Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:08:22.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of Avena fatua populations resistant to imazamethabenz, flamprop, and fenoxaprop-P

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lyle F. Friesen ,
Tammy L. Jones ,
Rene C. Van Acker  and
Ian N. Morrison
Tammy L. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
Ian N. Morrison
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics, 2-14 Agriculture-Forestry Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three Avena fatua (wild oat) populations resistant to imazamethabenz, flamprop, and fenoxaprop-P were identified from the northwest agricultural region of Manitoba, Canada. These populations were identified after producer reports of failure of imazamethabenz to provide satisfactory control in the field. Although these A. fatua populations had previously been exposed to other herbicides, primarily ACCase inhibitors, imazamethabenz had never before been applied. In growth room experiments, resistant (R) plants were 7.2 and 8.7 times more resistant to imazamethabenz and flamprop, respectively, than susceptible (S) plants, as measured by the ratio of dosages required to inhibit shoot dry matter accumulation by 50% (GR50 R/S). The three populations did not differ significantly (P < 0.05) in levels of resistance to imazamethabenz. Similarly, the populations did not differ in levels of resistance to flamprop. The populations differed in their response to fenoxaprop-P; levels of resistance for two populations were 2.0-fold, while the remaining population was 2.9-fold. An experiment conducted in 1995 in one of the infested fields confirmed multiple herbicide resistance, with A. fatua panicle numbers in August being 36, 128, and 44% of untreated controls at recommended dosages of imazamethabenz, flamprop, and fenoxaprop-P, respectively. Three additional populations of A. fatua with multiple herbicide resistance from other areas of Manitoba were identified in a 1996 field experiment. For the six A. fatua populations in the 1996 experiment with multiple herbicide resistance, panicle numbers expressed as a percentage of the untreated controls varied from 44 to 77% for imazamethabenz, 57 to 83% for flamprop, and 43 to 88% for fenoxaprop-P (commercially recommended dosage of each herbicide). Multiple herbicide resistance in A. fatua is not rare; screening of A. fatua seed samples from across Manitoba and Saskatchewan has identified a number of additional R populations. The evolution of herbicide resistance in the absence of direct selection is a very serious development as producers with multiple herbicide resistance in A. fatua are left with a very limited number of herbicide options for selective control in crops commonly grown in western Canada.

Keywords

Fenchlorazole-ethyl, ethyl-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-5-trichloromethyl-1H-1,2,4-triazole-3-carboxylatefenoxaprop-P-ethylflamprop-methylimazamethabenz-methylAvena fatua L. AVEFA, wild oatTriticum aestivum L. ‘Teal’, ‘Domain’, spring wheatHerbicide resistancemultiple resistancedose responseGR50
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , October 2000 , pp. 532 - 540
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, H. J., Thomas, A. G., Légère, A., Kelner, D. J., Van Acker, R. C., and Meers, S. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small-grain production areas. Weed Technol. 13:612–625.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L., Morrison, I. N., and Kelner, D. 1997. Field and producer survey of ACCase resistant wild oat in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77:709–715.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 1999. Canola Growers Manual. Winnipeg, MB: Canola Council of Canada. p. 713.Google Scholar
Devine, M., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall, pp. 225–233, 263–273.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Pages 187–207 In Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
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
Hall, L. M., Stromme, K. M., Horsman, G. P., and Devine, M. D. 1998. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors and quinclorac in a biotype of false cleavers (Galium spurium). Weed Sci. 46:390–396.Google Scholar
Hall, L. M., Tardif, F. J., and Powles, S. B. 1994. Mechanisms of cross and multiple herbicide resistance in Alopecurus myosuroides and Lolium rigidum . Phytoprotection 75 (Suppl.): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1999. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee and Weed Science Society of America. Internet www.weedscience.com. Accessed November 3, 1999.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1977. Pages 81–91 In Theory of Econometrics. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R 2 . Am. Stat. 39:279–285.Google Scholar
Morrison, I. N. and Bourgeois, L. 1995. Approaches to managing ACCase inhibitor resistance in wild oat on the Canadian Prairies. Pages 567–576 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference, November 1995. Brighton, Great Britain: British Plant Protection Council.Google Scholar
Morrison, I. N., Heap, I. M., and Murray, B. 1992. Herbicide resistance in wild oat—the Canadian experience. Pages 36–40 In Barr, A. R. and Medd, R. W., eds. Wild Oats In World Agriculture. Volume II. Proceedings of the Fourth International Oat Conference, October 1992, Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar
Morse, P. M. and Thompson, B. K. 1981. Presentation of experimental results. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:799–802.Google Scholar
Murray, B. G. and Morrison, I. N. 1995. Out-crossing and pollen-mediated gene flow in wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 35:274.Google Scholar
Murray, B. G., Morrison, I. N., and Brûlé-Babel, A. L. 1995. Inheritance of acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor resistance in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 43:233–238.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. 1994. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 353 p.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Howat, P. D. 1990. Herbicide-resistant weeds in Australia. Weed Technol. 4:178–185.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 30–55 In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Tardif, F. J. and Powles, S. B. 1999. Effect of malathion on resistance to soil-applied herbicides in a population of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 47:258–261.Google Scholar