Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:47:30.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Seedling Bioassay for Assessing the Response of Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Populations to Triallate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John T. O'Donovan
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
Abdur Rashid
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
Hai Van Nguyen
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
Jeff C. Newman
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
Aziz Khan
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
C. Ian Johnson
Affiliation:
Alberta Environ. Cent., Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C 1T4
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, and Lacombe, AB
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, and Lacombe, AB

Abstract

Germinated seeds of wild oat populations that were susceptible (S) or resistant (R) to triallate at the recommended soil-applied rate (1.7 kg/ha) were treated with six triallate concentrations on filter paper in petri dishes. Measurement of shoot length 8 d after treatment provided an accurate indication of differences among populations, and was more reliable than determining shoot fresh weight. ED50 values (herbicide concentrations that reduced shoot length by 50% relative to untreated controls), derived from nonlinear regression analysis, indicated four and five levels of response to triallate among eight S and seven R populations, respectively. The ED50 values varied from 0.11 to 11 ppm a.i. triallate for the most susceptible to the most resistant populations, respectively. Routine testing of wild oat samples suspected of resistance, at triallate concentrations of 0.5 or 1 ppm in the petri dish bioassay, effectively identified populations that had become resistant to the recommended soil-applied rate.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

Banting, J. D. 1970. Effect of diallate and triallate on wild oat and wheat cells. Weed Sci. 18:8084.Google Scholar
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. 4:505508.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., and Maurice, D. 1996. Response of triallate resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) to alternative herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:258262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1989. An equation to describe dose responses where there is stimulation of growth at low doses. Weed Res. 29:9396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:6066.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1994. Identification and documentation of herbicide resistance. Phytoprotection 75 (Suppl.): 8590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jana, S. and Naylor, J. M. 1982. Adaptation for herbicide tolerance in populations of Avena fatua . Can. J. Bot. 60:16111617.Google Scholar
Malchow, W. E., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., and Dyer, W. E. 1993. Wild oat (Avena fatua) resistance to triallate in Montana. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 33:18.Google Scholar
McMullan, P. M. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1990. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) tolerance to triallate applied spring pre-plant incorporated. Weed Technol. 4:652657.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1975. Postemergence application of triallate for wild oat control. Weed Sci. 23:137141.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. 10:8589.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., Maurice, D., Baig, M. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Wild oat populations resistant to triallate are also resistant to difenzoquat. Weed Sci. 42:195199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salto, T., Chueca, M. C., and Garcia-Baudin, J. M. 1989. Bioassay of triallate tolerance for wheat varieties. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 1:405408.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218227.Google Scholar
Somody, C. N., Nalewaja, J. D., and Miller, S.D. 1984. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and Avena sterilis morphological characteristics and response to herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:353359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. 1987. SAS/STAT™ guide for personal computers. Version 6 ed. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Thai, K. M., Jana, S., and Naylor, J. M. 1985. Variability for response to herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua) populations. Weed Sci. 33:829835.Google Scholar