Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T14:26:13.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance of a Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Biotype to 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke ,
Joseph P. Yenish ,
Dennis Pittmann  and
Robert S. Gallagher
Ian C. Burke*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Johnson Hall 201, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
Joseph P. Yenish
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Johnson Hall 201, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
Dennis Pittmann
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Johnson Hall 201, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164
Robert S. Gallagher
Affiliation:
116 ASI Building, Department of Crop and Soil Science, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: icburke@wsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dose-response experiments were conducted on a biotype of prickly lettuce collected from Whitman County, WA, to determine the level of resistance to 2,4-D. Initially, progeny of prickly lettuce that survived two applications of glyphosate and 2,4-D in mixture were collected to determine if antagonism of the 2,4-D or glyphosate was occurring. Prickly lettuce survival was determined to not be due to antagonism of 2,4-D or glyphosate when the two herbicides were applied in mixture. The doses required to reduce growth 50% (GR50) for resistant and susceptible field-collected prickly lettuce were 150 and 6 g ae/ha 2,4-D, respectively, indicating the resistant biotype was 25 times more resistant to 2,4-D than the susceptible biotype. The resistant biotype expressed injury but produced regrowth following application. A dose of 2,4-D at 220 g/ha was required to reduce regrowth frequency 50% (FR50) for resistant field-collected prickly lettuce. Regrowth was also observed with the susceptible biotype, although the FR50 was much lower (10 g/ha), resulting in an R/S ratio of 22 based on the respective FR50 values. A rate of 4,300 g/ha 2,4-D (10 times the maximum labeled rate in wheat) was required to reduce the regrowth frequency in the resistant biotype to zero.

Keywords

2,4-Dglyphosateprickly lettuce, Lactuca serriola L. LACSEwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Synthetic auxinsherbicide resistancewinter wheat
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 586 - 591
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

Colby, S. R. 1967. Synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weed Sci 15:20–22.Google Scholar
Cranston, H. J., Kern, A. J., Hackett, J. L., Miller, E. K., Maxwell, B. D., and Dyer, W. E. 2001. Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Sci 49:164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Sterling, T. M., Norman, M. A., Prather, T. S., Irzyk, G. P., Wu, Y., Lownds, N. K., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Physiological characterization of picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 56:149–161.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2008. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: December 29, 2008.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. 1992. Resistance to auxin-type herbicides in wild mustard (Sinapsis arvensis L.) populations in western Canada. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abst 32:164.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. E. 1995. Root architecture in cultivated and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.). Plant Cell Environ 18:885–894.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., and Dial, M. J. 1990. Identification of sulfonylura herbicide-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 4:163–168.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA 2008. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsFC/AgriChemUsFC-05-21-2008.txt. Accessed: December 29, 2008.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, P. A. and O’Donovan, J. T. 1980. Interaction between glyphosate and various herbicides for broadleaved weed control. Weed Res 20:255–260.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S., Jensen, J., and Fuerst, P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:213–412.Google Scholar
Van Eerd, L. L., McLean, M. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. 2004. Resistance to quinclorac and ALS-inhibitor herbicides in Galium spurium is conferred by two distinct genes. Weed Res 44:355–365.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Downs, M. P. 2003. The biology of Canadian weeds. 122. Lactuca serriola L. Can. J. Plant Sci 83:619–628.Google Scholar
Weinberg, T., Stephenson, G. R., McLean, M. D., and Hall, J. C. 2006. MCPA (4-chloro-2-ethylphenoxyacetate) resistance in hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit L.). J. Agric. Food Chem 54:9126–9134.Google Scholar
Werk, K. S. and Ehleringer, J. 1985. Photosynthetic characteristics of Lactuca serriola L. Plant Cell Environ 8:345–350.Google Scholar
Werk, K. S. and Ehleringer, J. 1986. Field water relations of a compass plant, Lactuca serriola L. Evolution 40:1334–1337.Google Scholar