Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:28:03.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Seedling Assay to Screen Aryloxyphenoxypropionic Acid and Cyclohexanedione Resistance in Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke ,
Walter E. Thomas ,
James D. Burton ,
Janet F. Spears  and
John W. Wilcut
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
James D. Burton
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Janet F. Spears
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A seedling bioassay was developed for the rapid diagnosis of resistance to clethodim and fluazifop-P in johnsongrass. The assay was based on differences in the coleoptile length of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) seedlings exposed to clethodim and fluazifop-P in petri dishes for 5 d. Bioassay concentrations of 0.09 mg/L clethodim and 0.18 mg/L fluazifop-P were chosen as discriminant based on rate responses of each biotype to increasing herbicide dose. At 5 d after treatment (DAT), the amounts of clethodim required to reduce coleoptile length by 50% (GR50) for the R and S seedlings were 462.5 and 24.8 mg/L, respectively, resulting in an R:S ratio of 18.7. The fluazifop GR50 values for the R and S seedlings were 618.7 and 17.5 mg/L, respectively, resulting in a R:S ratio of 35.4.

Keywords

Clethodim, fluazifop-P, johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. #3 SORHAACCase inhibitorsherbicide resistanceACCase, acetyl coenzyme-A carboxylaseAOPP, aryloxyphenoxypropionateCHD, cyclohexanedione
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 950 - 955
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

Anonymous, , 2005a. Fusilade® DX. in. Crop Protection Reference. 21st ed. New York C & P Press. 2606–2614.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Select 2EC® . in. Crop Protection Reference. 21st ed. New York C & P Press. 1888–1890.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Friesen, L. F., Nawolsky, K. E., and Morrison, I. N. 1990. A rapid bioassay to detect trifluralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Technol. 4:505–508.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Heap, I. M., Smeda, R. J., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Screening for herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Technol. 14:428–445.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Burton, J. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 2006a. Mechanism of resistance to clethodim in a johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) biotype. Weed Sci. 54:401–406.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 2006b. Cross resistance of a johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) biotype to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides. Weed Technol. 20:571–575.Google Scholar
Burton, J. D. 1997. Acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. in Roe, R.M., Burton, J.D., Kuhr, R.J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA IOS Press. 187–205.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1994. Resistance to acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibiting herbicides. in Powles, S.B., Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL Lewis Publishers. 141–169.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York J. Wiley. 33–42., 511.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2005. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Web page: http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: March 17, 2005.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L., Chandler, J. M., and Wu, H. 1996. Temperature-dependent model for non-dormant seed germination and rhizome bud break of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 44:257–265.Google Scholar
Incledon, B. J. and Hall, J. C. 1997. Acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase: quaternary structure and inhibition by graminicidal herbicides. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 57:255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letouzé, A. and Gasquez, J. 1999. A rapid reliable test for screening aryloxyphenoxypropionic acid resistance within Alopecurus myosuroides and Lolium spp. populations. Weed Res. 39:37–48.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. in Powles, S.B., Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. Boca Raton, FL Lewis Publishers. 1–25.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1976. The effect of light and temperature on the growth and development of johnsongrass. Weed Sci. 24:88–91.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
Retrum, J. and Forcella, F. 2002. Giant foxtail (Seteria faberi) seedling assay for resistance to sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 16:464–466.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S., Jensen, J., and Fuerst, P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:213–412.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J., Snipes, C. E., and Barrentine, W. L. 1997. Identification of graminicide-resistant johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 45:132–137.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J., Currie, R. S., and Rippee, J. H. 2000. Fluazifop-P resistance expressed as a dominant trait in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol. 14:397–401.Google Scholar