Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

A Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Population Resistant to 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017


Mark L. Bernards
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583
Roberto J. Crespo
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, North Platte, NE 69101
Roch Gaussoin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583
Patrick J. Tranel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

A waterhemp population from a native-grass seed production field in Nebraska was no longer effectively controlled by 2,4-D. Seed was collected from the site, and dose-response studies were conducted to determine if this population was herbicide resistant. In the greenhouse, plants from the putative resistant and a susceptible waterhemp population were treated with 0, 18, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, 1,120, or 2,240 g ae ha−1 2,4-D. Visual injury estimates (I) were made 28 d after treatment (DAT), and plants were harvested and dry weights (GR) measured. The putative resistant population was approximately 10-fold more resistant to 2,4-D (R:S ratio) than the susceptible population based on both I50 (50% visual injury) and GR50 (50% reduction in dry weight) values. The R:S ratio increased to 19 and 111 as the data were extrapolated to I90 and GR90 estimates, respectively. GR50 doses of 995 g ha−1 for the resistant and 109 g ha−1 for the susceptible populations were estimated. A field dose-response study was conducted at the suspected resistant site with 2,4-D doses of 0, 140, 280, 560, 1,120, 2,240, 4,480, 8,960, 17,920, and 35,840 g ha−1. At 28 DAT, visual injury estimates were 44% in plots treated with 35,840 g ha−1. Some plants treated with the highest rate recovered and produced seed. Plants from the resistant and susceptible populations were also treated with 0, 9, 18, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, or 1,120 g ae ha−1 dicamba in greenhouse bioassays. The 2,4-D resistant population was threefold less sensitive to dicamba based on I50 estimates but less than twofold less sensitive based on GR50 estimates. The synthetic auxins are the sixth mechanism-of-action herbicide group to which waterhemp has evolved resistance.


Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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.

References

Behrens, M. R., Mutlu, N., Chakraborty, S., Dumitru, R., Jiang, W. Z., LaVallee, B. J., Herman, P. L., Clemente, T. E., and Weeks, D. P. 2007. Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science. 316:11851188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernards, M. L., Gaussoin, R. E., Klein, R. N., et al. 2011. Guide for Weed Management in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension EC130. 258 p.Google Scholar
Bonner, K. I., Rahman, A., James, T., Nicholson, K., and Wardle, D. 1998. Relative intra-species competitive ability of nodding thistle biotypes with varying resistance to the herbicide 2,4-D. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 41:291297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C., Yenish, J. P., Pittman, D., and Gallagher, R. S. 2009. Resistance of a prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) biotype to 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 23:586591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1996. The history of 2,4-D and its impact on development of the discipline of weed science in the United States. Pages 516 in Burnside, O. C., ed. Biologic and economic assessment of benefits from use of phenoxy herbicides in the United States. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture NAPIAP Rep. 1-PA-96.Google Scholar
Costea, M., Weaver, S. E., and Tardif, F. J. 2005. The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada. 3. Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea & Tardif. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:507522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, D. I. 2008. Sustainable use of glyphosate in North American cropping systems. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:409416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, N. E., Singh, S., Tranel, P. J., Riechers, D. E., Kaundun, S. S., Polge, N. D., Thomas, D. A., and Hager, A. G. 2011. Resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in a population of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) from Illinois, United States. Pest Manag. Sci. 67:258261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed August 15, 2011.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. 1992. Resistance to auxin-type herbicides in wild mustard (Sinapsis arvensis L.) populations in western Canada. Annu. Meet. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. Abstr. 32:164.Google Scholar
James, T. K., Rahman, A., Sanders, P., Cliffe, A., and Popay, A. J. 1995. Response of different nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) populations to herbicides. Proc. New Zealand Plant Protect. Conf. 48:252255.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Streibig, J. C., and Ritz, C. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21:840848. Loux, M. M., D. Doohan, A. F. Dobbels, W. G. Johnson, G.R.W. Nice, T. N. Jordan, and T. T. Bauman. 2011. Weed Control Guide for Ohio and Indiana. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 789. 194 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullan, P. M. and Green, J. M. 2011. Identification of a tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype resistant to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, atrazine, and thifensulfuron in Iowa. Weed Technol. 25:514518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J., Hall, J. C., Johnson, W. G., Kelley, K. B., and Riechers, D. E. 2011. Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Science. 59:445457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spandle, E. 2011. Crop Protection Guide. St. Paul, MN Winfield Solutions. 760 p.Google Scholar
Stachler, J. M., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 2000. Resistance of wild carrot (Daucus carota) to 2,4-D in Michigan. Weed Technol. 14:734739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2007. The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technol. 21:567570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Switzer, C. M. 1957. The existence of 2,4-D-resistant strains of wild carrot. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 11:315318.Google Scholar
Thornsbrough, M., Ruppert, L., Schoettmer, M., Brown, H., Black, K., and Bunting, J. 2010. FS Crop Protection Handbook. Bloomington, IL Growmark. 385 p.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J., Riggins, C. W., Bell, M. S., and Hager, A. G. 2011. Herbicide resistance in Amaranthus tuberculatus: a call for new options. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:58085812.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Trucco, F. 2009. 21st-century weed science: a call for Amaranthus genomics. Pp. 5381 in Stewart, C. N. Jr., ed. Weedy and Invasive Plant Genomics. Ames, IA Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M. J., Powles, S. B., Beard, B. R., Parkin, B. T., and Porter, S. A. 2004. Multiple-herbicide resistance across four modes of action in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci. 52:813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, H., Ismail, Z., and Ho, N-K. 1997. Response of 2,4-D resistant biotype of Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl. to 2,4-D dimethylamine and its distribution in the Muda Plain, Peninsular Malaysia. J. Weed Sci. Technol. 42:240249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, T. R., Shan, G., Walsh, T. A., et al. 2010. Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107:2024020245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 69 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-lltvg Total loading time: 0.618 Render date: 2020-12-03T20:26:03.091Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 19:59:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Population Resistant to 2,4-D
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Population Resistant to 2,4-D
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Population Resistant to 2,4-D
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *