Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:24:36.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sensitivity to salinity at the emergence and seedling stages of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), weedy rice (Oryza sativa), and rice with different tolerances to ALS-inhibiting herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2020

Silvia Fogliatto*
Affiliation:
Postdoc Fellow, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
Lorenzo Patrucco
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Fellow, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
Marco Milan
Affiliation:
Postdoc Fellow, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
Francesco Vidotto
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Silvia Fogliatto, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Torino, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Torino, Italy. Email: silvia.fogliatto@unito.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Salinization is affecting many rice (Oryza sativa L.) areas worldwide and weed infestation, together with the occurrence of herbicide-resistant populations, is further limiting rice yield. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of water salinity on the emergence and seedling growth of five Italian barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.] populations (three sensitive and two resistant to acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicides), three Italian weedy rice (Oryza sativa L.) populations (all sensitive to imazamox), and two rice varieties (the conventional ‘Baldo’ variety and the imazamox-tolerant ‘CL80’ one). In 2017, seeds were sown in alveolar trays filled with sand, a nutrient solution, and water with the following salt concentrations: 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mM NaCl. Plant emergence (after 15 d), plant height, shoot and root weight, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoid content were measured at 40 d after sowing. Echinochloa crus-galli showed a higher tolerance to salinity than O. sativa and rice. All species were affected more at the seedling stage than at emergence. A variable behavior of the herbicide-resistant populations was shown; one resistant E. crus-galli population was affected more by salinity and showed a lower emergence rate (about 20% against 40% emergence of the other populations at the highest salt concentration) and reduced seedling growth, while the other resistant population’s response was similar to that of the sensitive populations. The chlorophyll content increased as the salt content increased in all E. crus-galli populations. The highest emergence and growth reduction in O. sativa were recorded in the imazamox-tolerant rice. Rice and O. sativa were able to grow only up to 50 mM. Echinochloa crus-galli populations are probably favored under saline conditions, while lower infestation by O. sativa can be expected.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Figure 1. Dose–response emergence curve with the average data points of the different Echinochloa crus-galli populations against the salt concentration. Curve parameter estimates (Equation 1): s1 (b = 1.94, d = 55.85, e = 287.76), s2 (b = 1.52, d = 89.91, e = 222.71), s3 (b = 1.13, d = 89.91, e = 282.58), r1(b = 3.96, d = 67.67, e = 196.55), r2 (b = 6.85, d = 94.64, e = 123.58). The salt concentration required to reduce emergence by 50% (EC50) is shown below the graph. Only the significant pairwise comparisons between EC50 (SI index) are shown (Equation 2).

Figure 1

Table 1. Curve parameter (Equation 1) and sensitivity index (SI) (Equation 2) comparison between Echinochloa spp. populations (estimate and P-values).

Figure 2

Table 2. Plant height and shoot and root weight of the different Echinochloa crus-galli populations and the percentage difference of these growth parameters for each salt concentration compared with the control.

Figure 3

Table 3. Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll a/b ratio, and carotenoid content of the different Echinochloa crus-galli populations and the percentage difference of these values for each salt concentration compared with the control.a

Figure 4

Figure 2. Dose–response emergence curve with the average data points of the different Oryza sativa (weedy rice) populations and rice varieties against the salt concentration. Curve parameter estimates (Equation 1): wr1 (b = 9.40, d = 87.14, e = 195.80), wr2 (b = 9.40, d = 87.14, e = 160.19), wr3 (b = 8.49, d = 89.73, e = 173.01), Baldo (b = 4.81, d = 87.12, e = 146.49), CL80 (b = 3.08, d = 60.89, e = 140.04). The salt concentration required to reduce the emergence by 50% (EC50) and the significant pairwise comparisons between EC50 (SI index) are shown below the graph (Equation 2).

Figure 5

Table 4. Curve parameter (Equation 1) and sensitivity index (SI) (Equation 2) comparison between Oryza sativa populations/varieties (estimate and P-values).

Figure 6

Table 5. Plant height and shoot and root weight of the different Oryza sativa populations (weedy rice) and rice varieties and the percentage difference of these growth parameters for each salt concentration compared with the control.

Figure 7

Table 6. Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll a/b ratio, and carotenoid content of the different Oryza sativa (weedy rice) populations and rice varieties and the percentage difference of these values for each salt concentration compared with the control.a