Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:58:03.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance to Aryloxyphenoxypropionate and Cyclohexanedione Herbicides in Green Foxtail (Setaria virdis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ian M. Heap  and
Ian N. Morrison
Ian M. Heap
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2
Ian N. Morrison
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides (ACCase inhibitors) was characterized in five green foxtail populations from western Canada. Field histories indicated that these populations were exposed to up to seven applications of diclofop-methyl and sethoxydim over the previous ten years. Major differences occurred among the populations in their levels of resistance and patterns of cross-resistance. With one exception, R/S ratios calculated from GR50 values derived from growth room experiments varied from 2 to 54 depending on the population and herbicide. The exception was UM131 which was at least 75 times more resistant to sethoxydim (R/S > 2981) than the other populations. UM59 was not resistant to sethoxydim. It was also the least resistant to the other herbicides with R/S ratios ranging from 2 for fenoxaprop-p-ethyl to 8 for diclofop-methyl. In comparison, UM8 was resistant to diclofop-methyl, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, sethoxydim, and tralkoxydim with R/S ratios of 11, 5, > 39, and 27, respectively. In field experiments, shoot dry weights of UM8 treated at two times the recommended rates of these herbicides were reduced by 9, 45, 74, and 49%. In contrast, the susceptible population, UM7, was completely controlled. UM7 and UM8 did not differ in their response to trifluralin, ethalfluralin, quinclorac, propanil and TCA.

Keywords

Diclofop, (±)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acidethalfluralin N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminefenoxaprop-p-ethyl-R-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidpropanil, N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamidequinclorac, 3,7-dicloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acidTCA, trichloroacetic acidtrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminesethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onetralkoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)cyclohex-2-enone, green foxtail Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. ♯ SETVIHerbicide resistanceSETVIcross-resistance
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 25 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Barrentine, W. L., Snipes, C. E., and Smeda, R. J. 1992. Herbicide resistance confirmed in Johnsongrass biotypes. Research Report. Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station. Vol. 17. No. 5.Google Scholar
2. Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1989. An equation to describe dose responses where there is stimulation of growth at low doses. Weed Res. 29: 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Devine, M. D., Hall, J. C., Romano, M. L., Maries, M.A.S., Thomson, L. W., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1993. Diclofop and fenoxaprop resistance in wild oat is associated with an altered effect on the plasma membrane electrogenic potential. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 45: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Pages 421–422 in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York.Google Scholar
5. Heap, I. M. and Knight, R. A. 1986. The occurrence of herbicide cross resistance in a population of annual ryegrass Lolium rigidum . resistant to diclofop-methyl. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 37: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Heap, I. M. and Knight, R. A. 1990. Variations in herbicide cross-resistance among populations of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) resistant to diclofop-methyl. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 41: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Heap, I. M., Murray, B. G., Loeppky, H.A. and Morrison, I. N. 1993. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 41: 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Heap, I. M. 1994. Multiple resistance to dinitroaniline and ACCase inhibiting herbicides in green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstract No. 168. St. Louis.Google Scholar
9. Hunter, J. H., Morrison, I. N., and Rourke, D.R.S. 1990. The Canadian prairie provinces. Pages 51–89 in Donald, W. W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
10. Maries, M.A.S., Devine, M.D., and Hall, J. C. 1993. Herbicide resistance in Setaria viridis conferred by a less sensitive form of acetyl Coenzyme A carboxylase. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 46: 7–14.Google Scholar
11. Maries, M.A.S. and Devine, M. D. 1995. Characterization of acetyl-Coenzyme A carboxylase from sethoxydim-resistant and -susceptible wild oat (Avenafatua L.). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstract No. 201. Seattle.Google Scholar
12. Marshall, G., Kirkwood, R. C., and Leach, G. E. 1994. Comparative studies on graminicide-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Eleusine indica . Weed Res: 34: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Morrison, I. N., Todd, B. G., and Nawolsky, K. M. 1989. Confirmation of trifluralin resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in Manitoba. Weed Technol. 3: 544–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Moss, S.R. 1991. Herbicide cross-resistance in slender foxtail (Alopecurus myosuroides). Weed Sci. 38: 492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Stanger, C. E. and Appleby, A. P. 1989. Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) accessions tolerant to diclofop. Weed Sci. 37: 350–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar