Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:56:25.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Characteristics of Selected Dinitroaniline-Resistant and -Susceptible Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) Population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James R. Harris ,
Billy J. Gossett  and
Joe E. Toler
James R. Harris
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Billy J. Gossett
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Exp. Stat. Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth and development of selected dinitroaniline-resistant (DR) and -susceptible (DS) goosegrass populations were compared in field studies in replacement series, in association with cotton, and under noncompetitive conditions. The DR ‘Florence’ (FR) and DS ‘Orangeburg’ (OS) populations were similar in competitiveness as indicated by relative yields (RY) and relative crowding coefficients (RCC) for vegetative and reproductive biomass production in a replacement series. Relative growth of the FR and DS ‘Anderson’ (AS) populations in replacement series was similar when vegetative biomass was considered, but reproductive biomass of the AS population declined as proportion of FR population increased. RCC values also indicated that the FR population interfered with reproductive development of the AS population. In field studies, the FR population produced greater vegetative biomass than either DS population, while similar reproductive biomass occurred for the FR and OS populations. Inflorescence dry weights were greater for the FR than the AS population under noncompetitive conditions and in cotton, but were greater for the AS population in replacement series studies. The competitiveness of DR and DS goosegrass biotypes appears to be more related to growth characteristics of individual populations than to response to dinitroaniline herbicides.

Keywords

Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., goosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINFitnessherbicide resistanceweed biotypesELEIN
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 561 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31:438–444.Google Scholar
2. Bartels, G. B. 1985. Effects of herbicides on chloroplast and cellular development. p. 80–83 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology, Vol. II. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
3. Beversdorf, W. D., Hume, D. J., Donnelly-Vanderloo, M. J. 1988. Agronomic performance of triazine-resistant and susceptible reciprocal spring canola hybrids. Crop Sci. 28:932–934.Google Scholar
4. Darmency, H. and Pernes, J. 1989. Agronomic performance of a triazine resistant foxtail millet [Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.]. Weed Res. 29:147–150.Google Scholar
5. De Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwk, Onderzoek. No. 66. Wageningen, Neth. 82 p.Google Scholar
6. Gressel, J. and Ben-Sinai, G. 1985. Low intraspecific competitive fitness in a triazine-resistant, nearly nuclear-isogenic line of Brassica napus . Plant Sci. 38:29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.Google Scholar
8. Harper, J. L. 1977. Mixtures of species. I. Space and proportions. p. 237–276 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
9. Holt, J. S. 1990. Fitness and ecological adaptability of herbicide-resistant biotypes. p. 419–429 in Green, M. B., Moberg, W. K., and LeBaron, H., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mapplebeck, L. R., Souza Machado, V., and Grodzinski, B. 1982. Seed germination and seedling growth characteristics of atrazine-susceptible and resistant biotypes of Brassica campestris . Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Marriage, P. B. and Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth and response to atrazine between and within susceptible and resistant biotypes of Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 20:9–15.Google Scholar
12. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. McCloskey, W. B. and Holt, J. S. 1990. Triazine resistance in Senecio vulgaris parental and nearly isonuclear back crossed biotypes is correlated with reduced productivity. Plant Physiol. 92:954–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Mudge, L. C., Gossett, B. J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Resistance of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:591–594.Google Scholar
15. Murphy, T. R., Gossett, B. J., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Growth and development of dinitroaniline-susceptible and -resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) biotypes under noncompetitive conditions. Weed Sci. 34:704–710.Google Scholar
16. Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Primiani, M. M. 1990. Mechanism of sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in the broadleaf weed, Kochia scoparia . Plant Physiol. 93:55–61.Google Scholar
17. Schonfeld, M., Yaacoby, T., Michael, O., and Rubin, B. 1987. Triazine resistance without reduced vigor in Phalaris puradoxa . Plant Physiol. 83:329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Stephenson, G. R., Dykstra, M. D., McLaren, R. D., and Hamill, A. S. 1990. Agronomic practices influencing triazine-resistant weed distribution in Ontario. Weed Technol. 4:199–207.Google Scholar
19. Thompson, C. R., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1994. Growth and competitiveness of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 42:172–179.Google Scholar
20. Valverde, B. E., Radosevich, S. R., and Appleby, A. P. 1988. Growth and competitive ability of dinitroaniline herbicide resistant and susceptible goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 41:81.Google Scholar
21. Vaughn, K. C. 1986. Cytological studies of dinitroaniline-resistant Eleusine . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 26:66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Vaughn, K. C. 1986. Dinitroaniline resistance to goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.] is due to an altered tubulin. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 26:77.Google Scholar
23. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1981. The relative competitiveness of atrazine susceptible and resistant populations of Chenopodium album and C. strictum . Can. J. Bot. 59:689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Weaver, S. E., Warwick, S. I., and Thomson, B. K. 1982. Comparative growth and atrazine response of resistant and susceptible populations of Amaranthus from southern Ontario, Canada. J. Appl. Ecol. 19:611–620.Google Scholar