Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T18:21:09.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common sunflower resistance to acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anthony D. White,
Micheal D. K. Owen,
Robert G. Hartzler and
John Cardina
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Robert G. Hartzler
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1996 a common sunflower population near Howard, SD, was suspected to be cross-resistant to imazethapyr and chlorimuron. Whole-plant acetolactate synthase (ALS) assays confirmed ALS-inhibitor resistance in the Howard biotype. The I 50 values (inhibition of 50% of the enzyme activity) indicated that the resistant population required 39 and 9 times more imazethapyr and chlorimuron, respectively, to obtain the same level of enzyme inhibition compared with the sensitive biotype. Herbicide dose response data supported the whole-plant enzyme assay data; control (> 90%) was not achieved with less than a four-times application rate of chlorimuron. Control with imazethapyr was not achieved even with a 16-times rate. Chlorimuron and imazethapyr controlled 70 and 95% of the population, respectively, when a four-times rate of each herbicide was applied separately. Differences in 14C-herbicide absorption were observed, suggesting that there may be physical or chemical differences in leaf surface composition between the resistant and sensitive biotypes. Although translocation of 14C-herbicide was less in the resistant biotype than in the sensitive biotype, the differences were not enough to explain chlorimuron and imazethapyr selectivity between the two biotypes. Overall results suggested that the differences in the common sunflower populations were attributed to an altered site of action on the ALS enzyme.

Keywords

Chlorimuronimazethapyrcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. HELANALS resistancewhole-plant ALS enzyme assayenzyme inhibitionpopulation dynamicsherbicide penetration and translocation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002, pp. 432 - 437
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 46:403–407.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Regehr, D. L. 2000. Control of imazethapyr-resistant common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:133–139.Google Scholar
Allen, J. R., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., and Kremer, R. J. 2000. ALS-resistant Helianthus annuus interference in Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:461–466.Google Scholar
Arias, D. M. and Rieseberg, L. H. 1994. Gene flow between cultivated and wild sunflowers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 89:655–660.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J. R., Al-Khatib, K., and Currie, R. S. 1997. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:162.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J. R., Al-Khatib, K., and Currie, R. S. 1999. Cross-resistance of imazethapyr-resistant common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to selected imidazolinone, sulfonylurea, and triazolopyrimidine herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:489–493.Google Scholar
Boutsalis, P. 2001. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC): Web page: http://plantprotection.org/HRAC. Accessed: November 2001.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Maddux, L. D., Moshier, L. J., and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 10:317–321.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 2002. Molecular Biology of Weed Control. London: Taylor and Francis. 504 p.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2001. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Web page: http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 2002.Google Scholar
Hinz, J.R.R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.Google Scholar
Irons, S. M. and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Competitive and allelopathic effects of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 30:372–377.Google Scholar
Lee, J. M. and Owen, M.D.K. 2000. Comparison of acetolactate synthase enzyme inhibition among resistant and susceptible Xanthium strumarium biotypes. Weed Sci. 48:286–290.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1987. Sunflower. Pages 626–668 In Fehr, W. R., Fehr, E. L., and Jessen, H. J., eds. Principle of Cultivar Development. Volume 2. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. E., Thompson, T. E., and Seiler, G. J. 1982. Sunflower Species of the United States. Fargo, ND: National Sunflower Association. 75 p.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 83–139 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar