Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:31:39.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fate of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in the Presence and Absence of Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chad B. Brabham ,
Corey K. Gerber  and
William G. Johnson
Chad B. Brabham
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47909
Corey K. Gerber
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47909
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47909
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed has become an increasing problem, and the potential spread of these biotypes is a threat to production agriculture and to the long-term utility of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops. The fate of glyphosate resistance in a giant ragweed population is dependent on the fitness of the resistant biotype. Our objective was to determine the fitness of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed in the absence and presence of glyphosate. We compared the growth and seed production of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) giant ragweed under field conditions in the absence of glyphosate. A greenhouse study was also conducted to determine the survival of GR and GS giant ragweed and their open-pollinated progeny from the field study under glyphosate-induced selection pressure. In the absence of glyphosate, GR giant ragweed displayed rapid, early season growth, but 50 d after planting, the biotypes were similar in height, shoot weight, and leaf area. During reproduction, the GR biotype flowered earlier and produced 25% less seed than the GS biotype. In the presence of glyphosate, an outcrossing rate of 31% was detected between GR and GS biotypes because 61% of progeny were resistant to glyphosate at 840 g ae ha−1. A second application 14 d later at 2,520 g ae ha−1 completely removed the GS alleles from the population, whereas several homozygous and heterozygous GR plants survived and produced seed. These results indicate GR will persist in the population when subjected to glyphosate and that glyphosate resistance in giant ragweed has the potential to spread rapidly in our current agricultural ecosystem.

Keywords

Glyphosategiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida LGlyphosate resistancefitnessgrowthgene flow
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 506 - 511
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

Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds, 55: Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1003–1010.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11:189–198.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Reddy, K. N., and Bryson, C. T. 2009. Pitted and hybrid morningglory accessions have variable tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 23:592–598.Google Scholar
Chrism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regression for analyzing growth stages and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898–903.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Kruger, G. R., Hallett, S. G., Tranel, P. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2010. Heritability of glyphosate resistance in Indiana horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations. Weed Sci. 58:30–38.Google Scholar
Degennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984a. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:472–476.Google Scholar
Degennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984b. Growth and reproductive characteristics of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes. Weed Sci. 32:525–528.Google Scholar
Dukes, S. O. and Powles, S. B. 2008. Mini-review glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag, Sci. 64:319–325.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. 2003. Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Philos Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358:1163–1170.Google Scholar
Gaines, T. A., Zhang, W., Wang, D., Bukun, B., Chisholm, S. T., Shaner, D. L., Nissen, S. J., Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Webster, T. M., Vencill, W. K., Sammons, R. D., Jiang, J., Preston, C., Leach, J. E., and Westra, P. 2010. Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107:1029–1034.Google Scholar
Ge, X., d'Avignon, D. A., Ackerman, J. J., and Sammons, R. D. 2010. Rapid vacuolar sequestration: the horseweed glyphosate resistance mechanism. Pest Manag. Sci. 66:345–348.Google Scholar
Grantz, D. A., Shrestha, A., and Vu, H. 2008. Early vigor and ozone response in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) biotypes differing in glyphosate resistance. Weed Sci. 56:224–230.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci. 49:224–229.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 24, 2011.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1990. Fitness and ecological adaptability of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Pages 419–429 in Green, M. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. ACS Symposium Series 421. Washington, DC ACS Books.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brule-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Jha, P., Steckel, L. E., and Scott, R. C. 2010. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in Tennessee. Weed Technol. 24:64–70.Google Scholar
Pedersen, M. B., Neve, P., Andreasen, C., and Powles, S. B. 2007. Ecological fitness of a glyphosate-resistant Lolium rigidum population: growth and seed production along a competition gradient. Basic Appl. Ecol. 8:258–268.Google Scholar
Pline-Srnic, W. 2006. Physiological mechanisms of glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 20:290–300.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basic of resistance. Weed Technol. 20:282–289.Google Scholar
Preston, C., Wakelin, A. M., Dolman, F. C., Bostamam, Y., and Boutsalis, P. 2009. A decade of glyphosate-resistant Lolium around the world: mechanisms, genes, fitness, and agronomic management. Weed Sci. 57:435–441.Google Scholar
Raynor, G. S., Ogden, E. C., and Hayes, J. V. 1970. Dispersion and deposition of ragweed pollen from experimental sources. J. Appl. Meteorol. 9:885–895.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Maxwell, B. D. 1990. Future outlook for herbicide-resistance research. Weed Technol. 4:208–214.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Hanson, B. D., Fidelibus, M. W., and Alocrta, M. 2010. Growth, phenology, and intraspecific competition between glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible horseweeds (Conyza canadensis) in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Weed Sci. 58:147–153.Google Scholar
Stachler, J. M. 2008. Characterization and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) and Horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.) CRONQ.]. . Columbus OH Ohio State University. 124 p.Google Scholar
Stallings, G. P., Thill, D. C., Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Shafii, B. 1995. Pollen-mediate gene flow of sulfonylurea-resistant kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 43:95–102.Google Scholar
Vila-Aiub, M., Neve, P., and Powles, S. B. 2009. Fitness cost associated with evolved herbicide resistance alleles in plants. New Phytol. 184:751–767.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar
Westhoven, A. M., Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2008a. Field presence of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes with elevated tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 22:544–548.Google Scholar
Westhoven, A. M., Kruger, G. R., Gerber, C. K., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2008b. Characterization of selected common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotypes with tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 56:685–691.Google Scholar