Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T11:46:11.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Tolerance Mechanism in Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) from Mississippi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vijay K. Nandula ,
Krishna N. Reddy ,
Daniel H. Poston ,
Agnes M. Rimando  and
Stephen O. Duke
Vijay K. Nandula*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Daniel H. Poston
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Agnes M. Rimando
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Natural Products Utilization Research Unit, P.O. Box 8048, University, MS 38677
Stephen O. Duke
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Natural Products Utilization Research Unit, P.O. Box 8048, University, MS 38677
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: vknandula@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A threefold glyphosate tolerance was identified in two Italian ryegrass populations, T1 and T2, from Mississippi. Laboratory experiments were conducted to characterize the mechanism of glyphosate tolerance in these populations. The T1 population absorbed less 14C-glyphosate (43% of applied) compared to the susceptible (S) population (59% of applied) at 48 h after treatment (HAT). The T2 population absorbed 14C-glyphosate at levels (56% of applied at 48 HAT) that were similar to both T1 and S populations, but tended to be more comparable to the S population. The amount of 14C-glyphosate that remained in the treated leaf was significantly higher in both T1 (67% of absorbed) and T2 (65% of absorbed) populations compared to the S population (45% of absorbed) at 48 HAT. The amount of 14C-glyphosate that moved out of treated leaf to shoot and root was lower in both T1 (25% of absorbed in shoot and 9% of absorbed in root) and T2 (25% of absorbed in shoot and 11% of absorbed in root) populations compared to the S population (40% of absorbed in shoot and 16% of absorbed in root) at 48 HAT. There were no differences in epicuticular wax mass among the three populations. Treating a single leaf with glyphosate solution at the field use rate (0.84 kg ae ha−1) as 10 1-µl droplets killed the S plant but not the T1 and T2 plants (33 and 55% shoot fresh-weight reduction, respectively). Shikimic acid accumulated rapidly at higher levels in glyphosate-treated leaf segments of the S population compared to the T1 population up to 100 µM glyphosate. However, above 500 µM glyphosate, the levels of shikimate were similar in both the S and T1 populations. Furthermore, shikimic acid content was three- to sixfold more in whole plants of the S population treated with 0.22 kg ae ha−1 glyphosate compared to the T1 and T2 populations. No degradation of glyphosate to aminomethylphosphonic acid was detected among the tolerant and susceptible populations. These results indicate that tolerance to glyphosate in the T1 population is partly due to reduced absorption and translocation of glyphosate and in the T2 population it is partly due to reduced translocation of glyphosate.

Keywords

GlyphosateItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam.Absorptionglyphosate resistanceherbicide resistancemetabolismshikimatetranslocationweed resistance
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 344 - 349
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

Baerson, S. R., Rodriguez, D. J., Biest, N. A., Tran, M., You, J., Kreuger, R. W., Dill, G. M., Pratley, J. E., and Gruys, K. J. 2002a. Investigating the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 50:721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerson, S. R., Rodriguez, D. J., Tran, M., Feng, Y., and Biest, N. A. 2002b. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Plant Physiol. 129:1265–1275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628–634.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hannai, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmerii) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Baerson, S. R., and Rimando, A. M. 2003. Herbicides: glyphosate. in Plimmer, J. R., Gammon, D. W., and Ragsdale, N. N. Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals. New York Wiley. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/eoa/articles/agr119/frame.html. Accessed: July 2, 2007.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Pratley, J. E., and Bohn, J. 1999. Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum. II. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci. 47:412–415.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, DC American Chemical Society Monograph 189. 653.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: June 4, 2007.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, K. N. 2005. Role of absorption and translocation in the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 53:84–89.Google Scholar
Lee, L. J. and Ngim, J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn] in Malaysia. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:336–339.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Powles, S. B., Hawkes, T. R., Hollinshead, P. H., Warner, S. A. J., and Preston, C. 2003. Investigations into the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in Lolium rigidum . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74:62–72.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulation in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandula, V. K., Poston, D. H., Eubank, T. W., Koger, C. H., and Reddy, K. N. 2007. Differential response to glyphosate in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) populations from Mississippi. Weed Technol. 21:477–482.Google Scholar
Ng, C. H., Wickneswari, R., Salmijah, S., Teng, Y. T., and Ismail, B. S. 2003. Gene polymorphisms in glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of Eleusine indica from Malaysia. Weed Res. 43:108–115.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.Google Scholar
Perez, A., Alister, C., and Kogan, M. 2004. Absorption, translocation and allocation of glyphosate in resistant and susceptible Chilean biotypes of Lolium multiflorum . Weed Biol. Manag. 4:56–58.Google Scholar
Perez, A. and Kogan, M. 2003. Glyphosate-resistant Lolium multiflorum in Chilean orchards. Weed Res. 43:12–19.Google Scholar
Perez-Jones, A., Park, K., Colquhoun, J., Mallory-Smith, C., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Identification of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in Oregon. Weed Sci. 53:775–779.Google Scholar
Perez-Jones, A., Park, K., and Mallory-Smith, C. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant Lolium multiflorum in Oregon. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 57:27.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 16:604–607.Google Scholar
Pratley, J., Urwin, N., Stanton, R., Baines, P., Broster, J., Cullis, K., Schafer, D., Bohn, J., and Kruger, R. 1999. Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum. I. Bioevaluation. Weed Sci. 47:405–411.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Rimando, A. M., and Duke, S. O. 2004. Aminomethylphosphonic acid, a metabolite of glyphosate, causes injury in glyphosate-treated, glyphosate-resistant soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:5139–5143.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software. 12:1–22. http://www.bioassay.dk. Accessed: December 19, 2007.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Pollard, J. M., and Smeda, R. J. 2005. Two common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) biotypes differ in biology and response to glyphosate. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 44:156.Google Scholar
Simarmata, M., Kaufmann, J. E., and Penner, D. 2003. Potential basis of glyphosate resistance in California rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 51:678–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B. K. and Shaner, D. L. 1998. Rapid determination of glyphosate injury to plants and identification of glyphosate-resistant plants. Weed Technol. 12:527–530.Google Scholar
Tran, M., Baerson, S., Brinker, R., Casagrande, L., Faletti, M., Feng, Y., Nemeth, M., Reynolds, T., Rodriguez, D., Shaffer, D., Stalker, D., Taylor, N., Teng, Y., and Dill, G. 1999. Characterization of glyphosate resistant Eleusine indica biotypes from Malaysia. Pages 527–536. in. Proceedings of the 17th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Bangkok Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Urbano, J. M., Borrego, A., Torres, V., Jimenez, C., Leon, J. M., and Barnes, J. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) in Spain. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:394.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Wakelin, A. M. and Preston, C. 2006. A target-site mutation is present in a glyphosate-resistant Lolium rigidum population. Weed Res. 46:432–440.Google Scholar