4.7 Article

Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide inPalmer amaranth from Arkansas

Journal

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 864-869

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ps.4241

Keywords

ALS inhibitors; Amaranthus palmeri; diphenyl ether resistance; fomesafen; multiple resistance; resistance evolution

Funding

  1. Arkansas Soybean Research and Promotion Board
  2. Cotton Incorporated
  3. Syngenta Crop Protection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDThe widespread occurrence of ALS inhibitor- and glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri has led to increasing use of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides in cotton and soybean. Studies were conducted to confirm resistance to fomesafen (a PPO inhibitor), determine the resistance frequency, examine the resistance profile to other foliar-applied herbicides and investigate the resistance mechanism of resistant plants in a population collected in 2011 (AR11-LAW B) and its progenies from two cycles of fomesafen selection (C1 and C2). RESULTSThe frequency of fomesafen-resistant plants increased from 5% in the original AR11-LAW-B to 17% in the C2 population. The amounts of fomesafen that caused 50% growth reduction were 6-, 13- and 21-fold greater in AR11-LAW-B, C1 and C2 populations, respectively, than in the sensitive ecotype. The AR11-LAW-B population was sensitive to atrazine, dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate and mesotrione but resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides pyrithiobac and trifloxysulfuron. Fomesafen survivors from C1 and C2 populations tested positive for the PPO glycine 210 deletion previously reported in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). CONCLUSIONThese studies confirmed that Palmer amaranth in Arkansas has evolved resistance to foliar-applied PPO-inhibiting herbicide. (c) 2016 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available