Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:20:20.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting for Weed Resistance: Herbicide Rotation and Mixture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hugh J. Beckie  and
Xavier Reboud
Hugh J. Beckie*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X2
Xavier Reboud
Affiliation:
INRA, Université de Bourgogne, ENESAD, Biologie et Gestion des Adventices, Dijon Cedex, France
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide rotations and mixtures are widely recommended to manage herbicide resistance. However, little research has quantified how these practices actually affect the selection of herbicide resistance in weeds. A 4-yr experiment was conducted in western Canada from 2004 to 2007 to examine the impact of herbicide rotation and mixture in selecting for acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor resistance in the annual broadleaf weed, field pennycress, co-occurring in wheat. Treatments consisted of the ALS-inhibitor herbicide, ethametsulfuron, applied in a mixture with bromoxynil/MCPA formulated herbicide (photosystem-II inhibitor/synthetic auxin), or in rotation with the non-ALS inhibitor at an ALS-inhibitor application frequency of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% (i.e., zero to four applications, respectively) over the 4-yr period. The field pennycress seed bank at the start of the experiment contained 5% ethametsulfuron-resistant seed. Although weed control was only marginally reduced, resistance frequency of progeny of survivors increased markedly after one ALS-inhibitor application. At the end of the experiment, the level of resistance in the seed bank was buffered by susceptible seed, increasing from 29% of recruited seedlings after one application to 85% after four applications of the ALS inhibitor. The level of resistance in the seed bank for the mixture treatment after 4 yr remained similar to that of the nontreated (weedy) control or 0% ALS-inhibitor rotation frequency treatment. The results of this study demonstrate how rapidly ALS-inhibitor resistance can evolve as a consequence of repeated application of herbicides with this site of action, and supports epidemiological information from farmer questionnaire surveys and modeling simulations that mixtures are more effective than rotations in mitigating resistance evolution through herbicide selection.

Keywords

BromoxynilethametsulfuronMCPAfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L. THLARwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘AC Barrie’ALS inhibitorherbicide resistanceresistance managementseed bankselection pressure
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 363 - 370
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

Beckie, H. J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20:793–814.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2007. Beneficial management practices to combat herbicide-resistant grass weeds in the Northern Great Plains. Weed Technol 21:290–299.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2009. Herbicide-resistant weeds on the march in Alberta. Pages 97–106. in. Agronomy Update 2009. Lethbridge, AB: Southern Applied Research Association.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Chang, F., and Stevenson, F. C. 1999. The effect of labeling herbicides with their site of action: a Canadian perspective. Weed Technol 13:655–661.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Hall, L. M., and Tardif, F. J. 2001. Impact and management of herbicide-resistant weeds in Canada. Pages 747–754. in. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, UK British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Hall, L. M., Tardif, F. J., and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2007. Acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense L.) in Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci 87:965–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and Jana, S. 2000. Selecting for triallate resistance in wild oat. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:665–667.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Brenzil, C. A., Hall, L. M., Holzgang, G., Lozinski, C., and Shirriff, S. 2008a. Weed resistance monitoring in the Canadian prairies. Weed Technol 22:530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., and Brenzil, C. A. 2008b. Risk assessment of weed resistance in the Canadian prairies. Weed Technol 22:741–746.Google Scholar
Bertram, M. G. and Pedersen, P. 2004. Adjusting management practices using glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars. Agron. J. 96:462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, K. F. and McIntyre, G. I. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 9. Thlaspi arvense L. Can. J. Plant Sci 55:279–292.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L., Morrison, I. N., and Kelner, D. 1997. Field and grower survey of ACCase resistant wild oat in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 77:709–715.Google Scholar
Diggle, A. J., Neve, P. B., and Smith, F. P. 2003. Herbicides used in combination can reduce the probability of herbicide resistance in finite weed populations. Weed Res 43:371–382.Google Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Beckie, H. J., Warwick, S. I., and Van Acker, R. C. 2009. The biology of Canadian weeds. 138. Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. Can. J. Plant Sci 89:141–167.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 421–422.Google Scholar
Hall, L. M., Stromme, K. M., Horsman, G. P., and Devine, M. D. 1998. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors and quinclorac in a biotype of false cleavers (Galium spurium). Weed Sci 46:390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, L. 1990. Influence of emergence date and strain on phenology, seed production, and germination of Thlaspi arvense L. Bot. Gaz 151:510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, L. 1993. Development of equations for estimating yield losses caused by multi-species weed communities dominated by green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L) Beauv.]. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:625–635.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brŭlé-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci 44:176–193.Google Scholar
Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R 2 . Am. Stat 39:279–285.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., Brenzil, C. A., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Prairie Weed Surveys of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse crops from the 1970s to the 2000s. Weed Survey Series Publication 05-1. Saskatoon, SK: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 395.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Stevenson, F. C., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Survey of management practices affecting the occurrence of wild oat (Avena fatua) resistance to acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Technol 14:366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol 17:605–619.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Preston, C., Bryan, I. B., and Jutsum, A. R. 1997. Herbicide resistance: impact and management. Adv. Agron 58:57–93.Google Scholar
Rubin, B. 1991. Herbicide resistance in weeds and crops, progress and prospects. Pages 387–414. In Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS Online Doc®. Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture 2008. Guide to Crop Protection: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 399.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Howard, S., and Chalmers, I. 1999. Effectiveness of mode of action labeling for resistance management: a survey of Australian farmers. Pages 797–802. in. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, UK British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada 2008. September Estimate of Production of Principal Field Crops, Canada. Field Crop Reporting Series, No. 22-002-X. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/22-002-x/22-002-x2008007-eng.pdf. Accessed: April 6, 2009.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C. 2009. Weed biology serves practical weed management. Weed Res 49:1–5.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Francis, A., and Susko, D. J. 2002. The biology of Canadian weeds. 9. Thlaspi arvense L. (updated). Can. J. Plant Sci 82:803–823.Google Scholar
Wrubel, R. P. and Gressel, J. 1994. Are herbicide mixtures useful for delaying the rapid evolution of resistance? A case study. Weed Technol 8:635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar