Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:59:54.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Difference in Herbicide Resistance to Various Taxonomic Populations of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and Late-Flowering Goosefoot (Chenopodium strictum) in Hungary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Peter Solymosi ,
Endre Lehoczki  and
Gábor Laskay
Peter Solymosi
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Institute of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O.B. 102, H-1525-Budapest, Hungary
Endre Lehoczki
Affiliation:
Dep. Biophysics of A. József Univ., H-6722-Szeged, Hungary
Gábor Laskay
Affiliation:
Dep. Biophysics of A. József Univ., H-6722-Szeged, Hungary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various populations of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL) and late-flowering goosefoot (Chenopodium strictum Roth. # CHESG) plants were studied at the eight-to ten-leaf stage. Prior to measurement of fluorescence induction, the detached leaves were vacuum infiltrated with unformulated atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], diuron [N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea], and pyrazon [5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone]. The fluorescence induction measurements were then made 1 h after adaptation in the dark. The fluorescence induction curves of intact leaves were recorded with a laboratorybuilt apparatus. A xenon lamp was used to produce the actinic beam. Cytological tests were done on meristematic cells of the root tips of the seedlings treated in 2 nM 8-hydroxyquinoline. The cytotypes were hexaploids (among which were atrazine-susceptible, pyrazon-susceptible, atrazine-resistant, and pyrazon-tolerant populations), and tetraploids (among which were atrazine-susceptible and atrazine-tolerant populations).

Keywords

Triazine resistancepyrazon resistancediuronfluorescence modificationfluorescence measurementchromosome numbersCHEALCHESG
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 175 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Aellen, P. 1979. Chenopodiaceae . Pages 575 and 648–656 in Hegi, G. Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Vol. III. Book 2. Parey Verlag.Google Scholar
2. Ammon, H. U. 1977. Pages 243–246 in Kombination chemischmechanisch und biologischer Methoden zur Unkräutbekämpfung im mehrjährigen Maisbau und erste Resultate über die Beeinflussung bodenphysikalischer Kennwerte. Proc. EWRS Symp. Methods of Weed Control and their Integration.Google Scholar
3. Ammon, H. U. 1978. Praxiserfahrungen mit preparaten zur Hirsebekampfung un neue Resistants Unkräuter im Mais. Mitt. Schweiz. Landwirtsch. 26:33–34.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous, 1974. Herbicide tolerant weeds appear in western Washington. Weeds Today. 5:(2)14.Google Scholar
5. Arlt, K. and Juttersonke, B. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Taxonomie und intraspezifischen Resistenz gegen Bodenherbicide bei Chenopodium album L. RAT für Gegenseitige Wirtschaftshilfe Symposium. GDR, Leipzig. 219–224.Google Scholar
6. Arntzen, C. J., Ditto, C. L., and Brewer, P. E. 1979. Chloroplast membrane alteration in triazine-resistant Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76:278–282.Google Scholar
7. Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Steinback, K. 1982. The mechanism of chloroplast triazine resistance: alterations in the site of herbicide action. Pages 185–214 in Lebaron, H. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide resistance in plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
8. Bandeen, J. D. and McLaren, R. D. 1976. Resistance of Chenopodium album L. to triazine herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56: 411–412.Google Scholar
9. Cole, M. 1962. Interspecific relationship and intraspecific variations of Chenopodium album L. in Britain: II. The chromosome numbers of C. album L. and other species. Watsonia 5:117–122.Google Scholar
10. Ducruet, J. M. and Gasquez, J. 1978. Observation de la fluorescence dur feuille entiére et mise en évidence de la résistance chloroplastique a l'atrazine chez Chenopodium album et Poa annua . Chemosphere 8:691–696.Google Scholar
11. Duysens, L.N.M. and Sweers, H. E. 1963. Mechanism of the two photochemical reactions in algae as studied by means of fluorescence. Pages 353–372 in Studies on Microalgae and Photosynthetic Bacteria, Japan Society of Plant Physiology. Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
12. Gasquez, J. and Barralis, G. 1978. Observation et sélection chez Chenopodium album L. d'individus résistants aux triazines. Chemosphere 8:911–916.Google Scholar
13. Gasquez, J. and Compoint, J. P. 1981. Isoenzymatic variations in populations of Chenopodium album L. resistant and susceptible to triazines. Agro-ecosystems 7:1–10.Google Scholar
14. Gressel, J. 1985. Herbicide tolerance and resistance: alteration of site of activity. Pages 159–189 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed physiology. CRC Press, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
15. Krause, G. H. and Weis, E. 1984. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool in plant physiology. II. Interpretation of fluorescence signals. Photosynth. Res. 5:139–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. 1982. Herbicide resistance in plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Pages 9–55.Google Scholar
17. Papageorgiou, G. 1975. Chlorophyll fluorescence: An intrinsic role of photosynthesis. Pages 319–371 in Govindjee, , ed. Bioenergetics of photosynthesis. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
18. Pfister, K. and Arntzen, C. J. 1979. The mode of action of photosystem II specific inhibitors in herbicide resistant weed biotypes. Z. Naturforsch. 34c:996–1009.Google Scholar
19. Pusztai-Giljarovskaja, T. T. 1973. Metaphase method for analysis of chromosome rearrangements in barley. Cytol. Genet. 4:369–370.Google Scholar
20. Solymosi, P. and Lehoczki, E. 1983. Comparative study of differently localized resistant populations of Amaranthus retroflexus L. in Hungary. Növénytermelés 32:427–435.Google Scholar
21. Souza-Machado, V., Arntzen, V. J., Bandeen, J. D., and Stephenson, G. R. 1978. Comparative triazine effects upon system II. Photochemistry in chloroplasts of two common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotypes. Weed Sci. 26:318–322.Google Scholar
22. Uotila, P. 1972. Chromosome counts on the Chenopodium album aggregate in Finland and NE Sweden. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 1:29–46.Google Scholar
23. Velthuys, B. R. and Amesz, J. 1974. Charge accumulation at the reducing side of system II of photosynthesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 333:85–94.Google Scholar
24. Warwick, S. I., Souza-Machado, V., Marriage, P. B., and Bandeen, J. 1979. Resistance of Chenopodium strictum Roth. (late-flowering goosefoot) to atrazine. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:269–270.Google Scholar
25. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1980. Uniparental inheritance of atrazine resistance in Chenopodium album . Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:751–753.Google Scholar
26. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1981. The relative competitiveness of atrazine susceptible and resistant populations of Chenopodium album and C. strictum . Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:689–693.Google Scholar