4.1 Article

Evolved Resistance to Glyphosate in Junglerice (Echinochloa colona) from the Tropical Ord River Region in Australia

Journal

WEED TECHNOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 480-484

Publisher

WEED SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1614/WT-D-12-00029.1

Keywords

Evolution; glyphosate resistance; herbicide resistance

Funding

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to determine whether a junglerice population from the tropical Ord River region of northwest Australia was glyphosate resistant, and whether alternative herbicides labeled for junglerice control were still effective. Seed samples collected from the field site were initially screened with glyphosate in the glasshouse, and surviving individuals were self-pollinated for subsequent glyphosate dose-response studies. Glyphosate resistance was confirmed, as the suspected resistant population was found to be 8.6-fold more resistant to glyphosate than a susceptible population based on survival (LD50 of 3.72 kg ha(-1)), and 5.6-fold more resistant based on biomass reduction (GR(50) of 1.16 kg ha(-1)). The glyphosate-resistant population was susceptible to label-recommended doses of all other herbicides assessed, including three acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) -inhibiting herbicides (fluazifop-P, haloxyfop, and sethoxydim), two acetolactate synthase (ALS) -inhibiting herbicides (imazamox and sulfometuron), paraquat, and glufosinate. Glyphosate resistance has previously evolved in numerous species found in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems, no-till chemical fallow, fence line, and perennial crop situations. Here we report the evolution of glyphosate resistance in a cropping system that included annual tillage. The evolution of glyphosate resistance in junglerice from a tropical cropping system further demonstrates the need for improved glyphosate stewardship practices globally.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available