Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:32:52.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid diagnosis of resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides in monochoria (Monochoria vaginalis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Yong In Kuk ,
Ha Il Jung ,
Oh Do Kwon ,
Do Jin Lee ,
Nilda R. Burgos  and
Ja Ock Guh
Ha Il Jung
Affiliation:
Faculty of Applied Plant Science, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, South Korea
Oh Do Kwon
Affiliation:
Chonnam Agricultural Research and Extension Service, Naju 520-830, South Korea
Do Jin Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Education, Sunchon National University, Sunchon 540-742, South Korea
Nilda R. Burgos
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 W. Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Ja Ock Guh
Affiliation:
Faculty of Applied Plant Science, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, South Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfonylurea (SU)-resistant monochoria has recently been found in rice paddies in Korea. A quick and accurate means of confirming herbicide resistance is necessary to take timely management decisions. This article describes a rapid and reliable assay to detect SU-resistant biotype of monochoria. The techniques tested include seed germination, in vivo and in vitro acetolactate synthase (ALS; EC 4.1.3.18) activity, leaf, and whole-plant bioassays. In the whole-plant bioassay, shoot dry weight of the resistant (R) biotype was 3,200-fold less affected by imazosulfuron and sevenfold less affected by pyrazosulfuron-ethyl than the susceptible (S) biotype. Although the whole-plant bioassay is reliable, it is expensive, requires a lot of infrastructure, and takes a few months to complete. The germination rate of the R biotype in petri dish bioassays was > 200-fold less inhibited by imazosulfuron and 100-fold less inhibited by pyrazosulfuron-ethyl than that of the S biotype. Seed germination bioassays in petri dishes do not require as much infrastructure as whole-plant bioassays do and can be completed in a shorter time. Leaf bioassays showed that leaf color of the R biotype was > 1,600- and 300-fold less affected by imazosulfuron and pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, respectively, compared with that of the S biotype. This assay takes about 6 d to complete. In vivo ALS assays showed lower levels of resistance to ALS herbicides than did in vitro ALS assays, where the R biotype was about 200- and 30-fold less sensitive to imazosulfuron and pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, respectively, than the S biotype. All assays successfully distinguished the R from the S biotype, but in vitro ALS assays are the simplest and the quickest. The in vitro ALS assay was chosen as the standard procedure for future confirmation of resistance in monochoria populations. Caution is needed because the in vitro assay is not appropriate in cases wherein the resistance mechanism is increased metabolism of the herbicide or overexpression of the target enzyme. Results should be interpreted in relation to field history and field observations. Follow-up studies also are needed to verify that other resistance mechanisms do not confound the in vitro assay.

Keywords

Imazosulfuronpyrazonsulfuron-ethylmonochoria, Monochoria vaginalis (Burm. f.) Kunth MOOVArice, Oryza sativa L.Acetolactate synthase inhibitorcross-resistanceresistance diagnosissulfonylurea herbicidesulfonylurea-resistant weed
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 305 - 311
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

Bradford, M. M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christopher, J. T., Powles, S. B., Holtum, J.A.M., and Liljegren, D. R. 1991. Cross resistance to herbicides in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum): chlorsulfuron resistance involves a wheat-like detoxification system. Plant Physiol. 95:1036–1043.Google Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Morrison, I. N., Rashid, A., and Devine, M. D. 1993. Response of a chlorsulfuron-resistant biotype of Kochia scoparia to sulfonylurea and alternative herbicides. Weed Sci. 41:100–106.Google Scholar
Gerwick, B. C., Mireles, L. C., and Eilers, R. J. 1993. Rapid diagnosis of ALS/AHAS-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 7:519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, L. M. and Devine, M. D. 1990. Cross-resistance of chlorsulfuron-resistant biotype of Stellaria media to a triazolopyrimidine herbicide. Plant Physiol. 93:962–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heap, I. M. 2002. International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Hiscox, J. D. and Israelstam, G. F. 1979. A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissues without maceration. Can. J. Bot. 57:1332–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itoh, K., Wang, G. X., Uchino, A., and Tachibana, M. 1997. Control of Lindernia weeds resistant to sulfonylureas. J. Weed Sci. Technol. 42 (Suppl.): 24–25. [In Japanese]Google Scholar
Kuk, Y. I., Burgos, N. R., and Talbert, R. E. 2000. Cross- and multiple resistance of diclofop-resistant Lolium spp. Weed Sci. 48:412–419.Google Scholar
Kuk, Y. I., Jung, H. I., Kwon, O. D., Lee, D. J., Lee, J. H., and Guh, J. O. 2001. Rice yield and control methods by occurrence of resistant Monochoria vaginalis biotypes to sulfonylurea herbicides. Korea J. Weed Sci. 21 (Suppl.): 47–52.Google Scholar
Kwon, O. D., Koo, S. J., Kim, J. S., Lee, D. J., Lee, H. J., Park, T. S., Kuk, Y. I., and Guh, J. O. 2000. Herbicide response and control of sulfonylurea-resistant biotype of Monochoria vaginalis in paddy fields in Chonnam province, Korea. Korea J. Weed Sci. 20:46–52.Google Scholar
Kwon, O. D., Kuk, Y. I., Jung, H. I., Lee, D. J., and Guh, J. O. 2001. Control of resistant Rotala indica biotypes to sulfonylurea herbicides. Korea J. Weed Sci. 21 (Suppl.): 33–38.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., and Dial, M. J. 1990. Identification of sulfonylurea herbicide-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 4:163–168.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Park, T. S., Kim, C. S., Moon, B. C., Lee, I. Y., Park, J. E., and Kim, K. U. 2000. Occurrence and control of sulfonylurea-resistant biotype, Linderia dubia in paddy fields in southern province of Korea. Korea J. Weed Sci. 20:73–75.Google Scholar
Park, T. S., Kim, C. S., Park, J. P., Oh, Y. K., and Kim, K. U. 1999. Resistant biotype of Monochoria korsakowii against sulfonylurea herbicides in the reclaimed paddy fields in Korea. Pages 252–254 In The 17th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Bankok, Thailand: Mitr Siam Press.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
Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron: inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Primiani, M. M. 1992. Sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in common chickweed, perennial ryegrass, and Russian thistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 42:110–118.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 83–139 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 7. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. [Electronic version]Google Scholar
Simpson, D. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1995. An in vivo acetolactate synthase assay. Weed Technol. 9:17–22.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1991. Sulfonylurea Herbicides. London: PJB. 179 p.Google Scholar
Thill, D. C., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., Primiani, M. M., and Saladini, J. L. 1991. Sulfonylurea herbicide resistant weeds: discovery, distribution, biology, mechanism, and management. Pages 115–128 In Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, G. X., Kohara, H., and Itoh, K. 1997. Sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of Monochoria korsakowii, an annual paddy weed in Japan. Pages 311–318 In British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Nottingham, U.K.: Great Britain by Major Design and Production.Google Scholar
Westerfeld, W. W. 1945. A colorimetric determination of blood acetoin. J. Biol. Chem. 161:495–502.Google Scholar