Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T14:23:33.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth analysis of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Pedro J. Christoffoleti ,
Philip Westra  and
Frank Moore III
Pedro J. Christoffoleti*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Universidade de São Paulo—Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz,” Piracicaba, SP—13418-900—Brazil
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Frank Moore III
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
*
pjchrist@carpa.ciagri.usp.br.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two greenhouse experiments were conducted to compare the growth of individual sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia under noncompetitive conditions. Aboveground leaf and stem dry weight, and leaf area per plant were measured weekly 14 times, starting 14 d after planting. Data were fitted using the Richards function for shoot dry weight per plant, a polynomial exponential for leaf area per plant and splined function to calculate leaf area ratio, leaf weight ratio, and leaf/stem ratio. Absolute and relative growth rates, and net assimilation rate were derived from these functions. Growth and development of individual sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia plants under noncompetitive conditions was the same. Final shoot dry weight and leaf area were unaffected by aceto lactate synthase enzyme differences in the kochia biotypes. However, more resources were partitioned to leaves than stems in resistant than in susceptible kochia. If competitive abilities of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible kochia are different, it is not the consequence of differential growth and ontogeny of the two types of plants.

Keywords

KochiaKochia scoparia (L.) SchradKCHSCRichards functionabsolute growth raterelative growth rateleaf area ratioherbicide resistance
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , October 1997 , pp. 691 - 695
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate, and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amarantbus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31: 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arp, A. L. 1969. Yield and quality of sugarbeets as influenced by weed competition in relation to crop sequence, nitrogen fertilizer, and weed control treatments. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 107 p.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38: 511–517.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1990. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) and kochia (Kochia scoparia) control in dry land corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4: 631–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causton, D. R., Elias, C. O., and Hadley, P. 1978. Biometrical studies of plant growth. I. The Richards function, and its application in analyzing the effects of temperature on leaf growth. Plant Cell Environ. 1: 163–184.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A., Doley, D., and Rimmington, G. M. 1986. Modeling Plant Growth and Development. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
Conard, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Prato, T. 1991. Profitable, effective herbicides for planting-time weed control in non-till spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39: 83–90.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Competitive ability of wild oats (Avena fatua) and barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Sci. 39: 558–563.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Dexter, A. G., and Miller, S. D. 1990. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) interference in sunflower (Helianthus annus). Weed Technol. 4: 52–56.Google Scholar
Garret, G. A., McSay, A. E., and Moore, F. D. III. 1989. RF, A Computer Program to Fit a Generalization of the Logistic Function Using D. R. Causton and J. C. Venus Methods. Colorado Agriculrural Experiment Station Technical Bull. pp. 89–94.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 1986. Modes and genetics of herbicide resistance in plants. in National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Strategies for the Management of Pesticide Resistant Pest Population—Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, pp. 54–73.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants involving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75: 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: outlook for the future. in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley. 215–245.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Herbicide rotations and mixtures: Effective strategies to delay resistance. in Green, M. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 421. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 430–458.Google Scholar
Hawkes, T. R. 1989. Studies of herbicides that inhibit branched chain aminoacid biosynthesis. in Copping, L. G., Dalziel, J., and Dodge, A. D., eds. Prospects for Amino Acid Biosynthesis Inhibitors in Crop Protection and Pharmaceutical Chemistry. BCPC Monography No. 42. Great Britain: Society of Chemical Industry. 131–138.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 31: 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves—The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. London: E. Arnold. 248 pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Krall, J. M., Delaney, R. H., and Pochop, L. O. 1989. Response of monocot and dicot weed species to Fresnel lens concentrated solar radiation. Weed Sci. 37: 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. 1992. Weed thresholds: the space component and consideration for herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 6: 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4: 1–13.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Adamczewski, K. A. 1988. Thiameturon phytotoxicity of kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 36: 296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Palczynski, J., and Manthey, F. A. 1990. Imazethapyr efficacy with adjuvants and environments. Weed Technol. 4: 765–770.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Wosnica, Z. 1985. Environment and chlorsulfuron phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 33: 395–399.Google Scholar
Parsons, I. T. and Hunt, R. 1981. Plant growth analysis: a program for the fitting of lengthy series of data by the method of B-splines. Ann. Bot. 48: 341–352.Google Scholar
Primiani, M. M., Cotterman, J. C., and Saari, L. L. 1990. Resistance of kochia (Kochia scoparia) to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 169–172.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interaction among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190–198.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron inhibition of valine isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75: 827–831.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. J. Bot. 10: 290–300.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Primiani, M. M. 1990. Mechanism of sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in the broadleaf weed Kochia scoparia . Plant Physiol. 93: 55–61.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1995. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6.06. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, pp. 150–165.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1973. Predicting of sugarbeet losses based on kochia densities. Weed Sci. 21: 565–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Westra, P. 1991. Potential for weeds to develop resistance to sugarbeet herbicides in North America. J. Sugarbeet Res. 28: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, A. E. and Holt, S. 1988. Comparison of triazine-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of Senecio vulgaris and their F1 hybrids. Plant Phys. 87: 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C. R. and Thill, D. C. 1992. Sulfonylurea herbicide-resistant and -susceptible kochia (Kochia scoparia L. Shard.) growth rate and seed production. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. No. 44.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. 1981. The relative competitiveness of atrazine-susceptible and -resistant populations of Chenopodium album and C. strictum . Can. J. Bot. 59: 689–693.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17: 464–467.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Control of kochia in sugarbeets with benzadox. Weed Sci. 18: 183–185.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeet and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19: 125–128.Google Scholar
Williams, R. F. 1946. The physiology of plant growth with special reference to the concept of net assimilation rate. Ann. Bot. 10: 41–72.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Anderson, F. N. 1981. Control of three weed species in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with an electrical discharge system. Weed Sci. 29: 93–98.Google Scholar