Discrimination of ACCase-inhibiting herbicides-resistant Digitaria ciliaris populations with three diagnostic bioassays

IF 1.8 4区 农林科学 Q2 PLANT SCIENCES
Suma Basak, Bo Bi, C. Gonçalves, Jinesh D. Patel, Qiyu Luo, P. McCullough, J. S. McElroy, Anderson Luis Nunes
{"title":"Discrimination of ACCase-inhibiting herbicides-resistant Digitaria ciliaris populations with three diagnostic bioassays","authors":"Suma Basak, Bo Bi, C. Gonçalves, Jinesh D. Patel, Qiyu Luo, P. McCullough, J. S. McElroy, Anderson Luis Nunes","doi":"10.51694/advweedsci/2023;41:00003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Background: Diagnostic bioassays are used to screen the suspected R population. They are conducted at a single herbicide dose and evaluated at a specific time after treatment that can differentiate resistant from susceptible population. Objective: Three different bioassays were evaluated to assess the detection of acetyl CoA carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides resistance in D. ciliaris . Method: Increasing herbicide rates were used to evaluate the three bioassays for differentiating R from S populations. Results: R1 and R2 differed from S in all employed bioassays. In the Agar-based gel box box assay, the S biotype had greater plant damage at the lower herbicide concentration relative to the R biotypes 3 DAT but differences between R and S decreased over time. In the leaf flotation assay, R biotypes floated at the lower concentration on the surface, whereas the leaves of S biotypes failed to float. For the electrical conductivity assay, the S biotype contained high electrical conductivity due to the high leaching of electrolyte into the water across all four herbicides tested than the R biotypes. Conclusion: While these assays were able to separate R and S biotypes, the level of resistance difference for any assay was no greater than 40% depending on rating data and exposure dose. While a statistical separation could be achieved using a rate response regression analysis for these bioassays, our data highlights the challenges associated whether these methods could provide an obvious difference at any single rate or rating data to be used as a consistent, effective first-phase resistance screen.","PeriodicalId":29845,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Weed Science","volume":"209 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Weed Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51694/advweedsci/2023;41:00003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Background: Diagnostic bioassays are used to screen the suspected R population. They are conducted at a single herbicide dose and evaluated at a specific time after treatment that can differentiate resistant from susceptible population. Objective: Three different bioassays were evaluated to assess the detection of acetyl CoA carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides resistance in D. ciliaris . Method: Increasing herbicide rates were used to evaluate the three bioassays for differentiating R from S populations. Results: R1 and R2 differed from S in all employed bioassays. In the Agar-based gel box box assay, the S biotype had greater plant damage at the lower herbicide concentration relative to the R biotypes 3 DAT but differences between R and S decreased over time. In the leaf flotation assay, R biotypes floated at the lower concentration on the surface, whereas the leaves of S biotypes failed to float. For the electrical conductivity assay, the S biotype contained high electrical conductivity due to the high leaching of electrolyte into the water across all four herbicides tested than the R biotypes. Conclusion: While these assays were able to separate R and S biotypes, the level of resistance difference for any assay was no greater than 40% depending on rating data and exposure dose. While a statistical separation could be achieved using a rate response regression analysis for these bioassays, our data highlights the challenges associated whether these methods could provide an obvious difference at any single rate or rating data to be used as a consistent, effective first-phase resistance screen.
三种诊断性生物测定法鉴别抗accase除草剂毛Digitaria
背景:诊断性生物测定法用于筛选疑似R型人群。它们以单一除草剂剂量进行,并在处理后的特定时间进行评估,以区分抗性和易感人群。目的:采用三种不同的生物测定法对毛蝇乙酰辅酶a羧化酶抑制剂抗性进行检测。方法:采用增加除草剂施用量的方法,对3种生物测定方法进行评价。结果:R1和R2均与S不同。在琼脂凝胶盒试验中,在较低的除草剂浓度下,S生物型比R生物型3 DAT对植物的伤害更大,但随着时间的推移,R和S之间的差异逐渐减小。在叶片漂浮试验中,R生物型的叶片在较低浓度下浮在表面,而S生物型的叶片则不能浮在表面。在电导率测试中,S生物型比R生物型具有更高的电导率,因为在所有四种除草剂中,电解质的浸出率都比R生物型高。结论:虽然这些方法能够分离R和S生物型,但根据分级数据和暴露剂量的不同,任何一种方法的抗性差异水平都不大于40%。虽然可以使用这些生物测定的率响应回归分析来实现统计分离,但我们的数据突出了这些方法是否可以提供任何单一率或评级数据的明显差异,以用作一致,有效的第一期抗性筛选的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Weed Science
Advances in Weed Science PLANT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
42.90%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信