Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:32:54.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid detection of propanil and fenoxaprop resistance in Echinochloa colona

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Do-Soon Kim ,
John C. Caseley ,
Philip Brain ,
Charles R. Riches  and
Bernal E. Valverde
Do-Soon Kim
Affiliation:
IACR–Long Ashton Research Station, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bristol, Long Ashton, Bristol BS41 9AF, U.K.
John C. Caseley
Affiliation:
IACR–Long Ashton Research Station, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bristol, Long Ashton, Bristol BS41 9AF, U.K.
Philip Brain
Affiliation:
IACR–Long Ashton Research Station, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bristol, Long Ashton, Bristol BS41 9AF, U.K.
Bernal E. Valverde
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Unit, Tropical Agricultural Center for Research and Higher Education (CATIE), Turrialba 7170, Costa Rica
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid detection methods were developed for discriminating between resistant (R) and susceptible (S) biotypes of Echinochloa colona to either propanil or fenoxaprop-P at all growth stages. In the pregerminated seed assay for fenoxaprop-P, seeds were placed on 1.0% agar containing a range of concentrations of herbicides and kept under humid conditions. For propanil, pregerminated seeds were placed on moist filter paper in the lid of a petri dish and, when one leaf had developed, the lid was inverted for 1 min into propanil solutions at a range of concentrations. For the fenoxaprop-P and propanil test, seedling length and fresh weight were measured after 1 wk. For juvenile plants with four-leaf to one-tiller, shoots and roots were trimmed and placed in 20-ml glass tubes containing 0.2% (wt/v) agar and a range of concentrations of herbicides. Shoot extension and weight were recorded after 7 d. Larger plants with several small tillers were also assayed by this method. Tillers were removed from larger plants and were evaluated as described for juvenile plants. At later growth stages from ear emergence to flowering, excised stem node segments (8 cm) were soaked in water to stimulate rooting. Rooted nodes were placed in 30-ml glass bottles containing 0.2% agar with a range of concentrations of herbicides, and the test was conducted as described for juvenile plants but with the final assessment of new shoot extension and weight being recorded after 10 d. Discrimination between R and S biotypes was possible on the basis of GR50 values for shoot length and fresh weight in all testing methods. With few exceptions, GR50 values for the length of new shoot were very similar to those for the new shoot fresh weight. We concluded that all testing methods in our study provided reliable and quick discrimination between biotypes for both propanil and fenoxaprop-P susceptibility, covering various growth stages from seed to flowering stage. Trimming plants before herbicide treatment gives a rapid method of discrimination by measuring not only newly grown shoot fresh weight but also shoot length.

Keywords

Propanil, fenoxaprop-P-ethylEchinochloa colona (L.) Link ECHCO, junglericeHerbicide diagnostic testsherbicide resistancegraminicidesLatin America
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 6 , December 2000 , pp. 695 - 700
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., Friesen, L. F., Nawolsky, K. M., and Morrison, I. N. 1990. A rapid bioassay to detect trifluralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Technol. 4:505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutsalis, P. 1999. Norvartis Quick-Test: a rapid diagnostic test for detecting herbicide resistant weeds. Page 161 In Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium, Basel. Wageningen, The Netherlands: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C., Leah, J. M., Riches, C. R., and Valverde, B. E. 1996. Combating propanil resistance in Echinochloa colona with synergists that inhibit acylamidase and oxygenases. Pages 455–460 In Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen. International Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C., Riches, C. R., and Valverde, B. 1997. Herbicide with alternative modes of action for the control of propanil- and fenoxaprop-P-resistant Echinochloa colona . Pages 215–220 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Flakkebjerg, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Clay, D. V. and Underwood, C. 1990. The identification of triazine- and paraquat-resistant weed biotypes and their response to other herbicides. Pages 47–55 In Cavalloro, R. and Noye, G., eds. EUR 11561 — Importance and Perspectives on Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. J., Granados, E., and Trujillo, D. 1993. Propanil resistance in populations of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) in Colombian rice fields. Weed Sci. 41:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garita, I., Valverde, B. E., Chacon, I. A., de la Cruz, R., Riches, C. R., and Caseley, J. C. 1995. Occurrence of propanil resistance in Echinochloa colona in Central America. Pages 557–566 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Garro, J. E., de la Cruz, R., and Shannon, P. J. 1991. Propanil resistance in Echinochloa colona populations with different herbicide use histories. Pages 1079–1083 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1994. Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Oxford, Great Britain: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heap, I. and Knight, R. 1986. The occurrence of herbicide cross-resistance in a population of annual ryegrass, Lolium rigidum, resistant to diclofop-methyl. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 37:149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, J. R. 1981. A method for identification of triazine resistant and susceptible biotypes of several weeds. Weed Sci. 29:70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutsum, A. R. and Graham, J. C. 1995. Managing weed resistance: the role of the agrochemical industry. Pges 193–196 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Kemp, M. S., Moss, S. R., and Thomas, T. H. 1990. Herbicide resistance in Alopecurus myosuroides . Pages 1–26 In Green, M. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Letouze, A., Gasquez, J., Vaccara, D., Orlando, D., Leterrier, J. L., Roy, C., and Bouvard-Derieux, E. 1997. Development of new reliable quick tests and state of grassweed herbicide resistance in France. Pages 325–330 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference— Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Moss, S. R. 1990. Herbicide cross-resistance in slender foxtail (Alopecurus myosuroides). Weed Sci. 38:492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. R. 1995. Techniques for determining herbicide resistance. Pages 547–556 In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Moss, S. R., Albertini, A., Arlt, K., et al. 1998. Screening for herbicide resistance in blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides): a “ring test.” Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 63 (3A): 671–679.Google Scholar
Murray, B. G., Friesen, L. F., Beaulieu, K. J., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. A seed bioassay to identify acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) populations. Weed Technol. 10:85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Talbert, R. E., and Hoagland, R. E. 1998. Chlorophyll fluorescence for rapid detection of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci. 46:163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, C. R., Caseley, J. C., Valverde, B. E., and Down, V. M. 1996. Resistance of Echinochloa colona to ACCase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 14–16 In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weed and Crop Resistance to Herbicides. European Weed Research Society. Cordoba, Spain: University of Cordoba.Google Scholar
Riches, C. R., Knights, J. S., Chaves, L., Caseley, J. C., and Valverde, B. E. 1997. The role of pendimethalin in the integrated management of propanil-resistant Echinochloa colona in Central America. Pestic Sci. 51:341–346.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, J. and Powles, S. B. 1993. Pollen expression of herbicide target site resistance genes in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Plant Physiol. 102:1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudemo, M., Ruppert, D., and Streibig, J. C. 1989. Random-effect models in non-linear regression with applications to bioassay. Biometrics 45:349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeda, R. J., Barrentine, W. L., Snipes, C. E., and Rippee, J. H. 1996. Rapid assays for identification of Johnsongrass resistance to graminicides. Pages 262–263 In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weed and Crop Resistance to Herbicides. European Weed Research Society. Cordoba, Spain: University of Cordoba.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. D. 1980. Models for curve fitting herbicide dose response data. Acta Agric. Scand. 30:59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truelove, B. and Hensley, J. R. 1982. Methods of testing for herbicide resistance. Pages 117–131 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar