Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:59:28.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Herbicide Tolerance Variation in Peanut Germplasm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ramon G. Leon  and
Barry L. Tillman
Ramon G. Leon*
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Jay, FL 32565
Barry L. Tillman
Affiliation:
North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32446
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although herbicide tolerance is not usually evaluated until the final stages of breeding programs, this trait is very important for grower adoption of new peanut cultivars. Understanding herbicide tolerance of breeding lines could help breeders develop selection strategies that maximize herbicide tolerance in new commercial cultivars. However, little is known about herbicide tolerance variability in peanut germplasm. Thirty-five randomly selected breeding lines from the peanut mini-core collection and cultivars ‘Florida-07’ and ‘Georgia-06G’ were evaluated for tolerance to 11 herbicides under greenhouse conditions. Variation among peanut lines in herbicide tolerance, measured as dry weight reductions (DWR), was similar across herbicides and was normally distributed. Florida-07 and Georgia-06G were in the lower two quartiles of injury and DWR among the evaluated peanut lines. Dose–response experiments showed that the most tolerant breeding lines had I50 (the rate required to cause 50% injury) and GR50 (the rate required to reduce dry weight 50%) values 0.4 to 2.5 times higher than the most susceptible lines, depending on the herbicide. A breeding line had a dicamba GR50 13 times higher than the most susceptible line and 2.8 and 4.7 times higher than Florida-07 and Georgia-06G, respectively. The most tolerant lines were consistently tolerant to herbicides with different mechanisms of action, suggesting that nontarget site mechanisms are more likely to be responsible for the tolerance than target-site mutations. These results confirmed peanut-breeding programs would greatly benefit from screening breeding lines for tolerance to key herbicides and developing an herbicide-tolerance catalog. This information can be used when designing new crosses to reduce the risk of developing cultivars with low herbicide tolerance especially considering that one-half of the breeding lines exhibited lower tolerance than the commercial cultivars.

Keywords

Dicambapeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florida-07’ and ‘Georgia-06G’.Breedingcrop improvementgenetic diversityselectionselectivity
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 546 - 554
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

Beckie, HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol. 20:793–814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SE (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci. 68:505–512 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faulkner, JS (1982) Breeding herbicide-tolerant crop cultivars by conventional methods. Pages 235–256 in LeBaron, HM, Gressel, J, eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York J. Wiley Google Scholar
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC, Hill, JE (2003) Crop traits related to weed suppression in water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L). Weed Sci. 51:87–93 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Bridges, DC, Brecke, BJ (2000) Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Wehtje, GR, Walker, RH, Paudel, KP (1995) Comparison of imazethapyr and paraquat-based weed control systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:813–818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ, Colburn, AE (1993) Effect of dinitroaniline herbicides upon yield and grade of five runner cultivars. Peanut Sci. 20:126–128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, HF Jr., Jones, A, Dukes, PD (1987) Heritability of metribuzin tolerance in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Sci. 35:715–719 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2014) Herbicide resistant Weeds. Pages 281–301 in Pimentel, D, Peshin, R, eds. Integrated Pest Management. Dordrecht Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, CC, Stalker, HT (2003) Peanut breeding and genetic resources. Pages 297–356 in Janick, J, ed. Plant Breeding Reviews. New York J. Wiley Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M, Brule-Babel, AL, Morrison, IN (1996) The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Chamberlin, JR, Brenneman, TB, Todd, JW, Mullinix, BG Jr., Cardina, J (1993) Effects of paraquat and alachlor on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) growth, maturity, and yield. Weed Technol. 7:855–859 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Holbrook, CC, Mullinix, BG Jr., Cardina, J (1992) Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19:111–115 Google Scholar
Jordan, N (1993) Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol Appl. 3:84–91 Google Scholar
Knauft, DA, Colvin, DL, Gorbet, DW (1990) Effect of paraquat on yield and market grade of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) genotypes. Weed Technol. 4:866–870 Google Scholar
Leon, RG, Ferrell, JA, Brecke, BJ (2014) Impact of exposure to 2,4-D and dicamba on peanut injury and yield. Weed Technol. 28:465–470 Google Scholar
Littlefield, TA, Colvin, DL, Brecke, BJ, McCarty, LB (1997) Effect of nicosulfuron mixtures and time of application on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 11:1–6 Google Scholar
Main, CL, Tredaway Ducar, J, MacDonald, GE (2002) Response of three runner market-type peanut cultivars to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 16:593–596 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Powles, S (2005a) High survival frequencies at low herbicide use rates in populations of Lolium rigidum result in rapid evolution of herbicide resistance. Heredity. 95:485–492 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Powles, S (2005b) Recurrent selection with reduced herbicide rates results in the rapid evolution of herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum . Theor Appl Genet. 110:1154–1166 Google Scholar
Powles, SB, Preston, C (2006) Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol. 20:282–289 Google Scholar
Prostko, EP, Grey, TL, Marshall, MW, Ferrell, JA, Dotray, PA, Jordan, DL, Grichar, WJ, Brecke, BJ, Davis, JW (2011) Peanut yield response to dicamba. Peanut Sci. 38:61–65 Google Scholar
Prostko, EP, Kemerait, RC, Jost, PH, Johnson, WC III, Brown, SN, Webster, TM (2009) The influence of cultivar and chlorimuron application timing on spotted wilt disease and peanut yield. Peanut Sci. 36:92–95 Google Scholar
Prostko, EP, Webster, TM, Marshall, MW, Leon, RG, Grey, TL, Ferrell, JA, Dotray, PA, Jordan, DL, Grichar, WJ, Brecke, BJ (2013) Glufosinate application timing and rate affect peanut yield response. Peanut Sci. 40:115–119 Google Scholar
Richburg, JS III, Wilcut, JW, Culbreath, AK, Kvien, CK (1995) Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80 Google Scholar
Richburg, JS III, Wilcut, JW, Grichar, WJ (2006) Response of runner, Spanish, and Virginia peanut cultivars to imazethapyr. Peanut Sci. 33:47–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samdur, MY, Manivel, P, Jain, VK, Chikani, BM, Gor, HK, Desai, S, Misra, JB (2003) Genotypic differences and water-deficit induced enhancement in epicuticular wax load in peanut. Crop Sci. 43:1294–1299 Google Scholar
Sherrick, SL, Holt, HA, Hess, FD (1986) Effects of adjuvants and environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and translocation in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34:811–816 Google Scholar
Tillman, BL, Gomillion, M, McKinney, J, Person, G (2014) Peanut Variety Performance in Florida, 2010–2013. Gainesville, FL University of Florida-Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension SS-AGR-377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, BL, Stalker, HT (2010) Peanut. Pages 287–315 in Vollmann, J, Racjcan, I, eds. Oil Crops. New York Springer Google Scholar
Tubbs, RS, Gallaher, RN (2005) Conservation tillage and herbicide management for two peanut cultivars. Agron J. 97:500–504 Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Askew, SD, Bailey, WA, Spears, JF, Isleib, TG (2001) Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Swann, CW (1990) Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 38:558–562 Google Scholar
Yang, G, Espelie, KE, Todd, JW, Culbreath, AK, Pittman, RN, Demski, JW (1993) Cuticular lipids from wild and cultivated peanuts and the relative resistance of these peanut species to fall armyworm and thrips. J Agric Food Chem. 41:814–818 Google Scholar
Yu, Q, Abdallah, I, Han, H, Owen, M, Powles, S (2009) Distinct non-target site mechanisms endow resistance to glyphosate, ACCase and ALS-inhibiting herbicides in multiple herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum . Planta. 230:713–723 Google Scholar
Yuan, JS, Tranel, PJ, Stewart, CN Jr. (2007) Non-target-site herbicide resistance: a family business. Trends Plant Sci. 12:6–13 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed