Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas

A state-level survey was conducted across major row-crop production regions of Texas to document the level of sensitivity of Palmer amaranth to glyphosate, atrazine, pyrithiobac, tembotrione, fomesafen, and dicamba. Between 137 and 161 Palmer amaranth populations were evaluated for sensitivity to th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Weed technology 2019-04, Vol.33 (2), p.355-365
Hauptverfasser: Garetson, Russ, Singh, Vijay, Singh, Shilpa, Dotray, Peter, Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 365
container_issue 2
container_start_page 355
container_title Weed technology
container_volume 33
creator Garetson, Russ
Singh, Vijay
Singh, Shilpa
Dotray, Peter
Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar
description A state-level survey was conducted across major row-crop production regions of Texas to document the level of sensitivity of Palmer amaranth to glyphosate, atrazine, pyrithiobac, tembotrione, fomesafen, and dicamba. Between 137 and 161 Palmer amaranth populations were evaluated for sensitivity to the labelled field rate (1X), and rated as resistant (≤49% injury), less sensitive (50% to 89% injury), or susceptible (90% to 100% injury). For glyphosate, 62%, 19%, 13%, and 13% of the populations from the High Plains, Central Texas, Rio Grande Valley, and Lower Gulf Coast, respectively, were resistant. Resistance to atrazine was more common in Palmer amaranth populations from the High Plains than in other regions, with 16% of the populations resistant and 22% less sensitive. Approximately 90% of the populations from the High Plains that exhibited resistance to atrazine POST also were resistant to atrazine PRE. Of the 160 populations tested for pyrithiobac, approximately 99% were resistant or less sensitive, regardless of the region. No resistance was found to fomesafen, tembotrione, or dicamba. However, 22% of the populations from the High Plains were less sensitive to 1X (93 g ai ha-1) tembotrione, but were killed at 2X, illustrating the background variability in sensitivity to this herbicide. For dicamba, three populations, all from the High Plains, exhibited less sensitivity at the 1X rate (controlled at the 2X rate; 1X = 560 g ae ha-1). One population exhibited multiple resistance to three herbicides with distinct sites of action (SOAs) involving acetolactate synthase, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and photosystem II inhibitors. Palmer amaranth populations exhibited less sensitivity to approximately 15 combinations of herbicides involving up to five SOAs. Dose-response assays conducted on the populations most resistant to glyphosate, pyrithiobac, or atrazine indicated they were 30-, 32-, or 49-fold or more resistant to these herbicides, respectively, compared with a susceptible standard. Nomenclature: Atrazine; dicamba; fomesafen; glyphosate; pyrithiobac; tembotrione; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson
doi_str_mv 10.1017/wet.2019.14
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2224282044</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26715712</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26715712</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b317t-318a23b6ef580558b70203980085c3342f4116e08f5724b4a9d895493c560bff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1LwzAYh4MoOKcnz0LAi0M633y16XHMTxjoYYK3knQpy9iamrTM_fem2_DoKQnPwy_v-0PomsCYAMketqYdUyD5mPATNCBCQEIzDqdoADKHBFj2dY4uQlgBkJRSGKDm0YbWW9211tXYVXhpvLalXZjEmxCZqlv8odYb47HaKB-fS3w3Od66gJs9syNsa-zdFpfeNbjxbtGV-8iwC63ZhB7PzY8Kl-isUutgro7nEH0-P82nr8ns_eVtOpklmpGsTRiRijKdmkpIEELqDCiwXAJIUTLGacUJSQ3ISmSUa67yhcwFz1kpUtBVxYbo9pAbZ_nuTGiLlet8Hb8sKKWcSgqcR-v-YMWxQ_CmKhpv43K7gkDRV1rESou-0oL09s3BXoXW-T-VphkRGaGRjw5cW-dq82_WL00XgMU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2224282044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Garetson, Russ ; Singh, Vijay ; Singh, Shilpa ; Dotray, Peter ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</creator><creatorcontrib>Garetson, Russ ; Singh, Vijay ; Singh, Shilpa ; Dotray, Peter ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</creatorcontrib><description>A state-level survey was conducted across major row-crop production regions of Texas to document the level of sensitivity of Palmer amaranth to glyphosate, atrazine, pyrithiobac, tembotrione, fomesafen, and dicamba. Between 137 and 161 Palmer amaranth populations were evaluated for sensitivity to the labelled field rate (1X), and rated as resistant (≤49% injury), less sensitive (50% to 89% injury), or susceptible (90% to 100% injury). For glyphosate, 62%, 19%, 13%, and 13% of the populations from the High Plains, Central Texas, Rio Grande Valley, and Lower Gulf Coast, respectively, were resistant. Resistance to atrazine was more common in Palmer amaranth populations from the High Plains than in other regions, with 16% of the populations resistant and 22% less sensitive. Approximately 90% of the populations from the High Plains that exhibited resistance to atrazine POST also were resistant to atrazine PRE. Of the 160 populations tested for pyrithiobac, approximately 99% were resistant or less sensitive, regardless of the region. No resistance was found to fomesafen, tembotrione, or dicamba. However, 22% of the populations from the High Plains were less sensitive to 1X (93 g ai ha-1) tembotrione, but were killed at 2X, illustrating the background variability in sensitivity to this herbicide. For dicamba, three populations, all from the High Plains, exhibited less sensitivity at the 1X rate (controlled at the 2X rate; 1X = 560 g ae ha-1). One population exhibited multiple resistance to three herbicides with distinct sites of action (SOAs) involving acetolactate synthase, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and photosystem II inhibitors. Palmer amaranth populations exhibited less sensitivity to approximately 15 combinations of herbicides involving up to five SOAs. Dose-response assays conducted on the populations most resistant to glyphosate, pyrithiobac, or atrazine indicated they were 30-, 32-, or 49-fold or more resistant to these herbicides, respectively, compared with a susceptible standard. Nomenclature: Atrazine; dicamba; fomesafen; glyphosate; pyrithiobac; tembotrione; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-037X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2740</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/wet.2019.14</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Acetolactate synthase ; Amaranth ; Amaranthus palmeri ; Atrazine ; Cotton ; Crop production ; Crop production systems ; Crops ; dose response ; Evolution ; Glyphosate ; Grain ; Herbicide resistance ; Herbicides ; High plains ; Injuries ; multiple-herbicide resistance ; Photosystem II ; Population ; Populations ; recurrent selection ; resistance survey ; Sensitivity analysis ; site of action ; Sorghum ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed technology, 2019-04, Vol.33 (2), p.355-365</ispartof><rights>Weed Science Society of America, 2019.</rights><rights>Weed Science Society of America, 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b317t-318a23b6ef580558b70203980085c3342f4116e08f5724b4a9d895493c560bff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b317t-318a23b6ef580558b70203980085c3342f4116e08f5724b4a9d895493c560bff3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1107-7148 ; 0000-0001-9746-7923</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26715712$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26715712$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,27906,27907,57999,58232</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garetson, Russ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Vijay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Shilpa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dotray, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</creatorcontrib><title>Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas</title><title>Weed technology</title><addtitle>Weed Technol</addtitle><description>A state-level survey was conducted across major row-crop production regions of Texas to document the level of sensitivity of Palmer amaranth to glyphosate, atrazine, pyrithiobac, tembotrione, fomesafen, and dicamba. Between 137 and 161 Palmer amaranth populations were evaluated for sensitivity to the labelled field rate (1X), and rated as resistant (≤49% injury), less sensitive (50% to 89% injury), or susceptible (90% to 100% injury). For glyphosate, 62%, 19%, 13%, and 13% of the populations from the High Plains, Central Texas, Rio Grande Valley, and Lower Gulf Coast, respectively, were resistant. Resistance to atrazine was more common in Palmer amaranth populations from the High Plains than in other regions, with 16% of the populations resistant and 22% less sensitive. Approximately 90% of the populations from the High Plains that exhibited resistance to atrazine POST also were resistant to atrazine PRE. Of the 160 populations tested for pyrithiobac, approximately 99% were resistant or less sensitive, regardless of the region. No resistance was found to fomesafen, tembotrione, or dicamba. However, 22% of the populations from the High Plains were less sensitive to 1X (93 g ai ha-1) tembotrione, but were killed at 2X, illustrating the background variability in sensitivity to this herbicide. For dicamba, three populations, all from the High Plains, exhibited less sensitivity at the 1X rate (controlled at the 2X rate; 1X = 560 g ae ha-1). One population exhibited multiple resistance to three herbicides with distinct sites of action (SOAs) involving acetolactate synthase, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and photosystem II inhibitors. Palmer amaranth populations exhibited less sensitivity to approximately 15 combinations of herbicides involving up to five SOAs. Dose-response assays conducted on the populations most resistant to glyphosate, pyrithiobac, or atrazine indicated they were 30-, 32-, or 49-fold or more resistant to these herbicides, respectively, compared with a susceptible standard. Nomenclature: Atrazine; dicamba; fomesafen; glyphosate; pyrithiobac; tembotrione; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson</description><subject>Acetolactate synthase</subject><subject>Amaranth</subject><subject>Amaranthus palmeri</subject><subject>Atrazine</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>Crop production</subject><subject>Crop production systems</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>dose response</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Glyphosate</subject><subject>Grain</subject><subject>Herbicide resistance</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>High plains</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>multiple-herbicide resistance</subject><subject>Photosystem II</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>recurrent selection</subject><subject>resistance survey</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>site of action</subject><subject>Sorghum</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0890-037X</issn><issn>1550-2740</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1LwzAYh4MoOKcnz0LAi0M633y16XHMTxjoYYK3knQpy9iamrTM_fem2_DoKQnPwy_v-0PomsCYAMketqYdUyD5mPATNCBCQEIzDqdoADKHBFj2dY4uQlgBkJRSGKDm0YbWW9211tXYVXhpvLalXZjEmxCZqlv8odYb47HaKB-fS3w3Od66gJs9syNsa-zdFpfeNbjxbtGV-8iwC63ZhB7PzY8Kl-isUutgro7nEH0-P82nr8ns_eVtOpklmpGsTRiRijKdmkpIEELqDCiwXAJIUTLGacUJSQ3ISmSUa67yhcwFz1kpUtBVxYbo9pAbZ_nuTGiLlet8Hb8sKKWcSgqcR-v-YMWxQ_CmKhpv43K7gkDRV1rESou-0oL09s3BXoXW-T-VphkRGaGRjw5cW-dq82_WL00XgMU</recordid><startdate>20190401</startdate><enddate>20190401</enddate><creator>Garetson, Russ</creator><creator>Singh, Vijay</creator><creator>Singh, Shilpa</creator><creator>Dotray, Peter</creator><creator>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-7148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9746-7923</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190401</creationdate><title>Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas</title><author>Garetson, Russ ; Singh, Vijay ; Singh, Shilpa ; Dotray, Peter ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b317t-318a23b6ef580558b70203980085c3342f4116e08f5724b4a9d895493c560bff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Acetolactate synthase</topic><topic>Amaranth</topic><topic>Amaranthus palmeri</topic><topic>Atrazine</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>Crop production</topic><topic>Crop production systems</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>dose response</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Glyphosate</topic><topic>Grain</topic><topic>Herbicide resistance</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>High plains</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>multiple-herbicide resistance</topic><topic>Photosystem II</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>recurrent selection</topic><topic>resistance survey</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>site of action</topic><topic>Sorghum</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garetson, Russ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Vijay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Shilpa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dotray, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garetson, Russ</au><au>Singh, Vijay</au><au>Singh, Shilpa</au><au>Dotray, Peter</au><au>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas</atitle><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle><stitle>Weed Technol</stitle><date>2019-04-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>355</spage><epage>365</epage><pages>355-365</pages><issn>0890-037X</issn><eissn>1550-2740</eissn><abstract>A state-level survey was conducted across major row-crop production regions of Texas to document the level of sensitivity of Palmer amaranth to glyphosate, atrazine, pyrithiobac, tembotrione, fomesafen, and dicamba. Between 137 and 161 Palmer amaranth populations were evaluated for sensitivity to the labelled field rate (1X), and rated as resistant (≤49% injury), less sensitive (50% to 89% injury), or susceptible (90% to 100% injury). For glyphosate, 62%, 19%, 13%, and 13% of the populations from the High Plains, Central Texas, Rio Grande Valley, and Lower Gulf Coast, respectively, were resistant. Resistance to atrazine was more common in Palmer amaranth populations from the High Plains than in other regions, with 16% of the populations resistant and 22% less sensitive. Approximately 90% of the populations from the High Plains that exhibited resistance to atrazine POST also were resistant to atrazine PRE. Of the 160 populations tested for pyrithiobac, approximately 99% were resistant or less sensitive, regardless of the region. No resistance was found to fomesafen, tembotrione, or dicamba. However, 22% of the populations from the High Plains were less sensitive to 1X (93 g ai ha-1) tembotrione, but were killed at 2X, illustrating the background variability in sensitivity to this herbicide. For dicamba, three populations, all from the High Plains, exhibited less sensitivity at the 1X rate (controlled at the 2X rate; 1X = 560 g ae ha-1). One population exhibited multiple resistance to three herbicides with distinct sites of action (SOAs) involving acetolactate synthase, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and photosystem II inhibitors. Palmer amaranth populations exhibited less sensitivity to approximately 15 combinations of herbicides involving up to five SOAs. Dose-response assays conducted on the populations most resistant to glyphosate, pyrithiobac, or atrazine indicated they were 30-, 32-, or 49-fold or more resistant to these herbicides, respectively, compared with a susceptible standard. Nomenclature: Atrazine; dicamba; fomesafen; glyphosate; pyrithiobac; tembotrione; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/wet.2019.14</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-7148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9746-7923</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0890-037X
ispartof Weed technology, 2019-04, Vol.33 (2), p.355-365
issn 0890-037X
1550-2740
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2224282044
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Acetolactate synthase
Amaranth
Amaranthus palmeri
Atrazine
Cotton
Crop production
Crop production systems
Crops
dose response
Evolution
Glyphosate
Grain
Herbicide resistance
Herbicides
High plains
Injuries
multiple-herbicide resistance
Photosystem II
Population
Populations
recurrent selection
resistance survey
Sensitivity analysis
site of action
Sorghum
Weeds
title Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T09%3A15%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Distribution%20of%20herbicide-resistant%20Palmer%20amaranth%20(Amaranthus%20palmeri)%20in%20row%20crop%20production%20systems%20in%20Texas&rft.jtitle=Weed%20technology&rft.au=Garetson,%20Russ&rft.date=2019-04-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=355&rft.epage=365&rft.pages=355-365&rft.issn=0890-037X&rft.eissn=1550-2740&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/wet.2019.14&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26715712%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2224282044&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26715712&rfr_iscdi=true