Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:28:49.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple herbicide–resistant canola can be controlled by alternative herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hugh J. Beckie ,
Ginette Séguin-Swartz ,
Harikumar Nair ,
Suzanne I. Warwick  and
Eric Johnson
Ginette Séguin-Swartz
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Harikumar Nair
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Suzanne I. Warwick
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Eastern Cereal and Oilseeds Research Centre, K. W. Neatby Building, C. E. F., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0C6
Eric Johnson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott Research Farm, P.O. Box 10, Scott, SK, Canada S0K 4A0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unintentional herbicide resistance gene stacking in canola may alter the sensitivity of volunteers to herbicides of alternative modes of action commonly used for their control. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to investigate the response of three single-herbicide–resistant (HR) cultivars (glyphosate, glufosinate, imidazolinone), one non-HR cultivar, and seven multiple (double or triple)–HR experimental lines to 2,4-D (amine and ester), MCPA ester, and metribuzin applied at the two- to three-leaf stage and of one non-HR and four HR cultivars (glyphosate, glufosinate, imidazolinone, bromoxynil) to 2,4-D amine applied at two growth stages (two- to three-leaf stage and five- to six-leaf stage). All canola cultivars or lines treated at the two- to three-leaf stage responded similarly to increasing doses of each of the three herbicides. At the five- to six-leaf stage, however, the bromoxynil HR cultivar was less sensitive to 2,4-D than the other cultivars. The results of this study suggest that canola with multiple-herbicide–resistance traits does not differ from cultivars that are non-HR or single HR in its sensitivity to herbicides commonly used to control volunteers. All volunteers, whether non-HR, single HR, or multiple HR, should be treated when plants are most sensitive to herbicides (two- to four-leaf stage) to reduce their interference against crops and their perpetuation of gene flow.

Keywords

bromoxynil2,4-DglufosinateglyphosateMCPAmetribuzincanola, Brassica napus L.Gene stackingherbicide resistancepleiotropic effectsvolunteers

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 152 - 157
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

Anonymous. 2003. Guide to Crop Protection 2003: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization; Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Agriculture and Food. 354 p. [Biprovincial Publication].Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Hall, L. M., and Warwick, S. I. 2001. Impact of herbicide-resistant crops as weeds in Canada. Pages 135–142 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Warwick, S. I., Nair, H., and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2003. Gene flow in commercial fields of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus). J. Ecol. Appl. In press.Google Scholar
[CCC] Canola Council of Canada. 2000. Final Report on Integrated Pest Management Practices in Canola. Winnipeg, MB: Canola Council of Canada. 124 p.Google Scholar
[CSGA] Canadian Seed Growers' Association. 2002. Regulations and Procedures for Pedigreed Seed Crop Inspection. Circular 6-94 (revised). www.seedgrowers.ca.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. and Buth, J. L. 2001. Advantages of genetically modified canola: A Canadian perspective. Pages 367–372 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Downey, R. K. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Isolation Effectiveness in Canola Pedigree Seed Production. Final Report to Canadian Seed Growers' Association. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 14 p.Google Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in Western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 43:83.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 421–422.Google Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Shirtliffe, S. J., and Thomas, A. G. 2002. Evidence of cyclical dormancy behaviour in spring B. napus . Pages 41–44 in Bernier, D., Campbell, R. A., and Cloutier, D. eds. Proceedings of the 2001 National Meeting of the Expert Committee on Weeds/Comité d'experts en malherbologie, Quebec City, QC, Canada. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Canada: ECW-CEM.Google Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Shirtliffe, S. J., and Thomas, A. G. 2003. Harvest losses of canola (Brassica napus) cause large seedbank inputs. Weed Sci 51:83–86.Google Scholar
Hall, L., Topinka, K., Huffman, J., Davis, L., and Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 48:688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1977. Theory of Econometrics. 2nd ed. London, Great Britain: MacMillan Education. Pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R 2 . Am. Stat 39:279–285.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Simard, M-J., Thomas, A. G., Pageau, D., Lajeunesse, J., Warwick, S. I., and Derksen, D. A. 2001. Presence and persistence of volunteer canola in Canadian cropping systems. Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 143–148.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W. and López-Granados, F. 1998. The persistence of seeds of oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Asp. Appl. Biol 51:147–152.Google Scholar
Pekrun, C., Hewitt, J. D. J., and Lutman, P. J. W. 1998. Cultural control of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus). J. Agric. Sci 130:155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol 11:384–393.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1243 p.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
Senior, I. J., Moyes, C., and Dale, P. J. 2002. Herbicide sensitivity of transgenic multiple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape. Pest Manage. Sci 58:405–412.Google Scholar
Simard, M-J. and Légère, A. 2003. Control of volunteer canola with auxinic herbicides. Does cold hardening or plant size matter?. Page 166 in Beckie, H., Harker, N., Johnson, E., Lawton, M., Mulenga, A., Wolf, T., and Cloutier, D. eds. Proceedings of the 2002 National Meeting of Can. Weed Sci. Soc. Saskatoon, Canada: Can. Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar
Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Pageau, D., Lajeunnesse, J., and Warwick, S. 2002. The frequency and persistence of volunteer canola (Brassica napus) in Québec cropping systems. Weed Technol 16:433–439.Google Scholar
Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Séguin-Swartz, G., Nair, H., and Warwick, S. 2003. Fitness of double (imidazolinone + glufosinate) vs single herbicide resistant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 43:75–76.Google Scholar
StatsCanada. 2001. November Estimate of Production of Principal Field Crops, Canada, 2001. Field Crop Reporting Series 80:8, Catalogue No. 22-002-XPB. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada. 22 p.Google Scholar
Steel, G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 471–472.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. 2001. You Can Control Multiple-Resistant Canola Volunteers. Canola Guide, April 2001. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Farm Business Communications. www.agcanada.com.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Beckie, H. J., and Small, E. 1999. Transgenic crops: new weed problems for Canada? Phytoprotection 80:71–84.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Braun, L., Zhu, B., Mason, P., Séguin-Swartz, G., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: B. rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theor. Appl. Genet. 107:528–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar