Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:12:17.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ALS inhibitor resistance in populations of Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gabrielle M. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0

Abstract

In 1997, farmers in Ontario, Canada, reported failure of some ALS-inhibiting herbicides to provide adequate control of pigweed species. Growth room experiments were conducted to confirm resistance to ALS inhibitors in populations of Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed. Twenty-two out of 35 collected seed samples were able to grow in the presence of soil-applied imazethapyr or flumetsulam. Dose–response curves were generated for 11 and 9 populations of Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed, respectively, using foliar-applied imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Resistance to ALS inhibitors was confirmed in nine and five populations of Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed, respectively. Within each species, comparison of the herbicide rate required to reduce plant dry weight 50% (GR50) between the resistant populations and a susceptible population was conducted to obtain resistance factors. For imazethapyr, resistance factors ranged from 4.2 to 3,438 and from 33 to 168 for Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed, respectively. High-level cross-resistance to thifensulfuron was found in two populations of each species, with resistance factors ranging from 270 to 2,416. In both species, populations could be grouped according to their cross-resistance patterns: some populations were resistant to imazethapyr only, whereas others expressed resistance to both imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. The observed patterns of cross-resistance were not correlated with known herbicide exposure history of the fields where these populations originated.

Type
Research Article
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

Boutsalis, P. and Powles, S. B. 1995. Resistance of dicot weeds to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides in Australia. Weed Res. 35:149155.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:514520.Google Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Control and cross-resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol. 11:132137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelation factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. Pages 325347 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 1999. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Online. Internet: www.weedscience.com. Accessed February 4, 1999.Google Scholar
Hinz, J.R.R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:1318.Google 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. 9:192195.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. 4:163168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and livid Amaranth (A. lividus) response to several imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:835841.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:213.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J.O.E., Murphy, S. D., Thomas, A. G., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Temperature- and moisture-dependent models of seed germination and shoot elongation in green and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus powellii, A. retroflexus). Weed Sci. 45:488496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primiani, M. M., Cotterman, J. C., and Saari, L. L. 1990. Resistance of kochia (Kochia scoparia) to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:169172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 141170 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants, Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS User's Manual. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218227.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Singh, B. K. 1997. Acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors. Pages 69110 In Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press.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. 37:93101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonks, D. J. and Westra, P. 1997. Control of sulfonylurea-resistant kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Technol. 11:270276.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Wats. and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:12151234.Google Scholar