Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:39:27.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-Resistance in and Chemical Control of Auxinic Herbicide-Resistant Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy W. Miller ,
Sandra L. Shinn  and
Donald C. Thill
Timothy W. Miller*
Affiliation:
Washington State University Mount Vernon Research and Extension Unit, 16650 State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Sandra L. Shinn
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An accession of auxinic herbicide-resistant yellow starthistle found near Dayton, WA, was tested to evaluate cross-resistance to growth regulator herbicides and susceptibility to herbicides with different modes of action. Picloram at 0.43 kg ae/ha removed susceptible (S) yellow starthistle plants from a field plot, and surviving resistant (R) plants were dug and moved to the greenhouse. Known S plants were transplanted from a pasture near the R population. The R biotype was reconfirmed as resistant to picloram in greenhouse tests, with resistance ratios of 5.6 and 3.8 for vegetative and reproductive biomass, respectively, and 10.2 for LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of the treated population) data. The R biotype was also cross-resistant to clopyralid and dicamba in all responses and to 2,4-D and triclopyr in vegetative biomass and LD50 data. In field trials, eight herbicides were applied alone and in various combinations with and without addition of picloram. The yellow starthistle population was apparently comprised of differing percentages of R and S plants in 1997 and 1998, as picloram alone controlled 65 to 76% of the yellow starthistle in 1997 and 96 to 97% in 1998. BAS 662 01H (dicamba + SAN 836) at 0.28 or 0.42 kg ae/ha, respectively, or dicamba at 0.56 kg ae/ha were the best alternative treatments in either trial in either year, but only in 1998 did control exceed 85%. Picloram and other auxinic herbicides should continue to be useful for control of mixed R and S yellow starthistle populations. However, effective herbicides with different mode(s) of action integrated with range improvement practices and biological control must be identified for long-term yellow starthistle management.

Keywords

BAS 662 01H (formerly SAN 1269; contains 20% ae 2-(1-[([3, 5-difluorophenylamino] carbonyl)-hydrazono] ethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) (formerly SAN 836 [proposed common name diflufenzopyr]) plus 50% ae dicambayellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. #3 CENSOGrowth regulator herbicidesherbicide resistancepicloramI50, dose causing 50% reduction in vegetative or reproductive weightPOST, postemergenceR, resistant; S, susceptible
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 293 - 299
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

Callihan, R. H., Northam, F. E., Johnson, J. B., Michalson, E. L., and Prather, T. S. 1989. Yellow Starthistle Control. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Current Information Series 634. 4 p.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Schirman, R. O. 1991a. Effects of picloram and dicamba on the survival of yellow starthistle seedlings transplanted from a suspected picloram resistant and a known picloram susceptible population. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Schirman, R. O. 1991b. Effects of five hormone-type herbicides on the survival of yellow starthistle seedlings from a known picloram susceptible population and a suspected picloram resistant population. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Schirman, R. O., and Northam, F. E. 1990. Picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 89–90.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Schirman, R. O., and Price, W. J. 1991a. Effects of winter and spring applied herbicides on yellow starthistle density. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Schirman, R. O., and Price, W. J. 1991b. Herbicide screening trial in a yellow starthistle population suspected of containing auxinic herbicide-resistant genotypes. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 49–51.Google Scholar
Cordy, D. R. 1954. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses associated with ingestion of yellow star thistle. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 13:330.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Hastings, M. S. 1999. Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Sci. 47: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Sterling, T. M., Norman, M. A., Prather, T. S., Irzyk, G. P., Wu, Y., Lownds, N. K., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Physiological characterization of picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 56: 149–161.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W. and Callihan, R. H. 1994. Herbicide evaluation for yellow starthistle control. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. I-41–42.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W. and Callihan, R. H. 1995. Testing the potential use of quinclorac for yellow starthistle control. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Callihan, R. H., and Northam, F. E. 1993. Effects of winter and spring applied herbicides on yellow starthistle density. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. I–102.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Christianson, K. M. 1998. Diflufenzopyr increases perennial weed control with auxin herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51: 59–62.Google Scholar
Maddox, D. M., Joley, D. B., Supkoff, D. M., and Mayfield, A. 1996. Pollination biology of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in California. Can. J. Bot. 74: 262–267.Google Scholar
Northam, F. E. and Callihan, R. H. 1989. Effects of eleven herbicides on a yellow starthistle community. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 54–58.Google Scholar
Northam, F. E. and Callihan, R. H. 1991. Effects of herbicides on yellow starthistle density and vegetative biomass components of a rangeland yellow starthistle weed community. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
Northam, F. E., Callihan, R. H., and Schirman, R. O. 1992. Effects of picloram on germination and cotyledon length of 1991 yellow starthistle seedlots. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. I-29–31.Google Scholar
Roché, B. F. Jr., Roché, C. T., and Chapman, R. C. 1994. Impacts of grassland habitat on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) invasion. Northwest Sci. 68: 86–96.Google Scholar
Roché, C. T., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1997. Reproductive phenology in yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 45: 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabba, R. P., Sterling, T. M., and Lownds, N. K. 1998. Effect of picloram on resistant and susceptible yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis): the role of ethylene. Weed Sci. 46: 297–300.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Sterling, T. M., Lownds, N. K., and Murray, L. W. 2001. Picloram-resistant and -susceptible yellow starthistle accessions have similar competitive ability. Weed Sci. 49: 42–47.Google Scholar
Sun, M. and Ritland, K. 1998. Mating system of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a successful colonizer in North America. Heredity. 80: 225–232.Google Scholar