Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T23:43:34.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discovery of a Common Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) Biotype Resistant to Linuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joseph G. Masabni  and
Bernard H. Zandstra
Joseph G. Masabni
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Bernard H. Zandstra*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: zandstra@pilot.msu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to confirm and quantify linuron resistance in common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) collected from a carrot (Daucus carota) field in Imlay City, MI. Preliminary evaluation was made using a flotation test kit to identify resistance to linuron and atrazine. Subsequent greenhouse experiments indicated that this common purslane was resistant to 11.2 kg/ha linuron and 179 kg/ha atrazine. The resistance ratio for linuron was > 300 and was > 400 for atrazine. The resistant common purslane was also highly resistant to diuron, cyanazine, and prometryn but had a low level of negative cross-resistance to bromoxynil. Both resistant and susceptible biotypes of common purslane were sensitive to hexazinone and bentazon.

Keywords

bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrilecarrot, Daucus carota L., # DAUCAcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLCross-resistanceGR50herbicide resistancenegative cross-resistanceALS, acetolactase synthaseDAT, days after treatmentGR50, herbicide dosage required to reduce fresh weight by 50% relative to the controlMSU, Michigan State UniversityPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergencePSII, photosystem IIR, resistantRR, resistance ratioS, susceptible
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 599 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Ahrens, W. H., and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate, and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) . Weed Sci. 31:438–444.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. P., and Gronwald, J. W., 1991. Atrazine resistance in a velvetleaf (Amaranthus hybridus) biotype due to enhanced glutathione 5-transferase activity. Plant Physiol. 96:104–109.Google Scholar
De Prado, R., Sanchez, M., Jorrin, J., and Dominguez, C. 1992. Negative cross- resistance to bentazon and pyridate in atrazine-resistant Amaranthus cruentus and Amaranthus hybridus biotypes. Pestic. Sci. 35:131–136.Google Scholar
Durner, J., Thiel, A. and Btiger, P. 1986. Phenolic herbicides: correlation between lipophilicity and increased inhibitory sensitivity of thylakoids from higher plant mutants. Z. Naturforsch. 41c:881–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, E. R. C. J. Arntzen, Pfister, K. and Penner, D. 1986. Herbicide, cross- resistance in triazine-resistant biotypes of four species. Weed Sci. 34: 344–353.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A., Stoltenberg, D. E. and Balke, N. E. 1995. Absence of herbicide cross-resistance in two atrazine-resistant velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) biotypes. Weed Sci. 43:352–357.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Andersen, R. N., and Yee, C. 1989. Atrazine resistance in (Abutilon theophrasti) due to enhanced atrazine detoxification. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 34:149–163.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M., 1998. International Survey Of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. 1998 HRAC Annual Report. Corvallis, OR: WeedSmart. 165 p.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. A., and Mcintosh, L. 1983. Molecular basis of herbicide resistance in Amaranthus hybridus . Science 222:1346–1348.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S., and LeBaron, H. M. 1990, Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S., and Radosevich, S. R. 1983. Differential growth of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) biotypes. Weed Sci. 31:112–130.Google Scholar
Hunt, R., ed. 1980. Asymptotic functions. In Plant Growth Curves, Baltimore. MD: University Park Press, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
Layne, D. R., and Flore, J. A. 1995. End-product inhibition of photosynthesis in Prunus cerasus L. in response to whole-plant source-sink manipulation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 120:583–599.Google Scholar
Lehoczki, E., Laskay, G., Pams, E., and Mikulis, J. 1984. Resistance of triazine herbicides in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) . Weed Sci. 32:669–674.Google Scholar
Mutch, D. R., and Penner, D. 1989. Use of the triazine resistance kit for determination of triazine resistant weeds in the field. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:92.Google Scholar
Oettmeier, W., Mason, K., Fedtke, C., Konze, J., and Schmidt, R. R. 1982. Effect of different photosystem II inhibitors on chloroplasts isolated from species either susceptible or resistant toward s-triazine herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18:357–367.Google Scholar
Pfister, K., and Amtzen, C. J. 1979. The mode of action of photosystem II-specific inhibitors in herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Z, Naturforsch. C Biosd. 34:996–1009.Google Scholar
Salhoff, C. G., and Martin, A. R. 1985. Kochia scoparia growth response to triazine herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:40–42.Google Scholar
Van Oorschott, J.L.P. and Van Leeuwen, P H. 1988. Inhibition of photosynthesis in intact plants of biotypes resistant or susceptible to atrazine and cross-resistant to other herbicides. Weed Res. 28:223–230.Google Scholar