Response of Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Biotypes to Glyphosate in the Presence and Absence of Soil Microorganisms

Author:

Schafer Jessica R.,Hallett Steven G.,Johnson William G.

Abstract

In previous research conducted on nonweed species, the efficacy of glyphosate was shown to be greater in unsterile soils compared to sterile soils and soil microorganisms were found to play an important role in glyphosate efficacy. Conducting greenhouse studies in microbe-free soil may therefore produce unreliable data, leading to erroneous conclusions. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of soil microorganisms on the response of glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of three problematic weeds of the midwestern United States: giant ragweed, horseweed, and common lambsquarters. A greenhouse dose–response study was conducted on each of the three weed species grown in sterile and unsterile field soil, and the dry weight response of roots and shoots was measured. The three weed species responded differently to glyphosate when grown in the sterile and unsterile soil; that is, in the presence and absence of soil microbes. Soil microbes influenced the response of the susceptible and resistant giant ragweed biotypes and the susceptible common lambsquarters, but not the tolerant common lambsquarters or either horseweed biotype. The different responses of the three species to glyphosate in the presence and absence of soil microbes demonstrates that rhizosphere interactions are fundamental to the mode of action of glyphosate. These findings suggest that the range of tolerance to glyphosate observed in weeds and the evolution of resistance in weed biotypes may also be influenced by rhizosphere interactions. The soil media used in dose–response screenings to identify susceptible and resistant weed biotypes is very important. Unsterile field soil should be incorporated into growth media when conducting dose–response screenings to avoid false-positive results. In addition, researchers performing glyphosate dose–response assays should be aware of these findings.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Plant Science,Agronomy and Crop Science

Cited by 20 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3