Next Article in Journal
Effects of Vermicompost, Compost and Digestate as Commercial Alternative Peat-Based Substrates on Qualitative Parameters of Salvia officinalis
Next Article in Special Issue
Erratum: Torra et al. Amaranthus palmeri a New Invasive Weed in Spain with Herbicide Resistant Biotypes. Agronomy 2020, 10, 993
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Atomization Nozzles and Spraying Intervals on Growth, Biomass Yield, and Nutrient Uptake of Butter-Head Lettuce under Aeroponics System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fitness Cost of Imazamox Resistance in Wild Poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla L.)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

First Case of Multiple Resistance to EPSPS and PSI in Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Collected in Rice and Herbicide-Resistant Crops in Colombia

by
Guido Plaza
1,
Verónica Hoyos
2,
José G. Vázquez-García
3,*,
Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz
4 and
Rafael De Prado
3,*
1
Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá D.C. 111321, Colombia
2
College of Engineering, Magdalena University, Santa Marta, Magdalena 470004, Colombia
3
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Edaphology, University of Cordoba, 14071 Cordoba, Spain
4
Departamento de Química, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos 13565-905, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(1), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010096
Submission received: 8 November 2020 / Revised: 18 December 2020 / Accepted: 3 January 2021 / Published: 6 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cross and Multiple-Resistant Weeds to Herbicides)

Abstract

:
Eleusine indica is a highly competitive and difficult-to-control plant in annual and perennial crops. In Colombia, broad-spectrum herbicides, such as paraquat and glyphosate, have begun to present poor levels of control for this weed. The multiple resistance to glyphosate and paraquat, the increase in herbicide performance with adjuvants (Retenol® and Trend® 90), and alternative herbicides were evaluated in a resistant (R) population of E. indica collected in rice fields, which is rotated with herbicide-resistant (HR) crops. Based on plant mortality, the R population was 9.8 and 7.2 times more resistant than susceptible (S) plants to glyphosate and paraquat, respectively. R plants accumulated 4.2 less shikimic acid and had at least 70% less electrolyte leakage than S plants when they were exposed to glyphosate and paraquat, respectively. Both adjuvants increased the foliar retention of herbicides. In addition, adjuvants also increased the performance of glyphosate effectiveness between 22% and 58% and that of paraquat from 61% to 100%. Alternative herbicides (atrazine, clethodim, imazamox, diuron, flazasulfuron, glufosinate, oxyfluorfen, quizalofop, and tembotrione) provided high levels of control in both populations of E. indica. This is the first case of multiple resistant E. indica confirmed in Colombia. Adjuvants improved the leaf retention and efficacy of glyphosate and paraquat. In summary, the alternative herbicides evaluated in this study should be adopted by Colombian farmers and provide additional herbicide modes-of-action to combat future resistance.

1. Introduction

In Colombia, as in many other Latin American countries, rice, corn, and cotton are important crops for food and fiber production [1,2]. Among strategies to increase the productivity of these crops are the technification of cultivated areas by using certified seeds in which most of them have herbicide resistance traits [3,4], and, consequently, their management programs. The weed species found in the Colombian agricultural areas are highly diverse [5,6]. However, the over-reliance on glyphosate in-crop weed control or paraquat for weed control before crop establishment has led to the selection of herbicide resistant weed biotypes. One of the first weeds that selected resistance in these crops was E. indica [7].
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. (goosegrass) is an introduced-naturalized species in Colombia, widely distributed throughout the country [8]. It is a common weed in rice producing areas and is present in 70% of irrigated rice fields [6]. Eleusine indica is one of the most important weeds world that is highly competitive with a C4 metabolism. [9]. This species is present in more than 42 countries with a high grow and reproductive capacity [10]. Eleusine indica is a weed that has a propensity for herbicide resistance from different modes of action (up to eight in 2020), occurring in both annual and perennial crops in Asia, America, and Australia [7]. In the world, E. indica has been confirmed with herbicide resistance in Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, United States, Japan, Malaysia, and Mexico [7].
Glyphosate and paraquat are non-selective herbicides with unique mechanisms and modes of action widely used for total weed control, mainly in perennial crops, but their use in annual crops has become common due to the adoption of herbicide-resistant (HR) crops [11,12]. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that inhibits 5-enolpyrivyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), a key enzyme in the shikimic acid pathway, responsible for biosynthesis of 5-enolpyrivyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), interrupting the production of essential aromatic amino acids [13].
Paraquat belongs to the bipyridiniums and, due to its low mobility in light conditions, it is generally considered a contact herbicide [14]. This herbicide acts within chloroplasts as an electron acceptor of photosystem I (PSI) and, depending on the light, generates reactive oxygen species that destroy membranes, leading to the rapid death of plant cells [11]. Currently, 51 unique cases (weed × herbicide) of glyphosate resistance and 32 to bipyridiniums are known [7].
Early scouting and detection of herbicide resistant weeds is crucial for management [15]. Conversely, optimizing the effectiveness of herbicides is a constant concern for farmers. The use of adjuvants that reduce the surface tension and increase wettability, retention, and persistence of the active substances, improves the performance of the herbicides [16]. These products may improve control of herbicide resistance weeds since there is evidence that adjuvants increase foliar retention, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate, diminishing the resistance level in several weeds [17,18].
In Colombia, E. indica was found to be resistant to glyphosate in the central coffee region in 2006 [19], but, in this particular study, it was not possible to make a reliable comparison of dose-response curves. Control failures of E. indica were observed in rice fields in the HR crop rotation from Colombia. Glyphosate and paraquat were widely used during various times throughout the season. It was suspected that this weed has evolved resistance to these herbicides. The objectives of this research were to (1) confirm glyphosate and paraquat resistance in E. indica populations from Colombia, (2) determine susceptibility/resistance levels relative to herbicide performance with adjuvants, and (3) evaluate alternative chemical control options of both populations in greenhouse trials.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Herbicides and Adjuvants Used

Glyphosate (Roundup Energy®, 450 g ae L−1 as potassium salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine, Monsanto Agricultura, Madrid, Spain) and paraquat (Gramoxone 200 g L−1 of 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium, Syngenta, Edo. de México, México) were used in all assays described below. In addition, two non-ionic adjuvants were used: Trend 90 (90% isodecyl ethoxylated alcohol w/v, FMC, Valencia, Spain) and Retenol (66.5% terpenic alcohols w/v, Daymsa, Zaragoza, Spain), which decrease the surface tension of droplets and, thus, intend to increase wettability, foliar retention, and persistence of the active substances [20]. Alternative herbicides are listed in Section 2.8.

2.2. Plant Material

Eleusine indica seeds with suspected herbicide resistance (R) were collected in a commercial field with a history of crop rotation with rice, HR corn, and HR cotton, located in Central Colombia (4°10′03.2″ N, 74°55′32.4″ W), where glyphosate and paraquat did not provide acceptable levels of weed control. Each population was defined as the mixture of seeds collected in a single batch. Conversely, seeds of a susceptible (S) population were collected in a vacant lot with no history of herbicide use (5°6′51″ N, 75°50′8″ W).
The seeds were mechanically scarified, put into trays, and mixed with a mechanical scarifying device with sandpaper [18]. Subsequently, seeds were put in trays containing peat moss. The trays were placed in a cold chamber at 4 °C for 48 h and then taken to a growth chamber with 26/18 °C day/night with 70% relative humidity and a photoperiod of 16 h at a light density of 850 mmol m−2 s−1.
Seedlings with the first leaf were transplanted into pots (one plant pot−1) of 7 × 7 × 5 cm, with 240 g of substrate (soil:peat moss (1:1)). Pots were placed in a greenhouse and irrigated daily, as necessary, for use in the assays. Plants with four true leaves, counted from the bottom, were used in the different experiments.

2.3. Dose-Response Assays

The R and S E. indica populations were treated with the following doses of glyphosate: 0, 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 3000, g ae ha−1 plus 4500 and 6000 g ae ha−1 only in R, and paraquat: 0, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1200, 2400, and 4800 g ai ha−1. Ten plants were treated for each dose of herbicide. Spraying was done in a laboratory chamber equipped with an 8002 flat fan nozzle, delivering 200 L ha−1 at a constant pressure of 200 kPa. Twenty-one days after treatment (DAT), plant response, and dry weight (growth) per plant were evaluated. Data were expressed as a percentage in relation to the untreated control.

2.4. Shikimic Accumulation Assay

Leaf discs (4-mm in diameter) were taken from the second or third fully expanded young leaves for 50-mg plant tissue samples. Shikimic acid accumulation (mg of shikimic acid g−1 fresh tissue) was determined according to Shaner et al. [21]. The glyphosate concentrations were: 0, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 µM. The absorbance of samples was measured in a spectrophotometer (Beckman DU-640, Beckman Instruments Inc., Fullerton, CA, USA) at a 380-nm wavelength. The experiment had a completely random design, using five tissue samples from each R and S E. indica populations per glyphosate concentration.

2.5. Electrical Conductivity Test

Four untreated S and R plants were reserved as a control and another four plants of each population were treated with 200 g ai ha−1 of paraquat. Fully expanded leaves were harvested, rinsed with distilled water to remove electrolytes present on the surface, and cut with a scalpel into small pieces at 4, 8, and 12 h after treatment (HAT). Leaf segments were incubated (900 µmol m−2 s−1 at 27 °C) in 4 mL of distilled water in test tubes for 4 h. Samples were frozen for 24 h to determine the total electrolytes [22]. Conductivity was measured using a conductivity meter (Crison CM 35+, Hach Lange Spain, Barcelona, Spain). Four biological samples and two technical replicates per sample were evaluated.

2.6. Foliar Retention

This assay was performed following the methodology described by Vázquez-García et al. [18]. Glyphosate (360 g ae ha−1) and paraquat (150 g ai ha−1), without and with adjuvants (1 mL L−1 Trend 90; 2 mL L−1 Retenol), plus a labeling reagent (100 mg L−1 of fluorescein of 5 mM NaOH), were applied on seven plants of each E. indica populations. HAT plants, once the herbicides were dried, were cut at the soil level and washed individually in 50 mL of 5 mM NaOH by shaking vigorously for 30 s to eliminate possible residues of herbicide and dye that could remain in the leaf tissue. The absorbance of wash solutions was measured in a spectrofluorometer (F-2500, Hitachi, Japan) at a wavelength of 490 nm for excitation and 510 nm for emission. Finally, cut tissues were packed in paper bags and dried in an oven at 80 °C for 72 h for weighing. The retention was expressed in μL of herbicide solution per g of dry matter.

2.7. Increase in Herbicide Effectiveness with Adjuvants

Resistant and Susceptible plants were treated with paraquat or glyphosate solution containing adjuvants (1 mL L−1 Trend 90, 2 mL L−1 Retenol). The herbicide doses applied corresponded (approximately) to the concentration that reduced plant growth by 50% (1500 and 125 g ae ha−1 glyphosate for R and S populations, respectively, and 400 and 150 g ai h−1 of paraquat for R and S, respectively). Herbicide applications were done using the same media as in the dose response experiments. Ten plants of each E. indica population were treated per treatment (herbicide, herbicide + Retenol, or herbicide + Trend 90). In addition, one set of 10 plants of each population was reserved as an untreated control. After herbicide treatment, plants were kept under greenhouse conditions and, at 21 DAT, fresh weight reduction was evaluated to estimate the percentage of increase in herbicide efficacy.

2.8. Alternative Control with POST Herbicides

Greenhouse experiments were performed to find the effectiveness of alternative POST emergence herbicides on E. indica populations. Ten herbicides of six different mechanisms of action were tested (Table 1). Ten plants per population were treated as described in the dose-response experiments. Plants were kept in greenhouse conditions until evaluation of visual control and plant survival at 21 DAT. Experiments were conducted in a randomized complete design with 10 replications (one plant pot−1). Visual control (%) was based on plant vigor and chlorosis, compared with the untreated plants. In addition, 0% corresponded to no injuries and 100% when the herbicide had a lethal effect on the plants. Shoot fresh weight of treated plants were expressed as a percent reduction relative to that of the nontreated plants. Control values above 85% were considered satisfactory.

2.9. Statistical Analyses

Non-linear regression analysis was conducted using growth reduction (%) and plant survival (%) to estimate the amount of herbicide needed to reduce the growth by 50% (GR50) and the lethal dose 50 (LD50) of each E. indica population. The log-logistic model of three-parameters Y = ((d)/(1 + (x/g)b)) was conducted using a “drc” statistical analysis of the R package [23]. In the equation, Y represents the plant response (dry weight or mortality) to the dose x of the herbicide. Furthermore, d is the lower limit of the curve, b is the slope at the inflection point (i.e., GR50, LD50), and x is the herbicide dose. The resistance factor (RF) was calculated to the relationship between the GR50/LD50 of the population R and the GR50/LD50 of the population S (RF = R/S).
The experiments were conducted twice. Since no interaction was observed between the treatments and the experiments, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for shikimic acid, electrical conductivity, alternative herbicides, foliar retention, and use of adjuvants data. For the statistical analysis, model assumptions of a normal distribution of errors and homogeneous variance were graphically inspected. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were compared using Tukey’s test at the 95% probability level.

3. Results

3.1. Dose-Response Assay

The GR50 and LD50 values of the R E. indica population were 1574.4 and 3204.44 g ae ha−1 glyphosate, respectively. The resistance factors (RFs), based on dry weight and plant survival, were 11.6 and 9.8 times higher compared to the S population. Paraquat GR50 and LD50 values were 449.5 and 1450.81 g ai ha−1, respectively. The RFs of the R population were 3.3 and 7.2 times higher than population S (Table 2, Figure 1).

3.2. Shikimic Acid Accumulation

Both populations, R and S, accumulated shikimic acid but accumulation was more pronounced in the S population as glyphosate concentration increased. At 100 μM glyphosate, S plants accumulated 2.5 times more shikimic acid than R plants and, at 1000 μM, the accumulation ratio became 4.2 greater in the S plants in relation to the R ones (Figure 2).

3.3. Electrical Conductivity Test (EC)

Untreated R and S E. indica plants showed similar low electrical conductivity values (electrolyte leakage ≥ 5%) in leaves. However, paraquat-treated R and S plants showed high electrolyte leakage. The S population exhibited the highest electrolyte leakage ranging from 76% to 99.3% between 4 to 12 HAT, while those of the R population were between 23% and 30% in the same period (Figure 3).

3.4. Foliar Retention

Leaf retention between the R and S E. indica populations was similar within each treatment (herbicide × adjuvant). Glyphosate retention was slightly higher than paraquat (407 vs. 322 μL herbicide solution g−1 of dry matter). The addition of adjuvants increased the leaf retention of both herbicides. Retenol® increased glyphosate retention moderately (232 μL), whereas, paraquat retention more than doubled (408 μL). Trend® 90 improved glyphosate and paraquat retention 2.1 and 2.7 times, respectively, in relation to treatment without adjuvants (Figure 4).

3.5. Increase in Herbicide Effectiveness

Herbicides without adjuvants caused a fresh weigh reduction close to 50%, as expected since the R and S E. indica populations were treated with the herbicide doses of glyphosate or paraquat corresponding to their GR50 values (approximately). Adjuvants, in addition to improving leaf retention, increased the efficacy of herbicides. Retenol and Trend increased glyphosate efficacy by 37% and 58%, respectively, in the S population, while, for the R population, this increase was less than 30% for both adjuvants. In the case of paraquat, both adjuvants increased the efficacy by 90%, while, in the R population, the Trend presented the best performance (77%) (Table 3).

3.6. Alternative Chemical Control

Eleusine indica control was satisfactory with most of the herbicides assessed. Herbicides, such as glufosinate, controlled both R and S populations at seven DAT and tembotrione and oxyfluorfen injured R and S plants from four DAT. However, plant mortality was observed at 21 DAT. Additionally, clethodim, imazamox, quizalofop, atrazine, and diuron provided excellent control of both E. indica populations, which died at 21 DAT. Flazasulfuron was the only one that did not cause 100% fresh weight reduction, but it was also considered satisfactory using the 85% threshold discussed earlier (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The high GR50 and LD50 values of the R population confirmed resistance to glyphosate and paraquat in E. indica from Colombia. Glyphosate and paraquat resistance is widely distributed worldwide [7]. The resistance levels were quite variable. For example, E. indica populations characterized as being glyphosate resistance showed RFs (based on GR50) of 4.2 (Brazil), 4.9 to 13.4 (China), 3 to 16 (Mexico), and up to 32 (Malaysia) [24,25,26,27], among other cases. Paraquat resistance seems to be less variable, and resistant E. indica populations from Malaysia showed RFs ranging from 2 to 3.5 times [28,29]. However, a population from Florida, USA, was 30 times more resistant than its S counterpart [30].
Glyphosate behaves like a phosphoenolpyruvate analog in the reaction of this substrate with shikimate-3-phosphate, mediated by EPSPS, impeding the biosynthesis of EPSP. The interruption of this reaction by glyphosate induces the accumulation of shikimic acid [31], which explains the high levels of shikimate in the S E. indica population as glyphosate concentration increased. Conversely, since the amount of glyphosate that arrives and interacts with EPSPS is not sufficient in resistant plants, the accumulation of shikimic acid is relatively low [21], confirming the resistance observed in the glyphosate dose-response assays.
High paraquat-induced electrolyte leakage in the S E. indica population was due to the disruption of cell membranes caused by rapid superoxide production and other reactive oxygen species [11]. Low electrolyte leakage in the R population followed patterns similar to those observed in paraquat-resistant Lolium multiflorum from California [22] and E. indica from China [32], confirming resistance to paraquat.
Herbicide formulation design is based on bringing the active ingredient to its target site in sufficient quantity to control weeds at a label dose [33]. Although glyphosate and paraquat retention was lower without adjuvants, both herbicides were efficient in controlling the S E. indica population with lower doses than indicated on the label, i.e., formulations met their objective. Glyphosate retention varies depending on the type of salt (ammonium, potassium, or isopropylamine) in the formulation, as well as the specific weeds treated [34]. In contrast, some adjuvants improve the performance of pesticides [35] and, in this research, both Retenol and Trend improved the foliar retention of glyphosate and paraquat, and increased the efficacy of the herbicides on R and S E. indica populations. This increase in herbicide efficacy is due to the fact that some adjuvants also improve absorption and translocation patterns [17,36]. Although Retenol and Trend are nonionic adjuvants, glyphosate and paraquat presented better performance (increased retention and efficacy) with Trend. These differences could be due to the concentration of the active ingredient of each adjuvant (90% in Trend and 66% in Retenol), highlighting that the choice of the most suitable adjuvant may contribute to reducing environmental impacts [37], while the level of control is maintained.
Experiments evaluating alternative modes of action of herbicides showed several effective herbicides to manage resistant E. indica. Experiments have shown that tembotrione, atrazine, and diuron could be used in HR-corn, clethodim, and quizalofop in HR-cotton, clethodim, and imazamox in rice (Clearfield), and glufosinate as an alternative in pre-sowing. In addition, the response of S and R E. indica showed sensitivity to ALS (flazasulfuron) and PPO (oxyfluorfen) inhibitors, ruling out multiple resistance at these sites of action. The control of glyphosate-resistant populations has been observed when grass weed herbicides were applied over different species, such as Hordeum murinum [18] or Chloris distichophylla [38], which were controlled with ACCase, GS, and PSII inhibiting herbicides. Additional works in Echinochloa colona and Chloris virgata reported, like glyphosate resistant, were perfectly controlled using herbicides with a different mode of action and they emphasized that a rotation and mixture with different mode of actions (MOAs) is a good tool in integrated weed management [39].
Within integrated weed management, crop sequence diversification, i.e., crop rotation, is among some advantages, allowing the rotation of herbicide choices [40]. This and other strategies, if managed with an integrated approach, can greatly reduce the management of herbicide resistance, as well as the appearance of new herbicide resistant weeds [15,41].

5. Conclusions

Resistance to glyphosate and paraquat observed in E. indica across rice and HR fields in Colombia was confirmed. This is the first confirmed case of multiple resistance in this country. To control this herbicide resistant weed, different chemical alternatives are still available, either by the use of adjuvants that improve leaf retention and the efficacy of glyphosate and paraquat, as well as herbicides with different modes of action (ACCase, ALS, GS, HPPD, PPO, and PSII inhibitors), since no other multiple resistance pattern was observed in the addition of resistance to EPSPS and PSI inhibitors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.P., V.H., J.G.V.-G., R.A.-d.l.C., and R.D.P. Methodology, G.P., V.H., and J.G.V.-G. Validation, G.P., V.H., J.G.V.-G., R.A.-d.l.C., and R.D.P. Formal analysis, J.G.V.-G., and R.A.-d.l.C. Investigation, G.P., V.H., J.G.V.-G., R.A.-d.l.C., and R.D.P. Resources, R.D.P. Data curation, J.G.V.-G. and R.A.-d.l.C. Writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visualization, G.P., V.H., J.G.V.-G., R.A.-d.l.C., and R.D.P. Supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, R.D.P. and R.A.-d.l.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Asociación de Agroquímicos y Medio Ambiente (Cordoba, Spain). Ricardo Alcántara de la Cruz thanks the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP 2018/15910-6) for their support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rafael Zamorano García for technical help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Feola, G.; Agudelo Vanegas, L.A.; Contesse Bamón, B.P. Colombian agriculture under multiple exposures: A review and research agenda. Clim. Dev. 2015, 7, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vargas Escobar, E.A.; Baena García, D.; Vargas Sánchez, J.E. Análisis de estabilidad y adaptabilidad de híbridos de maíz de alta calidad proteica en diferentes zonas agroecológicas de Colombia. Acta Agronómica 2015, 65, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Silva Garzon, D. Tres lógicas de acción y reacción para la monopolización de los mercados de semillas en Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Antropol. 2019, 55, 9–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brookes, G. Genetically modified (GM) crop use in Colombia: Farm level economic and environmental contributions. GM Crops Food 2020, 11, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hoyos, V.; Martínez, M.J.; Plaza, G. Malezas asociadas a los cultivos de cítricos, guayaba, maracuyá y piña en el departamento del Meta, Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Hortícolas 2015, 9, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ramírez, S.J.; Hoyos, C.V.; Plaza, T.G. Phytosociology of weeds associated with rice crops in the department of Tolima, Colombia. Agron. Colomb. 2015, 33, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Heap, I. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. 2020. Available online: www.weedscience.org (accessed on 5 November 2020).
  8. Giraldo-Cañas, D. Las Gramíneas en Colombia: Riqueza, Distribución, Endemismo, Invasión, Migración, Usos y Taxonomías Populares; Biblioteca José Jerónimo Triana; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogota, Colombia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P. The World’s Worst Weed: Distribution and Biology; University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  10. Holm, L.G.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P.; Plucknett, D.L. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hawkes, T.R. Mechanisms of resistance to paraquat in plants. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1316–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duke, S.O. The history and current status of glyphosate. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1027–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Steinrücken, H.C.; Amrhein, N. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1980, 94, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tahmasebi, B.K.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; Alcántara, E.; Torra, J.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; Cruz-Hipólito, H.E.; Rojano-Delgado, A.M.; De Prado, R. Multiple resistance evolution in bipyridylium-resistant Epilobium ciliatum after recurrent selection. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; Moraes de Oliveira, G.; Bianco de Carvalho, L.; Fátima das Graças Fernandes da Silva, M. Herbicide resistance in Brazil: Status, impacts, and future challenges. In Pests, Weeds and Diseases in Agricultural Crop and Animal Husbandry Production; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ramsey, R.J.L.; Stephenson, G.R.; Hall, J.C. A review of the effects of humidity, humectants, and surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water-soluble herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2005, 82, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Palma-Bautista, C.; Vazquez-Garcia, J.G.; Travlos, I.; Tataridas, A.; Kanatas, P.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; De Prado, R. Effect of adjuvant on glyphosate effectiveness, retention, absorption and translocation in Lolium rigidum and Conyza canadensis. Plants 2020, 9, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Vázquez-García, J.G.; Castro, P.; Torra, J.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.A.; De Prado, R. Resistance evolution to EPSPS inhibiting herbicides in false barley (Hordeum murinum) harvested in Southern Spain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Menza-Franco, H.D. Resistencia de Eleusine indica al glifosato en cafetales de la zona cafetalera central de Colombia. Cenicafé 2006, 57, 146–157. [Google Scholar]
  20. Palma-Bautista, C.; Tataridas, A.; Kanatas, P.; Travlos, I.S.; Bastida, F.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; De Prado, R. Can control of glyphosate susceptible and resistant Conyza sumatrensis populations be dependent on the herbicide formulation or adjuvants? Agronomy 2020, 10, 1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shaner, D.L.; Nadler-Hassar, T.; Henry, W.B.; Koger, C.H. A rapid in vivo shikimate accumulation assay with excised leaf discs. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brunharo, C.A.C.G.; Hanson, B.D. Vacuolar sequestration of paraquat is involved in the resistance mechanism in Lolium perenne L. spp. multiflorum. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ritz, C.; Baty, F.; Streibig, J.C.; Gerhard, D. Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0146021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Chen, J.; Huang, H.; Wei, S.; Cui, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, C. Glyphosate resistance in Eleusine indica: EPSPS overexpression and P106A mutation evolved in the same individuals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 164, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gherekhloo, J.; Fernández-Moreno, P.T.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; Sánchez-González, E.; Cruz-Hipolito, H.E.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; De Prado, R. Pro-106-Ser mutation and EPSPS overexpression acting together simultaneously in glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Takano, H.K.; Mendes, R.R.; Scoz, L.B.; Lopez Ovejero, R.F.; Constantin, J.; Gaines, T.A.; Westra, P.; Dayan, F.E.; Oliveira, R.S. Proline-106 EPSPS mutation imparting glyphosate resistance in goosegrass (Eleusine indica) emerges in South America. Weed Sci. 2019, 67, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yu, Q.; Jalaludin, A.; Han, H.; Chen, M.; Sammons, R.D.; Powles, S.B. Evolution of a double amino acid substitution in the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase in Eleusine indica conferring high-level glyphosate resistance. Plant. Physiol. 2015, 167, 1440–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Seng, C.T.; Van Lun, L.; San, C.T.; Sahid, I.B. Initial report of glufosinate and paraquat multiple resistance that evolved in a biotype of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) in Malaysia. Weed Biol. Manag. 2010, 10, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jalaludin, A.; Yu, Q.; Powles, S.B. Multiple resistance across glufosinate, glyphosate, paraquat and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in an Eleusine indica population. Weed Res. 2015, 55, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Buker, R.S.; Steed, S.T.; Stall, W.M. Confirmation and control of a paraquat-tolerant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) biotipe. Weed Technol. 2002, 16, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dayan, F.E.; Owens, D.K.; Corniani, N.; Silva, F.M.L.; Watson, S.B.; Howell, J.; Shaner, D.L. Biochemical markers and enzyme assays for herbicide mode of action and resistance studies. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 23–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Deng, C.; Li, J.; Liu, S.; Zhu, X.; Chen, Y.; Shen, X. Effects of spermidine and salinity stress on growth and biochemical response of paraquat-susceptibe and -resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica L.). Weed Biol. Manag. 2019, 19, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nandula, V.K.; Vencill, W.K. Herbicide Absorption and translocation in plants using radioisotopes. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Oliveira, R.B.; Dario, G.; Alves, K.A.; Gandolfo, M.A. Influence of the glyphosate formulations on wettability and evaporation time of droplets on different targets. Planta Daninha 2015, 33, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pacanoski, Z. Herbicides and Adjuvants. In Herbicides, Physiology of Action, and Safety; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Santier, S.; Chamel, A. Reassessment of the role of cuticular waxes in the transfer of organic molecules through plant cuticles. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 1998, 36, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Oliveira, R.B.; Antuniassi, U.R.; Mota, A.A.B.; Chechetto, R.G. Potential of adjuvants to reduce drift in agricultural spraying. Eng. Agrícola 2013, 33, 986–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vázquez-García, J.G.; Golmohammadzadeh, S.; Palma-Bautista, C.; Rojano-Delgado, A.M.; Domínguez-Valenzuela, J.A.; Cruz-Hipólito, H.E.; De Prado, R. New case of false-star-grass (Chloris distichophylla) population evolving glyphosate resistance. Agronomy 2020, 10, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Davidson, B.; Cook, T.; Chauhan, B.S. Alternative options to glyphosate for control of large Echinochloa colona and Chloris virgata plants in cropping fallows. Plants 2019, 8, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Integrated weed management in herbaceous field crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Doğan, M.N.; Jabran, K.; Unay, A. Integrated weed management in cotton. In Recent Advances in Weed Management; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 197–220. ISBN 9781493910199. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Dose response curves to glyphosate and paraquat on the fresh weight reduction and plant survival rate of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica populations from Colombia. Vertical bars represent the standard error (n = 20).
Figure 1. Dose response curves to glyphosate and paraquat on the fresh weight reduction and plant survival rate of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica populations from Colombia. Vertical bars represent the standard error (n = 20).
Agronomy 11 00096 g001
Figure 2. Shikimic acid accumulation in susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica plants at different glyphosate concentrations. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 10). Different letters within each group of bars did not differ statistically at the 95% Tukey test.
Figure 2. Shikimic acid accumulation in susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica plants at different glyphosate concentrations. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 10). Different letters within each group of bars did not differ statistically at the 95% Tukey test.
Agronomy 11 00096 g002
Figure 3. Percentage of electrical conductivity in leaf segments with respect to total electrolytes of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica plants from Colombia, non-treated (NT), and treated (T) with 200 g ai ha−1 paraquat. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 8).
Figure 3. Percentage of electrical conductivity in leaf segments with respect to total electrolytes of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) Eleusine indica plants from Colombia, non-treated (NT), and treated (T) with 200 g ai ha−1 paraquat. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 8).
Agronomy 11 00096 g003
Figure 4. Foliar retention of glyphosate and paraquat in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica plants from Colombia, using two adjuvants, Retenol® and Trend® 90. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 14). Different letters denote significant differences between treatments of the same herbicide by the 95% Tukey test.
Figure 4. Foliar retention of glyphosate and paraquat in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica plants from Colombia, using two adjuvants, Retenol® and Trend® 90. Histograms represent the means and vertical bars of the standard error (n = 14). Different letters denote significant differences between treatments of the same herbicide by the 95% Tukey test.
Agronomy 11 00096 g004
Table 1. Alternative herbicides (active ingredients), mode of action (MOA), trade name, and field doses (g ai ha−1) evaluated to control susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia.
Table 1. Alternative herbicides (active ingredients), mode of action (MOA), trade name, and field doses (g ai ha−1) evaluated to control susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia.
Active IngredientMOA aTrade NameField Doses
FlazasulfuronALSTerafit 25%50
ImazamoxALSPulsar 4040
ClethodimACCasaCenturion Plus 12%100
QuizalofopACCasaLeopard 5%100
GlufosinateGSFinale 15%500
TembotrioneHPPDLaudis 20%120
OxyfluorfenPPOGoal Supreme 24%480
AtrazinePSIIAtazinax-FLO 47.5%2000
DiuronPSIIDiuron 80%1800
a Mode of action: Inhibitors of acetolactate synthase (ALS), acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase), glutamine synthetase (GS), 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO), and photosystem II (PSII).
Table 2. Parameters of the log-logistic equations a used to estimate the glyphosate (g ae ha−1) and paraquat (g ai ha−1) rates required to reduce growth by 50% (GR50) and lethal doses (LD50) in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia.
Table 2. Parameters of the log-logistic equations a used to estimate the glyphosate (g ae ha−1) and paraquat (g ai ha−1) rates required to reduce growth by 50% (GR50) and lethal doses (LD50) in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia.
PopulationDry Weight ReductionPlant Survival
bdGR50RF bbdLD50RF b
Glyphosate
R1.8100.41574.4 ± 54.413.33.0999.43204.44 ± 129.89.8
S1.599.82118.43 ± 6.72.0995.1327.3 ± 24.7
Paraquat
R1.3101.6449.5 ± 28.23.32.09100.11450.81 ± 61.57.2
S1.999.3135.6 ± 7.52.17102.1199.80 ± 9.71
a Y = d/1 + (x∕g)b: Y = response by 50% with respect to the control, b = slope of the curve, d = upper limit, g = inflection point of the curve (GR50 or LD50), and x = herbicide concentration. b Resistance factor (RF = GR50-R population/GR50-S population).
Table 3. Fresh weight (Fw) and percentage in increasing herbicide effectiveness (IE) of glyphosate (Gly) and/or paraquat (Par.) with and without adjuvants in resistant (R) and susceptible (S) Eleusine indica populations from Colombia in relation to the absolute controls (C) and treatments without adjuvants (T).
Table 3. Fresh weight (Fw) and percentage in increasing herbicide effectiveness (IE) of glyphosate (Gly) and/or paraquat (Par.) with and without adjuvants in resistant (R) and susceptible (S) Eleusine indica populations from Colombia in relation to the absolute controls (C) and treatments without adjuvants (T).
Treatment aSR
Fw (g)IE-CIE-TFw (g)IE-CIE-T
Control2.40--1.72--
Gly1.14 ± 0.12 a52-0.94 ± 0.07 a46-
Gly + Retenol0.76 ± 0.08 b68370.68 ± 0.06 b6128
Gly + Trend0.49 ± 0.05 c79580.74 ± 0.07 b5722
Par1.04 ± 0.07 a57-0.87 ± 0.07 a51-
Par + Retenol0.12 ± 0.03 b95890.34 ± 0.06 bc8061
Par + Trend0 ± 0 c1001000.24 ± 0.05 c8677
a Herbicide doses applied were the corresponding GR50 values determined for each population and herbicide. Different letters per column refer to treatments that are significantly different based on the Tukey test at the 95% probability. Mean values ± standard errors of the mean (n = 20).
Table 4. Percentage of visual control and fresh weight reduction in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia with alternative herbicides.
Table 4. Percentage of visual control and fresh weight reduction in susceptible and resistant Eleusine indica populations from Colombia with alternative herbicides.
HerbicideVisual Control aFresh Weight Reduction
SRSR
Control0 b0 b0 c0 c
Flazasulfuron100 a95 a93.3 ± 5.9 b90.4 ± 3.9 b
Clethodim100 a100 a100 a100 a
Quizalofop100 a100 a100 a100 a
Glufosinate100 a100 a100 a100 a
Tembotrione100 a100 a100 a100 a
Oxyfluorfen100 a100 a100 a100 a
Atrazina100 a100 a100 a100 a
Diuron100 a100 a100 a100 a
a Visual evaluation was based on plant vigor and chlorosis. Compared with the untreated plants, 0% corresponded to no injuries and 100% when plants were killed. Mean values ± standard errors of the mean (n = 20).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Plaza, G.; Hoyos, V.; Vázquez-García, J.G.; Alcántara-de la Cruz, R.; De Prado, R. First Case of Multiple Resistance to EPSPS and PSI in Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Collected in Rice and Herbicide-Resistant Crops in Colombia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010096

AMA Style

Plaza G, Hoyos V, Vázquez-García JG, Alcántara-de la Cruz R, De Prado R. First Case of Multiple Resistance to EPSPS and PSI in Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Collected in Rice and Herbicide-Resistant Crops in Colombia. Agronomy. 2021; 11(1):96. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Plaza, Guido, Verónica Hoyos, José G. Vázquez-García, Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz, and Rafael De Prado. 2021. "First Case of Multiple Resistance to EPSPS and PSI in Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Collected in Rice and Herbicide-Resistant Crops in Colombia" Agronomy 11, no. 1: 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010096

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop