Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:34:05.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Similar Fitness Between Large Crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) Accessions Resistant or Susceptible to Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase Inhibitors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ronald J. Wiederholt  and
David E. Stoltenberg
Ronald J. Wiederholt
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin. Madison, WI 53706
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin. Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine the productivity and the competitive ability of a large crabgrass accession (PW2) resistant to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors relative to a susceptible accession (A310). Under noncompetitive conditions in the field, shoot dry biomass and plant height over time were similar for the two accessions. Leaf area was slightly greater for A310 than for PW2. The instantaneous relative growth rate was similar for the accessions. The instantaneous net assimilation rate was slightly greater for A310 than for PW2; however, the instantaneous leaf area ratio was slightly greater for PW2 than for A310. At maturity, the seed yield was similar for the accessions. The inter-accession competitive ability of PW2 and A310 plants in the field was similar, based on shoot dry biomass or seed yield. In the greenhouse, interspecific competitive ability of the accessions with corn was similar, based on shoot dry biomass or seed yield. These results suggest that resistance to ACCase inhibitors is not associated with reduced fitness of the PW2 accession.

Keywords

Large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. #3 DIGSAcorn, Zea mays L.Addition seriesherbicide resistanceinter-accession competitioninterspecific competitionproductivityreplacement seriesZea maysDIGSA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 42 - 49
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

1. Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate, and CO, fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31:438–444.Google Scholar
2. Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Differential competitiveness of sulfonylurea resistant and susceptible prickly lettuce (Latuca serriola). Weed Technol. 6:293–299.Google Scholar
3. Bussler, B. H. 1993. Corn (Zea mays) interactions with common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). . Dep. Agron., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. p. 65–90.Google Scholar
4. Bussler, B. H. and Maxwell, B. D. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
6. Devine, M. D. and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1994. Resistance to acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibiting herbicides. p. 141–169 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
7. de Wit, C. T. and van den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage Plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar
8. Ghersa, C. M., Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Brewer, T. G., and Roush, M. L. 1994. Selection pressures for diclofop-methyl resistance and germination time of Italian ryegrass. Agron J. 86:823–827.Google Scholar
9. Ghersa, C. M., Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Brewer, T. G., and Roush, M. L. 1994. Use of gene flow to control diclofop-methyl resistance in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Technol. 8:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Gray, J. A., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Balke, N. E. 1995. Productivity and intraspecific competitive ability of a velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) bio-type resistant to atrazine. Weed Sci. 43:619–626.Google Scholar
11. Gronwald, J. W. 1991. Lipid biosynthesis inhibitors. Weed Sci. 39:435–449.Google Scholar
12. Haigler, W. E., Gossett, B. J., Harris, J. R., and Toler, J. E. 1994. Growth and development of organic arsenical-susceptible and -resistant common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotypes under noncompetitive conditions. Weed Technol. 8:154–158.Google Scholar
13. Heap, J. and Knight, R. J. 1982. A population of ryegrass tolerant to the herbicide diclofop-methyl. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 48:156–157.Google Scholar
14. Holt, J. S. and Thill, D. C. 1994. Growth and productivity of resistant plants. p. 289–316 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
15. Hunt, R. 1978, Growth analysis of individual plants. p. 8–25 in Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology No. 96. Edward Arnold Publishers, London.Google Scholar
16. Jasieniuk, M. and Maxwell, B. D. 1994. Population genetics and the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds. Phytoprotection 75(Suppl.): 25–35.Google Scholar
17. LeBaron, H. M. 1991. Distribution and seriousness of herbicide-resistant weed infestations worldwide. p. 26–43 in Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. England.Google Scholar
18. Matthews, J.M. 1994. Management of herbicide resistant weed populations. p. 317–335 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J. A. M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
19. Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. p. 1–25 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
20. Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.Google Scholar
21. Reboud, X. and Till-Bottraud, I. 1991. The cost of herbicide resistance measured by a competition experiment. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82:690–696.Google Scholar
22. Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and equations for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:266–274.Google Scholar
23. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:258–265.Google Scholar
24. Ryan, G.F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.Google Scholar
25. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1994. Relative fitness of herbicide-resistant and susceptible biotypes of weeds. Phytoprotection 75(Suppl.): 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. White, J. and Harper, J. L. 1970. Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. J. Ecol. 58:467–485.Google Scholar
27. Wiederholt, R. J., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1995. Cross-resistance of a large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) accession to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides. Weed Technol. 9:518–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wiederholt, R. J., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant or susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. (in press).Google Scholar
29. Zar, J. H. 1984. Multiple regression and correlation, p. 328–360 in Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, CA.Google Scholar