Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-09T16:09:07.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Competitiveness of Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus Rudis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael G. Duff ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Dallas E. Peterson
Michael G. Duff
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
*
Corresponding authors's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine the competitiveness and fitness of a protoporphyrinogen oxidase (protox)-resistant common waterhemp biotype. Protox-resistant and protox-susceptible biotypes were grown under noncompetitive and competitive arrangements in the greenhouse. In the noncompetitive study, a single plant of each biotype was planted separately in 15-cm-diam pots. Photosynthesis, leaf area, and plant biomass were measured 10, 20, 30, and 40 d after transplanting (DATP). In general, photosynthesis rate and plant biomass were similar between biotypes. However, the protox-resistant biotype had higher leaf area than the susceptible biotype at 20, 30, and 40 DATP. A replacement series study was conducted in the greenhouse to evaluate the relative competitiveness of protox-resistant and protox-susceptible common waterhemp. Photosynthesis, leaf area, plant height, and plant biomass were measured 7, 14, 21, and 28 DATP. Protox-resistant and -susceptible common waterhemp were equally competitive 28 DATP. Relative crowding coefficient values 28 DATP were 0.86, 0.89, 1.09, and 1.13 for photosynthesis, leaf area, plant height, and plant biomass, respectively. This suggests protox-resistant and -susceptible common waterhemp were equally competitive and the frequency of protox-resistant biotype is unlikely to decrease in the absence of protox–herbicide selection pressure.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis SauerAcetolactate-resistance synthaseherbicide resistancephotosynthesisprotox-inhibitor herbicidestriazine resistance

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 169 - 174
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, D. D., Higley, L. G., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1996. Competition between triazine-resistant and susceptible waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battles, B., Hartzler, B., and Buhler, D. 1998. Effect of common waterhemp emergence date in soybean on growth and competitiveness. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:145–146.Google Scholar
Beale, S. I. and Weinstein, J. D. 1990. Tetrapyrrole metabolism in photosynthetic organisms. Pages 287–391. in Daily, H. A. Biosynthesis of Heme and Chlorophylls. New York McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Becerril, J. M. and Duke, S. O. 1989. Protoporphyrin IX correlates with activity of photobleaching herbicides. Plant Physiol. 90:1175–1181.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beversdorf, W. D., Hume, D. J., and Donnelly-Vanderloo, M. J. 1988. Agronomic performance of triazine-resistant and susceptible reciprocal spring canola hybrids. Crop Sci. 28:932–934.Google Scholar
Conard, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotype susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171–177.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., Burton, M. G., York, A. C., and Brownie, C. 2005. Vegetative growth and competitiveness of common cocklebur resistant and susceptible to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Cotton Sci. 9:229–237.Google Scholar
Darmency, H. and Pernès, J. 1989. Agronomic performance of triazine resistant foxtail millet (Setaria italic (L.) Beauv.). Weed Res. 29:147–150.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. 1999. Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:539–563.Google Scholar
Falk, J. S., Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2005. Survey of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to protox and ALS-inhibiting herbicides in northeast Kansas. Weed Technol. 19:838–846.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 17:214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. A. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. 50:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Online. Internet. http://weedscience.com. Accessed: March 21, 2007.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1990. Fitness and ecological adaptability of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Am. Chem. Soc. 421:419–429.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. M. and Jacobs, N. J. 1993. Porphyrin accumulation and export by isolated barley (Hordeum vulgare) plastids. Plant Physiol. 101:1181–1187.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. 2001. Gene flow, growth, and competitiveness of imazethapyr-resistant common sunflower. Weed Sci. 49:14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Al-Khatib, K., Amand, P. St, and Miller, J. F. 2005. Relative fitness of imazamox-resistant common sunflower and prairie sunflower. Weed Sci. 53:166–174.Google Scholar
Mayo, M. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postmergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, W. B. and Holt, J. S. 1990. Triazine resistance in Senecio vulgaris parental and nearly isonuclear backcossed biotypes is correlated with reduced productivity. Plant Physiol. 92:954–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novak, M. G., Higley, L. G., Christiansses, C. A., and Rowling, W. A. 1993. Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. triseriatus (Diptera: Culcidae) through replacement series experiments. Environ. Entomol. 22:311–318.Google Scholar
Park, K. W., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Ball, D. A., and Mueller-Warrant, G. W. 2004. Ecological fitness of acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant and -susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) biotypes. Weed Sci. 52:768–773.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Hager, A. G., McCormick, J. S., and Tranel, P. J. 2006. A codon deletion confers resistance to herbicides inhibiting protoporphyrinogen oxidase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 103:12329–12334.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Hager, A. G., and Tranel, P. J. 2003. Molecular characterization of the gene encoding protoporphyrinogen oxidase from waterhemp. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:30.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York J Wiley & Sons. 93–95.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Peterson, D. E., Ohlenbusch, P. D., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2007. Chemical Weed Control for Field Crops, Pasture, Rangeland, and Noncropland. Report of Progress 977. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS. 22–23.Google Scholar
Shoup, D. E. and Al-Khatib, K. 2004. Protox inhibitor-resistant common waterhemp control. Weed Technol. 18:332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, E. E., K Al-Khatib, , and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 51:145–150.Google Scholar
Sibony, M. and Rubin, B. 2003. The ecological fitness of ALS-resistant Amaranthus retroflexus and multiple resistant Amaranthus blitoides . Weed Res. 43:40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in corn. Weed Sci. 52:359–364.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy of four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. 2003. Herbicide resistance work in the United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:764–769.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. 1991. Herbicide resistance in weedy plants: physiology and population biology. Ann. Rev. Eco. System. 22:95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar