Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T22:08:59.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) to mungbean interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2019

Navneet Kaur Mutti ,
Gulshan Mahajan ,
Prashant Jha  and
Bhagirath S. Chauhan Open the ORCID record for Bhagirath S. Chauhan [Opens in a new window]
Navneet Kaur Mutti
Affiliation:
Master’s Student, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
Gulshan Mahajan
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Fellow, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
Prashant Jha
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Southern Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Huntley, MT, USA
Bhagirath S. Chauhan*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Bhagirath S. Chauhan, Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] is a problematic weed in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] crops in Australia. Due to limited herbicide options in mungbean, there is an increased interest in developing integrated management strategies for the sustainable control of E. colona. Pot experiments were conducted in a screenhouse in 2017 and 2018 by growing E. colona plants (glyphosate-resistant [GR] and glyphosate-susceptible [GS] biotypes) alone (1 plant pot−1) and in competition with 4 and 8 mungbean plants pot−1. Both biotypes were developed from a single population using the clone method. The growth and seed production of both GR and GS biotypes were similar in response to mungbean competition. Averaged over biotypes, there was a reduction in the growth and seed production of E. colona as crop plants increased. Compared with the weed plants grown alone, crop interference reduced E. colona height by 17% to 19%, tiller numbers by 69% to 82%, total shoot biomass by 85% to 91%, and inflorescence numbers by 74% to 91%. When E. colona was grown with 8 mungbean plants pot−1, leaf weight ratio increased by 42% compared with plants grown alone. Compared with weed plants grown alone, mungbean interference (4 and 8 plants pot−1) reduced weed seed production by 85% to 95%. These reductions were similar for both biotypes (GR and GS), suggesting that there was no fitness penalty associated with resistance. The results of this study suggest that mungbean interference can reduce E. colona growth and seed production, but it should not be considered as a stand-alone strategy to manage E. colona and similar species in mungbean. These results also highlight the need for integrating crop competition with other management strategies to achieve complete and sustainable management of this weed.

Keywords

Competitionscreenhouseseed productionweed growth
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 419 - 425
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Vijay Nandula, USDA-ARS

References

Arce, GD, Pedersen, P, Hartzler, RG (2009) Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management. Weed Technol 23:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awan, TH, Chauhan, BS, Sta Cruz, PC (2014) Growth plasticity of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) for resource use when grown with different rice (Oryza sativa) planting densities and nitrogen rates in dry-seeded conditions. Weed Sci 62:571–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajwa, AA, Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS (2015) Nonconventional weed management strategies for modern agriculture. Weed Sci 63:723–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baucom, RS, Mauricio, R (2004) Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13386–13390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2011) Herbicide-resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 67:1037–1048Google ScholarPubMed
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, Ditommaso, A (2005) Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci 53:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Robert, GH, Forcella, F (1997) Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caton, B, Foin, T, Hill, J (1997) Phenotypic plasticity of Ammannia spp. in competition with rice. Weed Res 37:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS (2013) Shade reduces growth and seed production of Echinochloa colona, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Echinochloa glabrescens. Crop Prot 43:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Abugho, SB (2013) Effect of crop residue on seedling emergence and growth of selected weed species in a sprinkler-irrigated zero-till dry-seeded rice system. Weed Sci 61:403–409CrossRefGoogle 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 95:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2009) Seed germination ecology of junglerice (Echinochloa colona): a major weed of rice. Weed Sci 57:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2010a) Responses of rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to rice interference. Weed Sci 58:204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2010b) The role of seed ecology in improving weed management strategies in the tropics. Adv Agron 105: 221–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Singh, VP, Kumar, A, Johnson, DE (2011) Relations of rice seeding rates to crop and weed growth in aerobic rice. Field Crops Res 121:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R, Mortimer, M (1995) Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 332 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC (2001) Shading and the growth and photosynthetic responses of Ammannia coccinnea. Weed Res 41:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC (2004) Compensatory responses of late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) and rice to resource limitations. Weed Sci 52:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: July 6, 2017Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Holm, L, Holm, E, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1997) World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: Wiley. 1129 pGoogle Scholar
Iliya, AB, Micheal, DKO, Harlene, MH-V (1995) Effect of shade on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol 9:452–455Google Scholar
Kirchoff, BK, Claßen-Bockhoff, R (2013) Inflorescences: concepts, function, development and evolution. Ann Bot 112:1471–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krall, J, Esechie, H, Raney, R, Clark, S, Teneyck, G, Lundquist, M, Humburg, N, Axthelm, L, Dayton, A, Vanderlip, RL (1977) Influence of within-row variability in plant spacing on corn grain yield 1. Agron J 69:797–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D, Cousens, R, Gill, G, Peltzer, S, Moerkerk, M, Murphy, C, Collins, D, Cullis, BR (2004) Reliability of higher seeding rates of wheat for increased competitiveness with weeds in low rainfall environments. J Agric Sci 142:395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, JL, Maxwell, BD, Buhler, DD, Gunsolus, JL (1995) Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Ronning, D, Clarke, M, Mayfield, A, Walker, S, Ouzman, J (2016) Impact of Weeds in Australian Grain Production: The Cost of Weeds to Australian Grain Growers and the Adoption of Weed Management and Tillage Practices. Report for GRDC. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. 112 pGoogle Scholar
McGillion, T, Storrie, A, eds (2006) Integrated Weed Management in Australian Cropping Systems: A Training Resource for Farm Advisors. Adelaide: Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management. 248 pGoogle Scholar
Michael, P (1983) Taxonomy and distribution of Echinochloa species with special reference to their occurrence as weeds of rice. Pages 291–306 in Proceedings of the Conference on Weed Control in Rice. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF (2003) Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyardgrass) seed rain under irrigated conditions. Asp Appl Biol 69:163–170Google Scholar
Patterson, DT (1979) The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata). Weed Sci 27:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, BP, Neve, P, Andreasen, C, Powles, SB (2007) Ecological fitness of a glyphosate-resistant Lolium rigidum population: growth and seed production along a competition gradient. Basic Appl Ecol 8:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, C (2010) Managing glyphosate resistant weeds in Australia. Pages 250–253 in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Australasian Weeds Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Plant Protection SocietyGoogle 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 183:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangoi, L (2001) Understanding plant density effects on maize growth and development: an important issue to maximize grain yield. Ciência Rural 31:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senseman, SA, Oliver, LR (1993) Flowering patterns, seed production, and somatic polymorphism of three weed species. Weed Sci 41:418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M, Dibo, A, Aguilara, A, Weise, S, Swanton, C (1994) Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron J 86:591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vila-Aiub, M, Neve, P, Powles, S (2009) Fitness costs associated with evolved herbicide resistance alleles in plants. New Phytol 184:751–767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vila-Aiub, MM, Gundel, PE, Preston, C (2015) Experimental methods for estimation of plant fitness costs associated with herbicide-resistance genes. Weed Sci 63:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S, Medd, R, Robinson, G, Cullis, B (2002) Improved management of Avena ludoviciana and Phalaris paradoxa with more densely sown wheat and less herbicide. Weed Res 42:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Maguire, N, Powles, S (2009) Combined effects of wheat competition and 2, 4-D amine on phenoxy herbicide resistant Raphanus raphanistrum populations. Weed Res 49:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar