Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:16:16.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological characteristics of linuron-resistant Portulaca oleracea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph G. Masabni  and
Bernard H. Zandstra
Joseph G. Masabni
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to compare physiological characteristics of linuron-susceptible and -resistant Portulaca oleracea. The susceptible biotype had heavier seed and germinated more rapidly than the resistant biotype. Eight weeks after seeding, fresh and dry weights of susceptible P. oleracea plants were significantly greater than those of resistant plants. Susceptible P. oleracea had a significantly higher CO2 assimilation rate at 30 C, but was similar to that of resistant P. oleracea at 40 C. The susceptible biotype had a significantly higher CO2 assimilation rate at CO2 concentrations ≥ 600 ppm and at incident light levels ≥ 900 µmol m−2 s−1. The susceptible biotype had higher carboxylation and photochemical efficiencies.

Keywords

AtrazinecyanazinediuronlinuronprometrynsimazinePortulaca oleracea L. POROL, common purslaneCarboxylation efficiencyCO2 compensation pointtotal dark respirationgrowth rateherbicide resistanceinternal CO2 concentrationlight compensation pointphotochemical efficiencystomatal conductancestomatal limitation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 420 - 425
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

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, J. H. and Sharkey, T. D. 1992. Regulation of photosynthesis in triazine-resistant and -susceptible Brassica napus . Plant Physiol. 98:1069–1073.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Penner, D. 1986. Herbicide cross-resistance in triazine-resistant biotypes of four species. Weed Sci. 34:344–353.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P. and Norman, M. A. 1991. Interactions of herbicides with photosynthetic electron transport. Weed Sci. 39:458–464.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1999. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Online. Internet. http://www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. and McIntosh, L. 1983. Molecular basis of herbicide resistance in Amaranthus hybridus L. Science. 222:1346–1349.Google Scholar
Hobbs, S.L.A. 1987. Comparison of photosynthesis in normal and triazine-resistant Brassica . Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:457–466.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Science 31:112–120.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S., Stemler, A. J., and Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Differential light responses of photosynthesis by triazine-resistant and triazine-susceptible Senecio vulgaris biotypes. Plant Physiol. 67:744–748.Google Scholar
Hunt, R., ed. 1982. Asymptotic functions. Pages 121–146 In Plant Growth Curves. East Kilbride, Scotland: Thomson Litho Ltd.Google Scholar
Jones, H. G. 1985. Partitioning stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 8:95–104.Google Scholar
Layne, D. R. and Flore, J. A. 1995. End-product inhibition of photosynthesis in Prunus cerasus L. in response to whole-plant source-sink manipulation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 120:583–599.Google Scholar
LeBaron, H. M. 1991. Distribution and seriousness of herbicide-resistant weed infestations worldwide. Pages 26–43 In Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford, Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Masabni, J. G. and Zandstra, B. H. 1999a. Discovery of a common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) biotype resistant to linuron. Weed Technol. 13:599–605.Google Scholar
Masabni, J. G. and Zandstra, B. H. 1999b. A serine-to-threonine mutation in linuron-resistant Portulaca oleracea. Weed Sci. 47:393–400.Google Scholar
Mooney, H. A., Björkman, O., Ehleringer, F., and Berry, J. 1976. Photosynthetic Capacity of Plants in situ Death Valley Plants. Annual Report of the Carnegie Institute. Pittsburgh, PA: The Institute, pp. 410–413.Google Scholar
Ort, D. R., Ahrens, W. H., Martin, B., and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Comparison of photosynthetic performance in triazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of Amaranthus hybridus . Plant Physiol. 72:925–930.Google Scholar
Pillai, P. and St. John, J. B. 1981. Lipid composition of chloroplast membranes from weed biotypes differentially sensitive to triazine herbicides. Plant Physiol. 68:585–587.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S.R. and DeVilliers, O. T. 1976. Studies on the mechanism of s-triazine resistance in common groundsel. Weed Sci. 24:229–232.Google Scholar
Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar