Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:32:12.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inheritance of Resistance to The Auxinic Herbicide Dicamba in Kochia (Kochia scoparia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher Preston ,
David S. Belles ,
Philip H. Westra ,
Scott J. Nissen  and
Sarah M. Ward
Christopher Preston*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond SA 5064, Australia
David S. Belles
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Philip H. Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Sarah M. Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inheritance of resistance to the auxinic herbicide dicamba was examined in a kochia population from Nebraska. An inbred, resistant line was developed by selection and selfing over seven generations to ensure any resistance alleles would be homozygous in the parents. An inbred, susceptible line was similarly developed, but without selection. Dose–response experiments with dicamba determined a glyphosate-resistant concentration required to inhibit dry weight accumulation by 50% (GR50) of 45 and 1,331 g ae ha−1 for the susceptible and resistant populations, respectively. F1 crosses were made between resistant and susceptible inbred individuals by hand-pollination, and the F1 plants were selfed to produce F2 plants. The F2 population was screened with 280 g ha−1 dicamba, a rate that could discriminate between susceptible and resistant plants. A total of eight F2 families were screened twice. In the first screen, seven F2 families segregated in a 3:1 ratio, consistent with a single dominant allele controlling resistance, and in the second screen six F2 families segregated in a 3:1 ratio. F2 individuals were selfed, the F3 progeny were tested with 280 g ha−1 dicamba, and the genotype of each F2 parent was determined based on F3 progeny segregation. F3 family segregation was consistent with the F2 parents having a 1:2:1 homozygous-susceptible:heterozygote:homozygous-resistant pattern, confirming that resistance to dicamba in kochia is likely conferred by a single allele with a high degree of dominance.

Keywords

Dicambakochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. KCHSCDicamba resistanceinheritancesegregation
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 43 - 47
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

Belles, D. S. 2004. The genetics and physiology of a dicamba resistance trait in kochia (Kochia scoparia L. Schrad.). . Fort Collins, CO Colorado State University.Google Scholar
Bourdôt, G. W., Saville, D. J., and Hurrell, G. A. 1996. Ecological fitness and the decline of resistance to the herbicide MCPA in a population of Ranunculus acris . J. Appl. Ecol. 33:151–160.Google Scholar
Cranston, H. J., Kern, A. J., Hackett, J. L., Miller, E. K., Maxwell, B. D., and Dyer, W. E. 2001. Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Sci. 49:164–170.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Dexter, A. G., and Miller, S. D. 1990. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) interference in sunflower (Helianthus annus). Weed Technol. 4:52–56.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V. and Fore, Z. Q. 1984. Kochia biology. Weeds Today. 15:5–6.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1985. Spread of kochia in the northwestern United Sates. Weeds Today. 16:46.Google Scholar
Goss, G. A. and Dyer, W. E. 2003. Physiological characterization of auxinic herbicide-resistant biotypes of kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 51:839–844.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: November 1, 2007.Google Scholar
Herman, P. L., Behrens, M., Chakraborty, S., Chrastil, B. M., Barycki, J., and Weeks, D. P. 2005. A three-component dicamba O-demethylase from Pseudomonas maltophilia, strain DI-6: gene isolation, characterization, and heterologous expression. J. Biol. Chem. 280:24759–24767.Google Scholar
Howatt, K. A., Westra, P., and Nissen, S. J. 2006. Ethylene effect on kochia (Kochia scoparia) and emission following dicamba application. Weed Sci. 54:31–37.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M. J., 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
Jasieniuk, M. J., Morrison, I. N., and Brûlé-Babel, A. L. 1995. Inheritance of dicamba resistance in wild mustard (Brassica kaber). Weed Sci. 43:192–195.Google Scholar
Jugulam, M., McLean, M. D., and Hall, J. C. 2005. Inheritance of picloram and 2,4-D resistance in wild mustard (Brassica kaber). Weed Sci. 53:417–423.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Hareland, G. A., Zollinger, R. K., and Huseby, D. J. 1996. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) interference with oat (Avena sativa). Weed Technol. 10:522–525.Google Scholar
Mengistu, L. W. and Messersmith, C. G. 2002. Genetic diversity of kochia. Weed Sci. 50:498–503.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:754–759.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., and Dyer, W. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) pollen dispersion, viability and germination. Weed Sci. 42:548–552.Google Scholar
Nandula, V. K. and Manthey, F. A. 2002. Response of kochia (Kochia scoparia) inbreds to 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol. 16:50–54.Google Scholar
Preston, C. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2001. Biochemical mechanisms, inheritance, and molecular genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Pages 23–60. in Powles, S. B. and Shaner, D. L. Herbicide Resistance in World Grains. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Primiani, M. M., Cotterman, J. C., and Saari, L. L. 1990. Resistance of kochia (Kochia scoparia) to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:169–172.Google Scholar
Sabba, R. P., Ray, I. M., Lownds, N., and Sterling, T. M. 2003. Inheritance of resistance to clopyralid and picloram in yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) is controlled by a single nuclear recessive gene. J. Hered. 94:523–527.Google Scholar
Salhoff, C. R. and Martin, A. R. 1986. Kochia scoparia growth response to triazine herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:40–42.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
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. New York W. H. Freedman. 859.Google Scholar
Stallings, G. P., Thill, D. C., Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Shafii, B. 1995. Pollen-mediated gene flow of sulfonylurea resistant kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 43:95–102.Google Scholar
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
Van Eerd, L. L., McLean, M. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. 2004. Resistance to quinclorac and ALS-inhibitor herbicides in Galium spurium is conferred by two distinct genes. Weed Res. 44:355–365.Google Scholar
Wienberg, T., Stephenson, G. R., McLean, M. D., and Hall, J. C. 2006. MCPA (4-chloro-2-ethylphenoxyacetate) resistance in hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:9126–9134.Google Scholar
Zheng, H-G. and Hall, J. C. 2001. Understanding auxinic herbicide resistance in wild mustard: physiological, biochemical, and molecular genetic approaches. Weed Sci. 49:276–281.Google Scholar