Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:11:55.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of ALS-Resistant Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to ALS-Inhibiting and Alternative Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey B. Taylor ,
Mark M. Loux ,
S. Kent Harrison  and
Emilie Regnier
Jeffrey B. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
Mark M. Loux*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
S. Kent Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
Emilie Regnier
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1086
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to determine whether acetolactate synthase (ALS)–resistant common ragweed and giant ragweed biotypes were present in Ohio. Results of field studies indicated that biotypes of both species had cross-resistance to three chemical families of ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Cloransulam-methyl applied postemergence at 9, 18, and 36 g/ha controlled more than 85% of two susceptible populations of common and giant ragweed 28 d after treatment, whereas less than 35% control of resistant populations was achieved at the same rates. Fomesafen, lactofen, and glyphosate applied alone at the recommended rates provided the most effective control of ALS-resistant common and giant ragweed. Mixtures of cloransulam-methyl with either fomesafen or lactofen did not significantly increase ALS-resistant common and giant ragweed control compared with each diphenylether herbicide used alone. Dose–response bioassays conducted in the greenhouse indicated that susceptible common and giant ragweed tended to be more sensitive to cloransulam-methyl and chlorimuron than to imazamox. ALS-resistant common ragweed demonstrated a high level of resistance to all the herbicides tested because GR50 values were not reached with rates 1,000 times higher than the recommended rate. ALS-resistant giant ragweed treated with 13,000 g/ha of chlorimuron and 18,000 g/ha of cloransulam-methyl was not inhibited enough to obtain a GR50 value, thus also demonstrating a high level of resistance. The GR50 for ALS-resistant giant ragweed treated with imazamox was 1,161 g/ha. Results of these studies confirmed the presence of ALS–cross-resistant populations of common and giant ragweed in Ohio and suggest that herbicides with different mechanisms of action will be required to manage these weeds effectively.

Keywords

Chlorimuroncloransulam-methylfomesafenglyphosateimazamoxlactofencommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. #3 AMBELgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRAcetolactate synthaseherbicide resistanceALS, acetolactate synthaseCOC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergencePPF, photosynthetic photon fluxPRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrate1× rate, the recommended label rate2× rate, twice the recommended label rate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 815 - 825
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. 2000. 1999 Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1999 Field Crop Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service: Web page: http//:usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agch0500.txt. Accessed: September 18, 2000.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam-methyl. Weed Technol. 13: 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, B. M., DeFelice, M. S., Dilbeck, J. S., and Holman, C. S. 1994. Herbicide resistant weed populations discovered in Missouri. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 89–90.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1992. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotterman, J. C. and Saari, L. L. 1992. Rapid metabolic inactivation is the basis for cross-resistance to chlorsulfuron in diclofop-methyl-resistant rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) biotype SR4/84. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 43: 182–192.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Marles, M. A. S., and Hall, L. M. 1991. Inhibition of acetolactate synthase in susceptible and resistant biotypes of Stellaria media. Pestic. Sci. 31: 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franey, R. J. and Hart, S. E. 1999. Time of application of cloransulam for giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 825–828.Google Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Control and cross-resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol. 11: 132–137.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4: 141–149.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brule-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 176–193.Google Scholar
Jiang, W. and Tranel, P. J. 2002. Variability in a herbicide target-site gene. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42: 20.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Miller, J. R., Holman, C. S., and Wait, J. D. 1997. ALS-resistant common sunflower in Missouri. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 132–133.Google Scholar
Kendig, A., Fishel, F., and DeFelice, M. 1995. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Guide G4907. 8 p.Google Scholar
Leif, J. W., Vollmer, J. L., Hartberg, T. J., and Ballard, R. O. 2000. Growth and response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) ecotypes to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 14: 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5: 460–466.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Stachler, J. M., and Harrison, S. K. 1999. Weed Control Guide for Ohio Field Crops. Columbus, OH: Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University Extension. pp. 11–15.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Singh, B. K., Shaner, D. L., and Wilson, H. P. 1999. Imidazolinone resistance in smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) is due to an altered acetolactate synthase. Weed Technol. 13: 697–705.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1998. Characterization of imidazolinone-resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Technol. 12: 575–584.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Postemergence weed control with CGA-277476 and cloransulam-methyl in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 293–299.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., Alexander, A. L., and Schmitzer, P. R. 2001. A common ragweed population resistant to cloransulam-methyl. Weed Sci. 49: 485–490.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Primiani, M. M. 1990. Mechanisms of sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in the broadleaf weed, Kochia scoparia. Plant Physiol. 93: 55–61.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., Smith, W. S., 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. In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. pp. 83–140.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. E., Schmitzer, P. R., Alexander, A. L., and Dorich, R. A. 2000. Identification and management of resistance to ALS inhibiting herbicides in giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia). Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 40: 42.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997a. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 11: 241–247.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997b. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 104 p.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Multiple regression and correlation. In Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 353–360; 431–436.Google Scholar