Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T22:40:52.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Metabolic profiling of glyphosate-resistant sourgrass (Digitaria insularis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Tiago Gazola
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Student, Department of Plant Protection, Paulista State University, São Paulo, Brazil
Leandro Bianchi
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Student, Department of Plant Protection, Paulista State University, São Paulo, Brazil
Márcio Furriela Dias
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Student, Department of Plant Protection, Paulista State University, São Paulo, Brazil
Caio A. Carbonari*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Production and Plant Breeding, Paulista State University, São Paulo, Brazil
Edivaldo D. Velini
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Production and Plant Breeding, Paulista State University, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Caio Antonio Carbonari, Department of Production and Plant Breeding, Paulista State University, University Avenue 3780, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil. Email: carbonari@fca.unesp.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Putative glyphosate-resistant sourgrass was collected to determine its resistance level and to evaluate its metabolic profile after resistance. Although accumulation of shikimic acid is known to occur in glyphosate-susceptible populations, differences in the ability of resistant (R) and susceptible (S) biotypes to accumulate quinic acid, salicylic acid, and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) have been studied to a lesser extent. Our objective was to confirm glyphosate resistance in sourgrass and to understand the metabolic profile of these plants in response to the herbicide. Greenhouse experiments were carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. There were no significant differences in glyphosate translocation in the plants. No metabolism of glyphosate to AMPA was observed; therefore, metabolism of glyphosate to AMPA is not a mechanism in R biotypes. S biotypes showed higher concentrations of shikimic acid and quinic acid before glyphosate and accumulated less of both secondary acids in treated leaves 72 h after glyphosate application. Resistant biotypes showed higher concentrations of salicylic acid before glyphosate application.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020
Figure 0

Table 1. Location of the collected sourgrass biotypes used in the experiments.

Figure 1

Table 2. Molecular mass of the compounds and fragments generated by HPLC-MS/MS in Experiment 1 and its duplicate.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Analytical curves of the compounds generated by HPLC-MS/MS.a

Figure 3

Figure 1. Percentage of the control at 28 dafter application (DAA) of glyphosate and the accumulation of shikimic acid (in the leaves of untreated controls, in the leaves of the tillers that received the herbicide application and in leaves of the tillers protected at application) at 72 h after application (HAA) in biotypes of sourgrass. The values are the averages of two assays. CV (%), coefficient of variation; TL, treated leaves; UL, untreated (protected) leaves; UC, untreated control leaves. Error bars correspond to the averages and standard errors of the mean (n = 4). The same letters in the same group of bars do not differ according to the Tukey-Kramer least significant difference test (P < 0.05). ns, **Not significant and significant (P < 0.01), respectively, according to the F-test.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Percentage of the control at 28 d after application of glyphosate (DAA) and the accumulation of quinic acid (in the leaves of untreated controls, in the leaves of the tillers that received the herbicide application and in the leaves of the tillers protected at application) at 72 h after application (HAA) in biotypes of sourgrass. The values are the averages of two assays. CV (%), coefficient of variation; TL, treated leaves; UL, untreated (protected) leaves; control, untreated control leaves. Error bars correspond to the averages and the standard errors (n = 4). The same letters in the same group of bars do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05). ns, ** Not significant and significant (P < 0.05), respectively, according to the F-test.

Figure 5

Table 4. Total internal concentration of glyphosate found inside the leaves of sourgrass, internal concentration of glyphosate translocated to the leaves of protected tillers at the time of herbicide application and the relationship between shikimic acid content and glyphosate in each part of the plant. Values are the averages of two assays.

Figure 6

Table 5. Total concentration of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid found inside the leaves of sourgrass at 72 h after application of herbicide. The values are the averages of two assays.

Figure 7

Figure 3. Salicylic acid content at 72 HAA for resistant (above) and susceptible (below) biotypes of sourgrass. The values are the averages of two assays. CV (%), coefficient of variation; HAA, hours after application. **Significant (P < 0.01) according to the F-test.