Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:31:04.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fitness of double vs. single herbicide–resistant canola

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Marie-Josée Simard ,
Anne Légère ,
Ginette Séguin-Swartz ,
Harikumar Nair  and
Suzanne Warwick
Marie-Josée Simard
Affiliation:
Soils and Crops Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2560 Boulevard Hochelaga, Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2J3, Canada
Anne Légère
Affiliation:
Soils and Crops Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2560 Boulevard Hochelaga, Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2J3, Canada
Ginette Séguin-Swartz
Affiliation:
Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Harikumar Nair
Affiliation:
Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Suzanne Warwick
Affiliation:
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K.W. Neatby Building, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 1995, canola cultivars with herbicide resistance (HR) have been readily adopted by Canadian producers. Gene flow between these cultivars with different HR traits has led to the occurrence of double herbicide–resistant (2HR) volunteers. To evaluate the fitness of canola volunteers with double HR, we compared three 2HR combinations to each of their parent single-HR plants (1HR: glufosinate-R, imidazolinone-R, glyphosate-R) commercial canola lines in separate greenhouse experiments. The replacement series design included five ratios of 2HR vs. 1HR plants at a single density of 129 plants m−2 and three stress treatments: herbicide application with either glufosinate, imazethapyr, or glyphosate; competition with a wheat crop; and a control without herbicide or wheat competition. Fitness indicators included aboveground biomass at 5 and 12 to 16 wk, seed production, and reproductive allocation. The 2HR plants showed delayed reproductive growth but were generally as competitive as 1HR commercial lines. Plant biomass of 2HR canola was comparable to or greater than 1HR canola, whereas seed biomass of 2HR canola was less than that of 1HR canola in half of the cases, likely because of delayed reproductive growth and early harvesting. Glufosinate–glyphosate 2HR was the fittest combination. Herbicide application had little effect on 2HR biomass at harvest, except for imazethapyr, which reduced the biomass and seed production of 2HR plants with imidazolinone-glyphosate resistance by 30%. The latter effect could have been from the unsuspected presence of 2HR plants with only one of the two acetolactate synthase mutations conferring resistance to imidazolinones. Wheat competition reduced fitness values of both 2HR and 1HR canola similarly, but seed production was still 64% that of the controls. Overall, there was little indication of reduced fitness in 2HR canola compared with commercial 1HR varieties.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica napus L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Voyageur’, ‘AC Pollet’Fitnessglufosinate resistantglyphosate resistantimidazolinone resistantherbicide resistancestacked genestransgenic cropvolunteer canola
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , August 2005 , pp. 489 - 498
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

Aarssen, L. W. 1985. Interpretation of the evolutionary consequences of competition in plants: an experimental approach. Oikos 45:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A., Ackerly, D. D., and Reekie, E. G. 2000. Reproductive allocation in plants. Pages 1–29 in Fenner, M. ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Warwick, S. I., Nair, H., and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2003. Gene flow in commercial fields of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Ecol. Appl 13:1276–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Kanashiro, D., Moloney, M. M., and Crosby, W. L. 1994. Growth, yield and quality of canola expressing resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci 74:745–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, J. K. and Zangori, L. A. 1998. Combined effects of water, nutrient, and UV-B stress on female fitness in Brassica (Brassicaceae). Am. J. Bot 85:925–931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connoly, J. 1986. On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol 23:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Brown, S. L., Hails, R. S., Kohn, D. D., and Rees, M. 2001. Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature 409:682–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, M. J., Hails, R. S., Rees, M., Kohn, D., and Buxton, J. 1993. Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature 363:620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbert, J. L. and McVetty, P. B. E. 2001. Plot-to-plot, row-to-row and plant-to-plant outcrossing studies in oilseed rape. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, R. K. 1999. Risk assessment of outcrossing of transgenic brassica, with focus on B. rapa and B. napus . Paper 61 in Proceeding of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia. Gosford, Australia: The Regional Institute Limited.Google Scholar
Downey, R. K. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Isolation effectiveness in canola pedigree seed production. Final Report to Canadian Seed Growers' Association. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol 22:503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitter, A., Williamson, L., Linkohr, B., and Leyser, O. 2002. Root system architecture determines fitness in an Arabidopsis mutant in competition for immobile phosphate ions but not for nitrate ions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B 269:2017–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredshavn, J. R. and Poulsen, G. S. 1996. Growth behavior and competitive ability of transgenic crops. Field Crops Res 45:11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J 95:1342–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, M., Chirco, E. M., McFerson, J. M., and Gonsalves, D. 2004. Comparative fitness of a wild squash species and three generations of hybrids between wild × virus-resistant transgenic squash. Environ. Biosaf. Res 3:17–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guéritaine, G., Sester, M., Eber, F., Chèvre, A. M., and Darmency, H. 2002. Fitness of backcross six of hybrids between transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Mol. Ecol 11:1419–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gressel, J. and Ben-Sinai, G. 1985. Low intraspecific competition fitness in a triazine-resistant, nearly nuclear-isogenic line of Brassica napus . Plant Sci 38:29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, L., Topinka, K., Huffman, J., Davis, L., and Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 48:688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, B. K., Mabon, S. A., Leffel, S. M., Halfhill, M. D., Richards, H. A., Moyer, K. A., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 1999. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for expression of a second gene in transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol 17:1125–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, C. 2003. Global status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2003. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/. Accessed October 27, 2004.Google Scholar
Kumar, A., Rakow, G., and Downey, R. K. 1998. Isogenic analysis of glufosinate-ammonium tolerant and susceptible summer rape lines. Can. J. Plant Sci 78:401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. 2nd English ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V. 853 p.Google Scholar
Mason, P., Braun, L., Warwick, S. I., Zhu, B., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Transgenic Bt-producing Brassica napus: Plutella xylostella selection pressure and fitness of weedy relatives. Environ. Biosaf. Res 2:263–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metz, P. L. J., Jacobsen, E., and Stiekema, W. J. 1997. Occasional loss of expression of phosphinothricin tolerance in sexual offspring of transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L). Euphytica 98:189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, K. W., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Ball, D. A., and Mueller-Warrant, G. W. 2004. Ecological fitness of acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant and -susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotypes. Weed Sci 52:768–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, T. D., Kay, J. R., and Ludwig, I. R. 1999. Effect of row spacing and sowing rate on canola cultivars with varying early vigour. Paper 630 in Proceeding of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia. Gosford, Australia: The Regional Institute Limited.Google Scholar
Purrington, C. B. and Bergelson, J. 1997. Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana . Genetics 145:807–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rakow, G. and Woods, D. 1987. Out-crossing in rape and mustard under Saskatchewan prairie conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci 67:147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regal, P. J. 1988. The adaptive potential of genetically engineered organisms in nature. Trends Ecol. Evol 3:S36–S38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regal, P. J. 1994. Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms. Mol. Ecol 3:5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieger, M. A., Lamond, M., Preston, C., Powles, S. B., and Roush, R. T. 2002. Pollen-mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296:2386–2388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanderson, M. A. and Elwinger, G. F. 1999. Grass species and cultivar effects on establishment of grass-white clover mixtures. Agron. J 91:889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. JMP® Statistics and Graphics Guide. Version 4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 634 p.Google Scholar
Sato, T. 2004. Size-dependent sex allocation in hermaphroditic plants: the effects of resource pool and self-incompatibility. J. Theor. Biol 227:265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, J. and Linder, C. R. 1994. Will escaped transgenes lead to ecological release? Mol. Ecol 3:71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senior, I. J., Moyes, C., and Dale, P. J. 2002. Herbicide sensitivity of transgenic multiple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape. Pest Manag. Sci 58:405–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simard, M-J. and Légère, A. 2004. Synchrony of flowering between canola (Brassica napus) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci 52:905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, A. A., Andersen, B., and Jørgensen, R. B. 1999. Costs of transgenic herbicide resistance introgressed from Brassica napus into weedy B. rapa . Mol. Ecol 8:605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, A. A., Pilson, D., Reisenberg, L. H., Paulsen, M. J., Pleskac, N., Reagon, M. R., Wolf, D. E., and Selbo, S. M. 2003. A transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers. Ecol. Appl 13:279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 12:253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, C. N. Jr, All, J. N., Raymer, P. L., and Ramachandran, S. 1997. Increased fitness of transgenic insecticidal rapeseed under insect selection pressure. Mol. Ecol 6:773–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S., Evans, R. R., Dahmer, M. L., Singh, B. K., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status, and future. Pest Manag. Sci 61:246–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiedje, J. M., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. L., Hodson, R. E., Lenski, R. E., Mack, R. N., and Regal, P. J. 1989. The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology 70:298–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, A. M., O'Brien, E. T., Charters, Y. M., Dubbels, S. J., and Wilkinson, M. J. 1995. Assessing the risks of wind pollination from fields of genetically modified Brassica napus ssp. oleifera . Euphytica 85:417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Braun, L., Mason, P., Zhu, B., Séguin-Swartz, G., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: Brassica rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theor. Appl. Genet 107:520–539.Google ScholarPubMed
Weigelt, A. and Joliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol 91:707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. 1988. The influence of competition on plant reproduction. Pages 228–245 in Lovett Doust, J. and Lovett Doust, L. eds. Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhong, G-Y. and Wang, J. 2003. Transgenic pleiotropic effect and its implications in breeding. Pages 143–148 in International Plant & Animal Genome, XI Conference, San Diego, CA. New York: Scherago International.Google Scholar