Morpho-Physiological Characterization of Glyphosate-Resistant and -Susceptible Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Biotypes of US Midsouth

Vijay K. Nandula^1*, Daniel H. Poston², Clifford H. Koger³, Krishna N. Reddy¹, K. Raja Reddy⁴

¹US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), Crop Production Systems Research Unit, Stoneville, MS, USA.
²Pioneer Hi-Bred International—Southern Business Unit, Huntsville, AL, USA.
³Silent Shade Planting Company, Belzoni, MS, USA.
⁴Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2015.61006                

Abstract

Horseweed is traditionally considered a non-cropland weed. However, populations resistant to glyphosate have eventually become established in no-till agronomic cropping systems. Growth chamber and greenhouse experiments were conducted to compare selected biological and physiological parameters of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and -susceptible (GS) horseweed biotypes from Mississippi with a broader goal of fitness characterization in these biotypes. Vegetative growth parameters (number of leaves, rosette diameter and area, shoot and root fresh weights) were recorded weekly from 5 to 11 wk after emergence and reproductive attributes [days to bolting (production of a flowering stalk) and flowering] and senescence were measured for both GR and GS biotypes under high (24°C/20°C) and low (18°C/12°C) temperature regimes, both with a 13-h light period. Physiological traits such as net photosynthesis, phenolic content, and cell membrane thermostability, all in the presence and absence of glyphosate, and leaf content of divalent cations such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ were assayed in the two biotypes under the high temperature regime. All horseweed vegetative growth parameters except root fresh weight were higher in the high temperature regime compared to that in low temperature regime in both biotypes. Number of leaves, rosette diameter and area, shoot and root fresh weight were 40 vs. 35, 9.3 vs. 8.7 cm, 51 vs. 43 cm2, 3.7 vs. 3.2 g, and 3.5 vs. 4.2 g under high and low temperature conditions, respectively, when averaged across biotypes and weekly measurements. All growth parameters listed above were higher for the GR biotype compared to the GS biotype. Number of leaves, rosette diameter and area, shoot and root fresh weight were 38 vs. 37, 9.1 vs. 8.9 cm, 50.2 vs. 44 cm2, 3.9 vs. 3.1 g, and 4.3 vs. 3.5 g for GR and GS biotypes, respectively, averaged across the temperature treatments and weekly measurements. Reproductive developmental data of these biotypes indicated that the GS biotype bolted earlier than the GR biotype. The GS biotype had more phenolic content and exhibited higher cell membrane thermostability, but less net photosynthetic rate compared to the GR biotype. At 48 h after treatment with glyphosate, there was no change in phenolic content of both GR and GS biotypes. However, glyphosate reduced cell membrane thermostability and net photosynthetic rate more in the GS biotype than that in the GR biotype. Chemical analysis of GR and GS leaf tissue did not reveal any differences in levels of divalent cations such as Ca2+ and Mg2+. Further studies are needed to determine if some of the differences between the two biotypes observed above relate to fitness variation in a natural environment.

Keywords

Conyza canadensis, Glyphosate, Growth, Fitness, Horseweed, Resistance

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Anonymous (2014) Conyza canadensis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conyza_canadensis
[2]	Buhler, D.D. (1992) Population Dynamics and Control of Annual Weeds in Corn (Zea mays) as Influenced by Tillage Systems. Weed Science, 40, 241-248.
[3]	Vencill, W.K. and Banks, P.A. (1994) Effects of Tillage Systems and Weed Management on Weed Populations in Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Science, 42, 541-547.
[4]	Brown, S.M. and Whitwell, T. (1988) Influence of Tillage on Horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Technology, 2, 269-270.
[5]	Van Gessel, M.J. (2001) Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed from Delaware. Weed Science, 49, 703-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0703:RPRHFD]2.0.CO;2
[6]	Mueller, T.C., Massey, J.H., Hays, R.M., Main, C.L. and Stewart Jr., C.N. (2003) Shikimate Accumulates in Both Glyphosate-Sensitive and Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 680-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf026006k
[7]	Koger, C.H., Poston, D.H., Hayes, R.M. and Montgomery, R.F. (2004) Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technology, 18, 820-825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-03-218R
[8]	Heap (2014) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/home.aspx
[9]	Koger, C.H. and Reddy, K.N. (2005) Role of Absorption and Translocation in the Mechanism of Glyphosate Resistance in Horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Science, 53, 84-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-04-102R
[10]	Koger, C.H., Poston, D.H. and Eubank, T.W. (2005) Factors Affecting Germination of Horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society, 58, 218.
[11]	Boykin, D.L., Carle, R.R., Ranney, C.D. and Shanklin, R. (1995) Weather Data Summary for 1964-1993 for Stoneville, MS. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station Technical Bull. 201. 49 p. Mississippi State University, Starkville.
[12]	Reddy, K.R., Kakani, V.G., Zhao, D., Koti, S. and Gao, W. (2004) Interactive Effects of Ultraviolet-B Radiation and Temperature on Cotton Growth, Development, Physiology and Hyperspectral Reflectance. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 79, 416-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1562/2003-11-19-RA.1
[13]	Koti, S., Reddy, K.R., Lawrence, G.W., Reddy, V.R., Kakani, V.G., Zhao, D. and Gao, W. (2007) Effect of Enhanced UV-B Radiation on Reniform Nematode (Rotylenchus reniformis Linford and Oliveira) Populations in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Pathology Journal, 6, 51-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ppj.2007.51.59
[14]	Kakani, V.G., Reddy, K.R., Koti, S., Wallace, T.P., Prasad, P.V.V., Reddy, V.R. and Zhao, D. (2005) Differences in in Vitro Pollen Germination and Pollen Tube Growth of Cotton Cultivars in Response to High Temperature. Annals of Botany, 96, 59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci149
[15]	Jones, J.B. and Steyn, W.J.A. (1973) Sampling, Handling, and Analyzing Plant Tissue Samples. In: Walsh, L.M. and Beaton, J.D., Eds., Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 249-270.
[16]	Brewer, C.E., Oliver, L.R. and Scott, R.C. (2006) Update: Arkansas Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed. Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society, 59, 188.
[17]	Wiederholt, R.J. and Stoltenberg, D.E. (1996) Absence of Differential Fitness between Giant Foxtail (Setaria faberi) Accessions Resistant and Susceptible to Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase Inhibitors. Weed Science, 44, 18-24.
[18]	Parks, R.J., Curran, W.S., Roth, G.W., Hartwig, N.L. and Calvin, D.D. (1996) Herbicide Susceptibility and Biological Fitness of Triazine-Resistant and Susceptible Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Science, 44, 517-522.
[19]	Alcorta, M., Fidelibus, M.W., Steenwerth, K.L. and Shrestha, A. (2011) Competitive Effects of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) on Young Grapevines (Vitis vinifera). Weed Science, 59, 489-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10-00186.1
[20]	Sibony, M. and Rubin, B. (2003) The Ecological Fitness of ALS-Resistant Amaranthus retroflexus and Multiple-Resistant Amaranthus blitoides. Weed Research, 43, 40-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2003.00315.x
[21]	Anderson, D.D., Higley, L.G., Martin, A.R. and Roeth, F.W. (1996) Competition between Triazine-Resistant and Susceptible Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Science, 44, 853-859.
[22]	Thompson, C.R., Thill, D.C. and Shafii, B. (1994) Germination Characteristics of Sulfonylurea-Resistant and Susceptible Kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Science, 42, 50-56.
[23]	Gronwald, J.W. (1994) Resistance to Photosystem II Inhibiting Herbicides. In: Powles, S.B. and Holtum, J.A.M., Eds., Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 27-60.
[24]	Tranel, P.J. and Wright, T.R. (2002) Resistance of Weeds to ALS-Inhibiting Herbicides: What Have We Learned? Weed Science, 50, 700-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0700:RROWTA]2.0.CO;2
[25]	Purrington, C.B. and Bergelson, J. (1997) Fitness Consequences of Genetically Engineered Herbicide and Antibiotic Resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics, 145, 807-814.
[26]	Andrews, T.S. and Morrison, I.N. (1997) The Persistence of Trifluralin Resistance in Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis) Populations. Weed Technology, 11, 369-372.
[27]	Jordan, N. (1999) Fitness Effects of the Triazine Resistance Mutation in Amaranthus hybridus: Relative Fitness in Maize and Soyabean Crops. Weed Research, 39, 493-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.1999.00168.x