Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:02:25.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imidazolinone resistance in several Amaranthus hybridus populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Daniel H. Poston ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Daniel H. Poston
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the responses of several imidazolinone (IMI)-resistant Amaranthus hybridus populations to various acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)-inhibiting herbicides. In 1996 field studies, IMI resistance was confirmed in one A. hybridus population (R4) that was not cross-resistant to the sulfonylurea herbicides CGA-277476, chlorimuron, or thifensulfuron. Amaranthus hybridus control with triazolopyrimidine herbicides was ≤ 35%, but control with cloransulam-methyl or flumetsulam plus cloransulam-methyl was higher than with IMI herbicides. Follow-up greenhouse studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 to investigate the response of one IMI-susceptible (S) A. hybridus population collected near Painter, VA, and four IMI-resistant A. hybridus populations (R1, R2, R3, R4) collected from fields in Somerset County, MD, to postemergence imazethapyr, chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, pyrithiobac, and cloransulam-methyl applications. Resistance to imazethapyr was confirmed in all R populations, and no practical level of cross-resistance to chlorimuron, thifensulfuron, pyrithiobac, or cloransulam-methyl was detected. Based on resistance ratios, R populations were slightly more tolerant to chlorimuron and slightly more sensitive to pyrithiobac, thifensulfuron, and cloransulam-methyl than the S population.

Keywords

CGA-277476, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid,3-oxetanyl-esterchlorimuroncloransulam-methyl, flumetsulam, imazethapyr, pyrithiobac, thifensulfuronAmaranthus hybridus L. AMACH, smooth pigweedAcetolactate synthaseALSherbicide resistancecross-resistancenegative cross-resistance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 508 - 513
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776

References

Literature Cited

Chaleff, R. S. and Mauvais, C. J. 1984. Acetolactate synthase is the site of action of two sulfonylurea herbicides in higher plants. Science 224:1443–1445.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898–903.Google Scholar
DePrado, R., Dominguez, C., and Tena, M. 1989. Characterization of triazine-resistant biotypes of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), hairy fleabane (Conyza bonaeriensis), and yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca). Weed Sci. 37:1–4.Google Scholar
DePrado, R., Sanchez, M., Jorrin, J., and Dominguez, C. 1992. Negative cross-resistance to bentazone and pyridate in atrazine-resistant Amaranthus cruentus and Amaranthus hybridus biotypes. Pestic. Sci. 35:131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durner, J., Gailus, V., and Boger, P. 1990. New aspects on inhibition of plant acetolactate synthase by chlorsulfuron and imazaquin. Plant Physiol. 95:1144–1149.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. 11:132–137.Google Scholar
Gerwick, B. C., Mireles, L. C., and Eilers, R. J. 1993. Rapid diagnosis of ALS/AHAS-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 7:519–524.Google Scholar
Gerwick, B. C., Subramanian, M. V., and Loney-Gallant, V. I. 1990. Mechanism of action of the 1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidines. Pestic. Sci. 29:357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 1999. International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hill, R. J. 1982. Taxonomy and biological considerations of herbicide-resistant and herbicide-tolerant biotypes. Pages 81–98 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley and Sons Publishing.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle 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. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:789–794.Google 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. 10:835–841.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1998. Characterization of imidazolinone-resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Technol. 12:575–584.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Postemergence weed control with CGA-277476 and cloransulam-methyl in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oettmeier, W., Masson, K., Fedtke, C., Konze, J., and Schmidt, R. R. 1982. Effect of different photosystem II inhibitors on chloroplasts isolated from species either susceptible or resistant toward s-triazine herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18:357–367.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibitor herbicides. Pages 83–139 In Powles, S. B. and Holton, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Santel, H. J., Bowden, B. A., Sorensen, V. M., Mueller, K. H., and Reynolds, J. 1999. Flucarbozone-sodium: a new herbicide for grass control in wheat. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39:7.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 Scholar
Simpson, D. M. 1998. Understanding and preventing development of ALS-resistant weed populations. Down to Earth 53:26–35.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:192–197.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. 1991. Herbicides that inhibit acetohydroxyacid synthase. Weed Sci. 39:428–434.Google Scholar