triallate were more tolerant to the herbicide under experimental conditions than historically unexposed populations. Triallate-tolerant lines were identified which were tolerant to two other common wild oat herbicides.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the 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

1. Bandeen, J. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Cowett, E. R. 1982. Discovery and distribution of herbicide-resistant weeds in North America. Pages 930 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Ellis, M. and Kay, Q.O.N. 1975. Genetic variation in herbicide resistance in scentless mayweed [Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Schultz Bip.]. III. Selection for increased resistance to ioxynil, MCPA, and simazine. Weed Res. 15:327333.Google Scholar
3. Gressel, J. 1979. Genetic herbicide resistance: Projections and appearance in weeds and breeding for it in crops. Pages 85109 in Plant Regulations and World Agriculture, Scott, T. K., ed. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
4. Gressel, J., Ammon, H. U., Fogelfors, H., Gasquez, J., Kay, Q.O.N., and Kees, H. 1982. Discovery and distribution of herbicide-resistant weeds outside North America. Pages 3155 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
5. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: Possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:349371.Google Scholar
6. Holliday, R. J., Putwain, P. D., and Dafni, A. 1976. The evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds and its implications for the farmer. Proc. 1976 Br. Crop Protection Conf. Weeds 3:937946.Google Scholar
7. Jana, S. and Naylor, J. M. 1982. Adaptation for herbicide tolerance in populations of Avena fatua . Can. J. Bot. 60:16111617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. McKercher, R. B., Ashford, R., and Morgan, R. E. 1975. Effects of triallate on wild oat growth in a growth chamber. Weed Sci. 23:283285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Price, S. C., Hill, J. E., and Allard, R. W. 1983. Genetic variability for herbicide reaction in plant populations. Weed Sci. 31:652657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Somody, C. N., Nalewaja, J. D., and Miller, S. D. 1984. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and Avena sterilis morphological characteristics and response to herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:353359.Google Scholar