ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Echinochloa colonum resistance to bispyribac-soduim in Egypt - occurrence and identification
1
Department of Agricultural Botany, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University 33516, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt
2
Pesticides Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafr-El-Shiekh University 33516, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2012;52(1)
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Identification and mechanism of
Echinochloa colonum
(L.) resistance to bispyribac-soduim via physiological and anatomical
differences between susceptible and resistant biotypes was investigated. The physiological and anatomical differences that were take
into account were growth reduction, chlorophyll content reduction, protein analysis, lamina thickness and xylem vessel diameter in
both susceptible and resistant biotypes of
E. colonum
. The results showed the growth reduction fifty (GR
50
) of resistant
biotype was
10.2 times higher than that of the susceptible biotype
E. colonum
treated with bispyribac-soduim. The chlorophyll content was highly
reduced in the susceptible biotype relative to the resistant one
of
E. colonum
treated with bispyribac-soduim. An anatomical test
showed significant differences in the cytology of susceptible and resistant biotypes of
E. colonum
treated with bispyribac-soduim with
respect to lamina thickness and xylem vessel diameter. Furthermore, leaf protein analysis showed significant differences between
the susceptible and resistant biotypes of
E. colonum
in the number and the density of protein bands. The resistance of
E. colonum
to
bispyribac-soduim may be due to the faster metabolism of bispyribac-soduim below the physiologically active concentration or the
insensitivity of its target enzyme, (acetolactate synthase). These results implied the occurrence of
E. colonum
resistance to bispyribac-
soduim in Egypt and provide conclusive evidence that a single resistance mechanism alone cannot explain insensitivity in
E. colonum
to bispyribac-soduim.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Busi R., Vidotto F., Ferrero A. 2004. Resistance patterns to ALS-inhibitors in Cyperus difformis and Schoenoplectus mucronatus. In: Abstract book of the 4th International Weed Science Congress. Durban, South Africa, 20–24 June p. 48.
2.
Castor Z., Alex M. 2006. Evaluation of the resistance to bispyribac- sodium of Echinochloa colonaL. link populations from rice fields of Portuguesa state. Anales-de-Botanica-Agricola 13: 29–35.
3.
Fischer A., Ramirez H.V., Lozano J. 1997. Suppression of junglerice[Echinochloa colona(L.) Link] by irrigated rice cultivars in Latin America. Agron. J. 89 (3): 516–521.
4.
Fischer A.J., Ateh C.M.D., Bayer E., Hill J.E. 2000. Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativafields. Weed Sci. 48: 225–230.
5.
Gomez K.A., Gomez A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. Wiley, 680 pp.
6.
Gutmann M. 1995. Improved staining procedures for photographic documentation of phenolic deposits in semithin sections of plant tissue. J. Microscopy 179 (3): 277–281.
7.
Hamza A.M. 2009. Evoloution and Resistance Mechanism of Some Rice Weeds Against Some Herbicides. Ph.D thesis, Fac. of Agric. Kafr-El Sheikh Univ. Egypt, 33 pp.
8.
Kuk Y.N., Kwon O.D., Jung H., Burgos N.R., Jaock G. 2002. Cross-resistance pattern and alternative herbicides for Rotala indicaresistant to imazosulfuron in Korea. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74 (3): 129–138.
9.
Laemmli U.K. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227: 680–685.
10.
Lycan D.W., Hart S.E. 2005. Cool-season turfgrass response to bispyibac- sodium. Hortic. Sci. 40 (5): 1552–1555.
11.
.Moran R., Porath D. 1980. Chlorophyll determination in intact tissues using N, N-Dimethyl formamide. Plant Physiol. 69: 1370–1381.
12.
Naples M.L., Kessler P.J.A. 2005. Weeds of Rain Fed Lowland Rice Fields of Laos and Cambodia. MSc thesis, University of Leiden, Cambodia, 55 pp.
13.
Osuna M.D., Vidotto F., Fischer A.J., Bayer D.E., DE Prado R., Ferrero A. 2002. Cross-resistance to bispyribac-sodium and bensulfuron-methyl in Echinochloa phyllopogon and Cyperus difformis. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.73 (1): 9–17.
14.
Ruiz-Santaella J.P., Fisher A.J., De Prado R. 2003. Alternative control of two biotypes of Echinochloa phyllopogon susceptible and resistant to fenoxaprop-ethyl. Communicat. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 68: 403–407.
15.
Ruzin S.E. 1999. Plant Microtechniques and Microscopy. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, USA, 336 pp.
16.
Seefeldt S.S., Jensen J.E., Fuerst E.P. 1994. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol.9 (2): 218–227.
17.
Shimizu T. 1997. Action mechanism of pyrimidinyl carboxy herbicides. J. Pestic. Sci.22: p. 254.
18.
Streibig J.C., Rudemo M., Jensen J.E. 1993. Dose response curves and statistical models. p. 30–55. In: “Herbicides Bioassays” (J.C. Streibig, P. Kudsk, eds.). Boca Raton FL CRC, 270 pp.
19.
Tranel P.J., Wright T.R. 2002. Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned. Weed Sci.50: 700–712.
20.
WSSA (Weed Science Society of America). 2007. Herbicide Handbook (W.K. Vencill, ed.). 9th ed. Lawrence, KS. 493 pp.
21.
Yun M.S., Yogo Y., Miura R., Yamasue Y., Fischer A. J. 2005. Cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activity in herbicide resistant and susceptible late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon. Pesticides Biochem. Physiol. 83 (2–3): 107–114.
22.
Zhou G.Y., Liu W.P., Zhang Y.S., Liu K.K. 2007. Action mechanisms of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Pestic. Bichem. Physiol.89 (2): 89-96.
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
