Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:12:55.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, Phenology, and Intraspecific Competition between Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Horseweeds (Conyza canadensis) in the San Joaquin Valley of California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anil Shrestha ,
Bradley D. Hanson ,
Matthew W. Fidelibus  and
Marisa Alcorta
Anil Shrestha*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, California State University, 2415 East San Ramon Avenue, MS A/S 72, Fresno, CA 93740
Bradley D. Hanson
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 9611 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
Matthew W. Fidelibus
Affiliation:
Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
Marisa Alcorta
Affiliation:
Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ashrestha@csufresno.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in 2006 to 2008 to study growth, phenology, and competitive ability of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and -susceptible (GS) biotypes of horseweeds from San Joaquin Valley (SJV), CA. When grown alone, in pots, the GR horseweeds consistently developed more rapidly than the GS weeds, as evidenced by their earlier bolting, flowering, and seed set; the GR horseweeds set seeds nearly 25 d (approximately 190 fewer growing degree days) sooner than the GS horseweed. At seed set, the relatively slow-developing GS horseweeds had amassed 40% more shoot dry matter than the GR weeds at the same phenological stage, but neither biotype was consistently more fecund than the other. Although the GR biotype had lower shoot dry mass than the GS biotype when grown alone, in mixed populations under increasing levels of competition (in a replacement series design) and limited resources (mainly moisture), the GR weeds were not only taller, but also accumulated more dry matter than the GS weeds. Thus, the GR biotype was more competitive than the GS biotype, particularly when grown at high densities and under moisture-deficit stress. Therefore, under California conditions there is no apparent fitness penalty for this particular GR horseweed biotype, and it is likely to persist in the environment and outcompete the GS biotypes regardless of further glyphosate selection pressure. If so, this biotype of GR horseweed is likely to become increasingly common in the SJV until effective management strategies are developed and adopted.

Keywords

Horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAIntraspecies competitionglyphosate resistancephenologyreplacement series
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 147 - 153
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

Anderson, D. D., Higley, L. G., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1996. Competition between triazine-resistant and -susceptible common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:853–859.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. and Mayer, D. G. 1988. Representing cumulative germination. The use of the Weibull function and other empirically derived curves. Ann. Bot. 61:127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CADPR] California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2009. Pesticide Use Reporting Database. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Kruger, G. R., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2009. Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations resistant to glyphosate, ALS-inhibiting, and multiple (glyphosate + ALS-inhibiting) herbicides. Weed Sci. 57:494–504.Google Scholar
Flint, S. G., Shaw, D. R., Kelley, F. S., and Holloway, J. C. 2005. Effect of herbicide systems on weed shifts in soybean and cotton. 2005. Weed Technol. 19:266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, G. S., Cousens, R. D., and Allan, M. R. 1996. Germination, growth, and development of herbicide resistant and susceptible populations of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 44:252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grantz, D. A., Shrestha, A., and Vu, H. 2008. Early vigor and ozone response in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) biotypes differing in glyphosate response. Weed Sci. 56:224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:347–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–97. In Lebaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hanson, B. D., Shrestha, A., and Shaner, D. 2009. Distribution of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and relationship to cropping systems in the Central Valley of California. Weed Sci. 57:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2009. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.com. Accessed: August 6, 2009.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Thill, D. C. 1994. Growth and productivity of resistant plants. Pages 299–316. In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J. A. M. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A. 2000. The replacement series. J. Ecol. 88:371–385.Google Scholar
Mahn, E. G. 1984. Structural changes of weed communities and populations. Vegetatio. 58:79–85.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. 2008. Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:377–387.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46:604–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol. 20:282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York John Wiley & Sons. 589.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2004. Weed control and species shift in bromoxynil- and glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:131–139.Google Scholar
Shields, E. J., Dauer, J. T., VanGessel, M. J., and Neumann, G. 2006. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed collected in the planetary boundary layer. Weed Sci. 54:1063–1067.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Hembree, K. J., and Va, N. 2007. Growth stage influences level of resistance in glyphosate-resistant horseweed. Calif. Agric. 61 (2):67–70.CrossRefGoogle 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
Steinmaus, S. J., Prather, T. S., and Holt, J. S. 2000. Estimation of base temperatures for nine weed species. J. Exp. Bot. 51:275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thebaud, C., Finzi, A. C., Affre, L., Debussche, M., and Escarre, J. 1996. Assessing why two introduced Conyza differ in their ability to invade Mediterranean oil fields. Ecology. 77:791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westhoven, A. M., Kruger, G. R., Gerber, C. K., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2008. Characterization of selected common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotypes with tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 56:685–691.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Wilson, R. G., Miller, S. D., Stahlman, P. W., Wicks, G. W., Chapman, P. L., Withrow, J., Legg, D., Alford, C., and Gaines, T. A. 2008. Weed population dynamics after six years under glyphosate- and conventional herbicide-based weed control strategies. Crop Sci. 48:1170–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar