Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:53:43.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Tennessee Has Low Level Glyphosate Resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Christopher L. Main ,
Andrew T. Ellis  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
Andrew T. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many agricultural producers apply glyphosate to glyphosate-resistant crops to control weeds, including Palmer amaranth. Populations of this weed in Tennessee not completely controlled by glyphosate were examined. Field and greenhouse research confirmed that two separate populations had reduced biomass sensitivity (1.5× to 5.0×) to glyphosate compared to susceptible populations, although the level of resistance was higher based on plant mortality response (about 10×). Shikimate accumulated in both resistant and susceptible plants, indicating that 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) was inhibited in both biotypes. These results suggest that an altered target site is not responsible for glyphosate resistance in these Palmer amaranth biotypes.

Keywords

GlyphosatePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAHerbicide resistancegenetically-modified cropscotton
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 119 - 123
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

Armhein, N., Deus, B., Gehrke, P., and Steinrucken, H. 1980. The site of the inhibition of the shikimate acid pathway by glyphosate. Plant Physiol. 65:830–834.Google Scholar
Baerson, S., Rodriguez, D., Tran, M., Feng, Y., Biest, N., and Dill, G. 2002. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Plant Physiol. 129:1265–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J. A., Oliver, L. R., and Stephenson, D. O. 2006. Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 20:885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, P., Clarke, B., and Fontes, E. 2002. Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 20:567–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, P., Tran, M., Chiu, T., Sammons, R., Heck, G., and Jacob, C. 2004. Investigations into glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis): retention, uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci. 52:498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferber, D. 1999. Risks and benefits—GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286:1662–1666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heap, I. 2007. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 1, 2007.Google Scholar
Herman, E. 2003. Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. J. Exp. Bot. 54:1317–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horak, M. and Loughin, T. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Everitt, J. D., and Dotray, P. A. 2004. Application timings and rates in Roundup Ready Flex cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:254.Google Scholar
Kendig, J. A. and Nichols, R. L. 2005. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 2897.Google Scholar
Lorraine-Colwill, D., Powles, S., Hawkes, T., Hollinshead, P., Warner, S., and Preston, C. 2003. Investigation into the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in Lolium rigidum . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74:62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis [L.] Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis [L.] Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, M. and Zelaya, I. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppy, G. 2000. GM crops: environmental risks and non-target effects. Trends Plant Sci. 5:4–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rieger, M., Lamond, M., Preston, C., Powles, S., and Roush, R. 2002. Pollen-mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296:2386–2388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, H. and Parkes, H. 1995. Transgenic plants and the environment. J. Exp. Bot. 46:467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2006. Statistical Analysis Software. Version 9.1. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 656.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of dioceous amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B. and Shaner, D. L. 1998. Rapid determination of glyphosate injury to plants and identification of glyphosate-resistant plants. Weed Technol. 12:527–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Mueller, T. C., Thompson, M. A., Rhodes, N., Hayes, R. M., Brown, B., and Sims, B. D. 2007. Weed Control Manual for Tennessee Field Crops, Forage Crops, Farm Ponds and Harvest Aids. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Extension. 120.Google Scholar
Steinrucken, H. and Armhein, C. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 94:1207–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, C. N., Richards, H., and Halfhill, M. 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions. Biotechniques 29:832–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R. 1990. Plant and Crop Modelling: a Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. Oxford, UK Clarendon Press. 78.Google Scholar
Tranel, P., Wassom, J., Jeschke, M., and Rayburn, A. 2002. Transmission of herbicide resistance from a monoecious to a dioecious weedy Amaranthus species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 105:674–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trucco, F., Jaschke, M., Rayburn, A., and Tranel, P. 2005. Amaranthus hybridus can be pollinated frequently by A. tuberculatus under field conditions. Heredity 94:64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanGessel, M. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, D., Horak, M., Skinner, D., and Kulakow, P. 1999. Transferal of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar