Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:27:51.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of genomics on weed management in the 21st century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen C. Weller ,
Ray A. Bressan ,
Peter B. Goldsbrough ,
Tyler B. Fredenburg  and
Paul M. Hasegawa
Ray A. Bressan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Peter B. Goldsbrough
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Tyler B. Fredenburg
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Paul M. Hasegawa
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many advances in disciplines such as chemistry, biochemistry, plant breeding, genetics, engineering, and others have been applied in a positive manner to improve knowledge in weed science. The emerging field of genomics is likely to have a similar positive effect on our understanding of weeds and their management in various plant agriculture systems. Genomics involves the large-scale use of molecular techniques for identification and functional analysis of complete or nearly complete genomic complements of genes. Commercial application of genomics has already occurred for improvement in certain crop input and output traits, including improved quality characteristics and herbicide and insect resistance. Additional commercial applications of genomics in weed science will be identification of genes involved in a crops' competitive ability. Genes controlling early crop shoot emergence, rapid early-season leaf and root development for fast canopy closure, production of allelochemicals for natural weed control, identification of novel herbicide target sites, resistance mechanisms, and genes for safening crops against specific herbicides can and will be identified. Successful crop improvement in these areas using the tools of genomics will dramatically affect weed–crop interactions and improve crop yields while reducing weed problems. In relation to improved basic knowledge of weeds and the resulting ability to improve our weed management techniques, genomics will offer the weed science community many new and exciting research opportunities. Scientists will be able to determine the genetic composition of weed populations and how it changes over time in relation to agricultural practices. Identification of genes contributing to weediness, perennial growth habit, herbicide resistance, seed and vegetative structure dormancy, plant architecture and morphology, plant reproductive characters (outcrossing and hybridization, introgression), and allelopathy will be identified and utilized with high-throughput DNA sequencing and other genomics-based technologies. Using genomics to improve our understanding of weed biology by determining which genes function to affect the fitness, competitiveness, and adaptation of weeds in agricultural environments will allow the development of improved management strategies. This review provides a summary of the various plant genomic research methods being used. Information is provided concerning the current state of molecular research in various areas of weed science and specific genomic research currently being conducted at Purdue University using transfer DNA (T-DNA) activation tagging to generate large populations of mutated plants that can be screened for genes of importance to weed science.

Keywords

Genomicsfunctional genomicsArabidopsis thaliana L. Heynh. ARBTHmouse-ear cress
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 282 - 289
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

Abbott, R. J. 1992. Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new plant taxa. Trends Evol. Ecol. 7:401–405.Google Scholar
Anttila, C. K., Daehler, C. C., Rank, N. E., and Strong, D. R. 1998. Greater male fitness of a rare invader (Spartina alterniflora, Poaceae) threatens a common native (Spartina foliosa) with hybridization. Am. J. Bot. 85:1597–1601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayers, D. R., Garcia-Rossi, D., Davis, H. G., and Strong, D. R. 1999. Extent and degree of hybridization between exotic (Spartina alterniflora) and native (S. foliosa) cordgrass (Poaceae) in California, USA determined by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPDs). Mol. Ecol. 8:1179–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, S.C.H. 1988. Genetics and evolution of agricultural weeds. Pages 57–75 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Bouchez, D. and Hofte, H. 1998. Functional genomics in plants. Plant Physiol. 118:725–732.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. and Strong, D. 1997. Hybridization between introduced smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; Poaceae) and native California cordgrass (S. foliosa) in San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Am. J. Bot. 84:607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, R., Oliver, P., Davey, A., and Hewitt, G. 1995. Using chloroplast DNA to trace postglacial migration routes of oaks in Britain. Mol. Ecol. 4:731–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gressel, J. 2000. Molecular biology of weed control. Transgenic Res. 9:355–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gressel, J. and Rotteveel, A. W. 2000. Genetic and ecological risks from biotechnologically-derived herbicide resistant crops: decision trees for risk assessment. Plant Breeding Rev. 18:251–303.Google Scholar
Gura, T. 2000. Reaping the gene harvest. Science 287:412–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttieri, M. J., Eberlein, C. V., and Thill, D. C. 1995. Diverse mutations in the acetolactate synthase gene confer chlorsulfuron resistance in kochia (Kochia scoparia) biotypes. Weed Sci. 43:175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, D. P. and Olson, P. A. 1998. Cloning and characterization of cold-regulated glycine rich RNS binding protein genes from leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and comparison to heterologous genomic clones. Plant Mol. Biol. 38:531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julian, M. H., ed. 1992. Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalog of Agents and Their Target Weeds. 3rd ed. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Keeler, K. H., Turner, C. E., and Bollick, M. R. 1996. Movement of crop transgenics into wild plants. Pages 303–330 In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kistler, H. C. 1991. Genetic manipulation of plant pathogenic fungi. Pages 152–170 In TeBeest, D. O., ed. Microbial Control of Weeds. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, J. 1996. Could transgenic supercrops one day breed superweeds? Science 274:180–181.Google Scholar
Krysan, P. J., Young, J. C., and Sussman, M. R. 1999. T-DNA as an insertion mutagen in Arabidopsis . Plant Cell 11:2283–2290.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G., Nissen, S. J., Rowe, M. L., Lee, D. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) genotype affects gall midge (Spurgia esulae) establishment. Weed Sci. 44:629–633.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., Lee, D. J., and Rowe, M. A. 1995. DNA-based marker systems to determine genetic diversity of weedy species and their application to biological control. Weed Sci. 43:504–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, S. J. and Mack, R. N. 1995. Allozyme diversity in the apomictic vine Bryonia alba (Cucurbitaceae): potential consequences of multiple introductions. Am. J. Bot. 82:1153–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, A., Benhamou, N., and Leroux, G. D. 1991. Cell surface interactions between sorghum roots and the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica: cytochemical aspects of cellulose distribution in resistant and susceptible host tissues. Can. J. Bot. 69:1676–1690.Google Scholar
Patterson, A. H., Schertz, K. F., Lin, Y. R., Liu, S. C., and Chang, Y. L. 1995. The weediness of wild plants: molecular analysis of genes influencing dispersal and persistence of johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 92:6127–6131.Google Scholar
Pereira, A. 2000. Plant genomics is revolutionizing agricultural research. Biotechnol. Dev. Monit. 40:2–7.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, T. A. and Grigliatti, T. A. 1996. Future perspectives on insect pest management: engineering the pest. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 67:109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeifer, T. A. and Grigliatti, T. A. 1997. Genetic pest management strategies: a view of targeted pest insect management in the 21st century. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Technol. 8:29–35.Google Scholar
Reiss, G. C. and Bailey, J. A. 1998. Striga gesnerioides parasitizing cowpea: development of infection structures and mechanisms of penetration. Ann. Bot. 81:431–440.Google Scholar
Rieseberg, L. H., Kim, M. J., and Seiler, G. J. 1999. Introgression between the cultivated sunflower and a sympatric wild relative, Helianthus petiolaris (Asteraceae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:102–108.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L., Lee, D. J., Bowditch, B. M., and Masters, R. A. 1997. Genetic variation in North American leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) determined by DNA markers. Weed Sci. 45:446–454.Google Scholar
Sands, D. C. and Miller, R. V. 1993. Altering the host range of mycoherbicides by genetic manipulation. Pages 101–109 In Duke, O., Menn, J. J., and Plimmer, J. R., eds. Pest Control with Enhanced Environmental Safety. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaal, B. A., Hayworth, D. A., Olsen, K. M., Rauscher, J. T., and Smith, W. A. 1998. Phylogenetic studies in plants: problems and prospects. Mol. Ecol. 7:465–474.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J. and Weller, S. C. 1996. Potential of rye (Secale cereale) for weed management in transplant tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 44:596–602.Google Scholar
Somerville, C. and Somerville, S. 1999. Plant functional genomics. Science 285:380–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strefeler, M. S., Darmo, E., Becker, R. L., and Katovich, E. J. 1996. Isozyme characterization of genetic diversity in Minnesota populations of purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae). Am. J. Bot. 83:265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, D., Ahn, J. H., Blazquez, M. A., et al. 2000. Activation tagging in Arabidopsis . Plant Physiol. 122:1003–1014.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H., Yu, X., Foy, C. L., and Cramer, C. L. 1998. Expression of a defense-related 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutary CoA reductase gene in response to parasitization by Orobanche spp. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 11:530–536.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., and Skinner, D. Z. 1999a. Use of PCR-based molecular markers to identify weedy Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 47:518–523.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999b. Transferal of herbicide resistance from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar