Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-c5xhk Total loading time: 0.247 Render date: 2021-05-16T19:50:06.982Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Evaluation of auxin tolerance in selected tomato germplasm under greenhouse and field conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

Rouzbeh Zangoueinejad
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran, and Visiting Research Scholar, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA
Mohammad Taghi Alebrahim
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Te Ming Tseng
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Tomato is injured by low doses of 2,4-D, dicamba, quinclorac, and glyphosate. New crop varieties resistant to 2,4-D and dicamba are likely to increase use of these herbicides and may increase drift problems. There is a diverse germplasm of tomato available that includes wild relatives known to be tolerant to numerous biotic and abiotic stresses. A greenhouse and field study was conducted to investigate auxin tolerance in three wild tomato accessions (TOM199, TOM198, and TOM300) and compare them with two commercial tomato cultivars (‘Money Maker’ and ‘Better Boy’). Auxin herbicides, which included 2,4-D, dicamba, and quinclorac, were applied at doses of 11, 3, and 39 g ae ha−1, respectively. Visible injury ratings of each accession for each herbicide treatment were recorded at 7, 14, 21, and 28 d after treatment (DAT) on a 0% to 100% scale. Results indicate that all three wild tomato accessions exhibited less than 15% injury compared with 100% injury for two commercial cultivars after application of dicamba. The three wild accessions (TOM199, TOM198, and TOM300) did not show any significant reduction in plant height compared with nontreated plants. At 28 DAT, plant heights of TOM199, TOM198, and TOM300 were 25, 25, and 28 cm when treated with dicamba and 31, 30, and 31 cm nontreated, respectively. Based on these results, the identified lines can serve as a genetic resource for developing herbicide-tolerant tomato, thus minimizing or eliminating the negative impacts of drift from nonlabeled herbicides tested in this project.

Type
Research Article
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.

References

Abeles, EB, Morgan, PW, Saltveit, ME, ed (1992) Ethylene in Plant Biology. 1st ed. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp 181214 Google Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awmack, CS, Leather, SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47:817844 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohnenblust, EW, Vaudo, AD, Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA, Tooker, JF (2016) Effects of the herbicide dicamba on nontarget plants and pollinator visitation. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:144151 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boutin, C, Strandberg, G, Carpenter, D, Mathiassen, SK, Thomas, PJ (2014) Herbicide impact on non-target plant reproduction: what are the toxicological and ecological implications? Environ Pollut 185:295306 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canady, CH, Helsel, DG, Wyllie, TD (1986) Effects of herbicides induced-stress on root colonization of soybeans by Macrophomina phaseolina . Plant Dis 70:863866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoffoleti, PJ1, Alves de Figueiredo, MR, Pereira Peres, LE, Nissen, S, Gaines, T (2015) Auxinic herbicides, mechanisms of action, and weed resistance: a look into recent plant science advances. Scientia Agricola 72:356362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, A (1992) Auxin-type herbicides. Pages 82106 in Cobb, AH, ed. Herbicides and Plant Physiology. London: Chapman and Hall Google Scholar
Colquhoun, JB, Heider, DJ, Rittmeyer, RA (2014) Relationship between visual injury from synthetic auxin and glyphosate herbicides and snap bean and potato yield. Weed Technol 28: 671678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, D, Jackson, MB (1991) Effects of mecoprop (an auxin analogue) on ethylene evolution and epinasty in two biotypes of Stellaria media . Ann Bot 68:167172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, PJ (1995) Introduction. Pages 112 in Davies, PJ, ed. Plant Hormones. Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Google Scholar
Devine, M, Duke, SO, Fedtke, C (1993) Herbicides with auxin activity. Pages 295309 in Fedtke, C, ed. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Bohnenblust, E, Goslee, S, Tooker, JF, Mortensen, DA (2014) Effects of simulated dicamba herbicide drift on the structure and floral resource provisioning of field edge and old field plant communities. Agric Ecosyst Environ 185:7787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagliari, JR, Oliveira, RSD Jr, Constantin, J (2005) Impact of sublethal doses of 2, 4-D, simulating drift, on tomato yield. J Environ Sci Health B 40:201206 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, JL, Habetz, RJ (1989) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 3:459462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K (1996) A role for cyanide, derived from ethylene biosynthesis, in the development of stress symptoms. Physiol Plant 97:772775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K (1998) Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci 46:707716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K (2000) The mode of action of quinclorac: a case study of a new auxin-type herbicide. Pages 181214 in Cobb, AH, Kirkwood, R, ed. Herbicides and Their Mechanisms of Action. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press Google Scholar
Grossmann, K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci 66:113120 Google ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, K, Kwiatkowski, J, Tresch, S (2001) Auxin herbicides induce H2O2 overproduction and tissue damage in cleavers (Galium aparine L.). J Exp Bot 52:18111816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haderlie, LC (1987) Potato response to simulated drift from two new herbicides. Weed Sci 40:144145 Google Scholar
Hemphill, DD, Montgomery, ML (1981) Response of vegetable crops to sublethal application of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 29:632635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, TN, Romanowski, RR (1974) Comparison of dicamba and 2, 4-D injury to field-grown tomatoes. HortScience 9:7475 Google Scholar
Kadir, S, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (2003) Preventing Hormonal-Type Herbicide Damage to Kansas Grapes. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Pp 15 Google Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Doohan, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:256260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, DF, Hoyle, ST, Fisher, LR, Yelverton, FH, Richardson, RJ (2011) Effect of simulated aminocyclopyrachlor drift on flue-cured tobacco. Weed Technol 25:609615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Su, P, Li, Y, Wen, K, Bi, G, Cox, M (2018). Adsorption-desorption and degradation of insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam in agricultural soils. Chemosphere 207:708714 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovelace, ML, Hoagland, RE, Talbert, RE, Scherder, EF (2009) Influence of simulated quinclorac drift on the accumulation and movement of herbicide in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Plants. J Agric Food Chem 57:63496355 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovelace, ML, Talbert, RE, Scherder, EF, Hoagland, RE (2007) Effects of multiple applications of simulated quinclorac drift rates on tomato. Weed Sci 55:169177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittler, R, Vanderauwera, S, Suzuki, N, Miller, GAD, Tognetti, VB, Vandepoele, K, Gollery, M, Shulaev, V, Van Breusegem, F (2011) ROS signaling: the new wave? Trends Plant Sci 16:300309 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Doohan, D (2015) Response of bell pepper and broccoli to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 29:226232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, PW (1976) Effect of ethylene physiology. Pages 256280 in Audus, LJ, ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Ecology. New York: Academic Google Scholar
Nordby, ALF, Skuterud, R (1974) The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res 14:385395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Ruhl, GE, Creswell, TC, Wan, P, Scott, DE, Becovitz, JD, Weisenberger, DV (2013) Potential damage to sensitive landscape plants from wood chips of aminocyclopyrachlor damaged trees. Weed Technol 27:803809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pazmiño, DM, Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Romero-Puertas, MC, ArchillaRuiz, A, Del Río, LA, Sandalio, LM (2011) Differential response of young and adult leaves to herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in pea plants: role of reactive oxygen species. Plant Cell Environ 34:18741889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pazmiño, DM, Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Sanz, M, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sandalio, LM (2014) Regulation of epinasty induced by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in pea and Arabidopsis plants. Plant Biol 16:809818 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pazmiño, DM, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sandalio, LM (2012) Insights into the toxicity mechanism of and cell response to the herbicide 2,4-D in plants. Plant Signal Behav 7:13 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sparkes, I, Hawes, C, del Río, LA, Sandalio, LM (2009) Peroxisome dynamics in Arabidopsis plants under oxidative stress induced by cadmium. Free Radic Biol Med 47:16321639 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romanowski, RR (1980) Simulated drift studies with herbicides on field-grown tomato. HortScience 15:793794 Google Scholar
Romero-Puertas, MC, Palma, JM, Gómez, M, del Río, LA, Sandalio, LM (2002) Cadmium causes the oxidative modification of proteins in pea plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:677686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Puertas, MC, McCarthy, I, Gómez, M, Sandalio, LM, Corpas, FJ, del Río, LA, Palma, JM (2004) Reactive oxygen species-mediated enzymatic systems involved in the oxidative action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Plant Cell Environ 27:11351148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, TH, Cane, JH (2002) The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Evol Ecol 16:4965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandalio, LM, Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Gupta, DK, Archilla, A, RomeroPuertas, MC, del Río, LA (2012) Reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide in plants under cadmium stress. Pages 199215 in Amad, P, Prassad, MNV, eds. Toxicity to Signaling. Environmental Adaptations and Stress Tolerance of Plants in the Era of Climate Change. Berlin: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandalio, LM, Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Romero-Puertas, MC, del Río, LA (2013) Role of peroxisomes as a source of reactive oxygen species (ROS) signaling molecules. Pages 231249 in del Río, LA, ed. Peroxisomes and Their Key Role in Cellular Signaling and Metabolism. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmoll, JT, Harrison, SK, Regnier, EE, Bennett, MA (2000) Hydroponic tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) response to dicamba in the nutrient media 1. Weed Technol 14:562568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, TM, Hall, JC (1997) Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111141 in Roe, RM, Burton, JD, Kuhr, RJ, eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press Google Scholar
Strachan, SD, Ferry, NM, Cooper, TL (2013) Vapor movement of aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, and dicamba in the field. Weed Technol 27:143155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, N, Koussevitzky, S, Mittler, R, Miller, G (2011) ROS and redox signalling in the response of plants to abiotic stress. Plant Cell Environ 35:259270 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, DA (1994) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci 42:110114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, HG, Hall, JC (2001) Understanding auxinic herbicide resistance in wild mustard: physiological, biochemical, and molecular genetic approaches. Weed Sci 49:276281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

Evaluation of auxin tolerance in selected tomato germplasm under greenhouse and field conditions
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.

Evaluation of auxin tolerance in selected tomato germplasm under greenhouse and field conditions
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.

Evaluation of auxin tolerance in selected tomato germplasm under greenhouse and field conditions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *