Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:37:09.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) to mungbean density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2019

Ahmadreza Mobli ,
Amar Matloob  and
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan Open the ORCID record for Bhagirath Singh Chauhan [Opens in a new window]
Ahmadreza Mobli
Affiliation:
Graduate Ph.D Student, Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran Associate Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
Amar Matloob
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, Muhammad Nawaz ShareefUniversity of Agriculture, Multan, Pakistan
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Bhagirath S. Chauhan, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia. Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus L.) is a major weed of mungbean crops in Australia. Resistance in this weed to several herbicide groups is a challenging issue for its management. Hence, cultural weed management strategies, such as increasing the crop competitive ability through increased stand density, should be considered to reduce reliance on herbicides. It was hypothesized that a competitive crop stand may reduce the growth and seed production of S. oleraceus. Two pot studies were conducted, and each study was repeated once. The first study evaluated the effect of different mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] densities (0, 82, 164, 246, and 328 plants m−2) on S. oleraceus growth and seed production, while the second study focused on glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of this weed in competition with densities of 0, 82, and 164 mungbean plants m−2. Although increasing mungbean density from 0 to 82 and 164 plants m−2 reduced S. oleraceus seed production by 55% and 78%, respectively, a large number of seeds were produced, even at the mungbean density of 328 plants m−2 (1,185 seeds plant−1). Both glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of S. oleraceus responded similarly to the increase in mungbean density. The results of the second study showed that height, leaves, number of inflorescence, and seed production per plant of both glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes were reduced but not suppressed adequately. The glyphosate-resistant biotype produced fewer leaves and less biomass and, consequently, its seed production was 24% less compared with the glyphosate-susceptible biotype in the no-competition treatment. Both biotypes of S. oleraceus produced about 4,000 seeds plant−1 in competition with 164 mungbean plants m−2. The results suggest that crop competition alone cannot provide satisfactory control of S. oleraceus; therefore, for effective and adequate weed management, other practices such as PRE herbicides should be integrated with increased crop density.

Keywords

Vijay Nandula, USDA–ARSBiomass reductioncrop competitive abilitygrain legumesweed growthweed seed production
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 642 - 648
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Acciaresi, HA, Chidichimo, HO (2007) Spatial pattern effect on corn (Zea mays) weeds competition in the humid Pampas of Argentina. Int J Pest Manage 53:195–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, SW, Wills, D, Boersma, M, Walker, SR, Robinson, G, McLeod, RJ, Einam, JP (1997) Weeds resistant to chlorsulfuron and atrazine from the north‐east grain region of Australia. Weed Res 37:343–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Mungbeans. Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia: AgriFutures Australia, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC). https://www.agrifutures.com.au/farm-diversity/mungbeans. Accessed: June 16, 2019Google Scholar
Bajwa, AA, Chauhan, BS, Adkins, SW (2018) Germination ecology of two Australian biotypes of ragweed parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) relates to their invasiveness. Weed Sci 66:62–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balick, M, Nee, M, Atha, D (2000) Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Belize with Common Names and Uses. Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden Press. 208 pGoogle Scholar
Boutsalis, P, Powles, SB (1995) Inheritance and mechanism of resistance to herbicides inhibiting acetolactate synthase in Sonchus oleraceus L. Theor Appl Genet 91:242–247 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brabham, CB, Gerber, CK, Johnson, WG (2011) Fate of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in the presence and absence of glyphosate. Weed Sci 59:506–511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Abugho, SB (2012) Phenotypic plasticity of spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) and longfruited primrose-willow (Ludwigia octovalvis) in response to rice interference. Weed Sci 60:411–415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Florentine, SK, Ferguson, JC, Chechetto, RG (2017) Implications of narrow crop row spacing in managing weeds in mungbean (Vigna radiata). Crop Prot 95:116–119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Gill, G, Preston, C (2006) Factors affecting seed germination of annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) in southern Australia. Weed Sci 54:854–860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Opeña, J (2012) Growth of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in response to interference with direct-seeded rice. Weed Technol 26:506–509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, RG, Johnson, WC, Wood, FO (1967) Weed Root Profiles1. Agron J 59:555–556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhlbohm, MJ, Ryley, MJ, Aitken, EAB (2012) New weed hosts of Macrophomina phaseolina in Australia. Australasian Plant Dis Notes 7:193–195 Google Scholar
Germishuizen, G, Meyer, N (2003) Plants of Southern Africa: An Annotated Checklist. Pretoria: National Botanical Institute. 1238 pGoogle Scholar
Gioria, M, Pyšek, P (2017) Early bird catches the worm: germination as a critical step in plant invasion. Biol Invasions 19:1055–1080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glettner, CE, Stoltenberg, DE (2015) Noncompetitive growth and fecundity of Wisconsin giant ragweed resistant to glyphosate. Weed Sci 63:273–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomaa, NH, Hassan, MO, Fahmy, GM, González, L, Hammouda, O, Atteya, AM (2014) Allelopathic effects of Sonchus oleraceus L. on the germination and seedling growth of crop and weed species. Acta Bot Brasilica 28:408–416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[GRDC] Grains Research and Development Corporation (2017) Sowthistle Biology—Management & Resistance Status. Kingston, ACT, Australia: Grains Research and Development Corporation. http://grdc.com.au. Accessed: June 16, 2019Google Scholar
Gu, H, Walter, GH (1999) Is the common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) a primary host plant of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lep., Noctuidae)? Oviposition and larval performance. J Appl Ecol 123:99–105 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://weedscience.org. Accessed: March 11, 2019Google Scholar
Ismail, B, Chuah, T, Salmijah, S, Teng, Y, Schumacher, R (2002) Germination and seedling emergence of glyphosate-resistant and susceptible biotypes of goosegrass (Eleusine indica [L.] Gaertn.). Weed Biol Manag 2:177–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John-Sweeting, S, Preston, C, Baker, J, Walker, S, Widderick, M (2008) Gene movement in herbicide resistant sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus L.). Pages 113–115 in van Klinken, RD, Osten, VA, Panetta, FD, Scanlan, JC, eds. Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference: Weed Management 2008 Hot Topics in the Tropics. Brisbane: Queensland Weeds Society Google Scholar
Kaspary, TE, Lamego, FP, Cutti, L, Aguiar, ACDM, Rigon, CAG, Basso, CJ (2017) Growth, phenology, and seed viability between glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible hairy fleabane. Bragantia 76:92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khaliq, A, Matloob, A, Chauhan, BS (2014) Weed management in dry-seeded fine rice under varying row spacing in the rice-wheat system of Punjab, Pakistan. Plant Prod Sci 17:321–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER (2013) Modelling population dynamics of Sinapis arvensis in organically grown spring wheat production systems. Weed Res 53:201–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Ronning, D, Clarke, M, Mayfield, A, Walker, S, Ouzman, J (2016) Impact of weeds in Australian grain production. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Grains Research and Development Corporation. 112 pGoogle Scholar
Manalil, S, Ali, HH, Chauhan, BS (2018) Germination ecology of Sonchus oleraceus L. in the northern region of Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 69:926–932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manalil, S, Werth, J, Jackson, R, Chauhan, BS, Preston, C (2017) An assessment of weed flora 14 years after the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant cotton in Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 68:773–780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashingaidze, AB, Van Der Werf, W, Lotz, LAP, Chipomho, J, Kropff, MJ (2009) Narrow rows reduce biomass and seed production of weeds and increase maize yield. Ann Appl Biol 155:207–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutti, NK, Mahajan, G, Jha, P, Chauhan, BS (2019) The response of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) to mungbean interference. Weed Sci 67:419–425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachaputi, RC, Chauhan, Y, Douglas, C, Martin, W, Krosch, S, Agius, P, King, K (2015) Physiological basis of yield variation in response to row spacing and plant density of mungbean grown in subtropical environments. Field Crops Res 183:14–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A, Yang, P, Sosnoskie, L, Hanson, BD (2018) Differential tolerance of glyphosate-susceptible and glyphosate-resistant biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) to environments during germination, growth, and intraspecific competition. Weed Sci 66:340–346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, G, Sekhon, HS, Singh, G, Brar, JS, Bains, TS, Shanmugasundaram, S (2011) Effect of plant density on the growth and yield of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] genotypes under different environments in India and Taiwan. Int J Agric Res 6:573–583 Google Scholar
Song, JS, Kim, JW, Im, JH, Lee, KJ, Lee, BW, Kim, DS (2017) The effects of single- and multiple-weed interference on soybean yield in the far-eastern region of Russia. Weed Sci 65:371–380 Google Scholar
Weber, E (2017) Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. Wallingford, UK: CABI. 581 pGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J, Griepentrog, HW, Kristensen, L (2001) Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J Appl Ecol 38:784–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, J, Thornby, D, Walker, S (2012) Assessing weeds at risk of evolving glyphosate resistance in Australian sub-tropical glyphosate-resistant cotton systems. Crop Pasture Sci 62:1002–1009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widderick, MJ, Walker, SR, Sindel, BM, Bell, KL (2010) Germination, emergence, and persistence of Sonchus oleraceus, a major crop weed in subtropical Australia. Weed Biol Manag 10:102–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2007) Fundamentals of Weed Science. 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier. Pp 151–156 Google Scholar