A dicamba resistance-endowing IAA16 mutation leads to significant vegetative growth defects and impaired competitiveness in kochia (Bassia scoparia)
AUX/IAA16
dicamba resistance
fitness cost
kochia (Bassia scoparia)
replacement series study; leaf and stem morphology
Journal
Pest management science
ISSN: 1526-4998
Titre abrégé: Pest Manag Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100898744
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
05
05
2020
revised:
29
08
2020
accepted:
10
09
2020
pubmed:
11
9
2020
medline:
15
1
2021
entrez:
10
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Precise quantification of the fitness cost of synthetic auxin resistance has been impeded by lack of knowledge about the genetic basis of resistance in weeds. Recent elucidation of a resistance-endowing IAA16 mutation (G73N) in the key weed species kochia (Bassia scoparia), allows detailed characterization of the contribution of resistance alleles to weed fitness, both in the presence and absence of herbicides. Different G73N genotypes from a segregating resistant parental line (9425) were characterized for cross-resistance to dicamba, 2,4-d and fluroxypyr, and changes on stem/leaf morphology and plant architecture. Plant competitiveness and dominance of the fitness effects was quantified through measuring biomass and seed production of three F G73N confers robust resistance to dicamba but only moderate to weak resistance to 2,4-D and fluroxypyr. G73N mutant plants displayed significant vegetative growth defects: (i) they were 30-50% shorter, with a more tumbling style plant architecture, and (ii) they had thicker and more ovate (versus lanceolate and linear) leaf blades with lower photosynthesis efficiency, and 40-60% smaller stems with less-developed vascular bundle systems. F G73N is associated with significant vegetative growth defects and reduced competitiveness in synthetic auxin-resistant kochia. Management practices should target resistant kochia's high vulnerability to competition in order to effectively contain the spread of resistance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Precise quantification of the fitness cost of synthetic auxin resistance has been impeded by lack of knowledge about the genetic basis of resistance in weeds. Recent elucidation of a resistance-endowing IAA16 mutation (G73N) in the key weed species kochia (Bassia scoparia), allows detailed characterization of the contribution of resistance alleles to weed fitness, both in the presence and absence of herbicides. Different G73N genotypes from a segregating resistant parental line (9425) were characterized for cross-resistance to dicamba, 2,4-d and fluroxypyr, and changes on stem/leaf morphology and plant architecture. Plant competitiveness and dominance of the fitness effects was quantified through measuring biomass and seed production of three F
RESULTS
RESULTS
G73N confers robust resistance to dicamba but only moderate to weak resistance to 2,4-D and fluroxypyr. G73N mutant plants displayed significant vegetative growth defects: (i) they were 30-50% shorter, with a more tumbling style plant architecture, and (ii) they had thicker and more ovate (versus lanceolate and linear) leaf blades with lower photosynthesis efficiency, and 40-60% smaller stems with less-developed vascular bundle systems. F
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
G73N is associated with significant vegetative growth defects and reduced competitiveness in synthetic auxin-resistant kochia. Management practices should target resistant kochia's high vulnerability to competition in order to effectively contain the spread of resistance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32909332
doi: 10.1002/ps.6080
pmc: PMC7821297
doi:
Substances chimiques
Herbicides
0
Dicamba
SJG3M6RY6H
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
795-804Informations de copyright
© 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
Références
Genetics. 2005 Nov;171(3):1277-88
pubmed: 16020787
Genetics. 2006 Jun;173(2):1023-31
pubmed: 16582450
Genet Res. 2005 Apr;85(2):101-10
pubmed: 16174328
Pest Manag Sci. 2016 Nov;72(11):2091-2098
pubmed: 27442188
Pest Manag Sci. 2010 Feb;66(2):113-20
pubmed: 19823992
Plant Signal Behav. 2007 Sep;2(5):421-3
pubmed: 19704620
Plant Cell. 2001 Mar;13(3):465-80
pubmed: 11251090
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Feb 03;8:94
pubmed: 28217132
Plant J. 2002 Dec;32(5):669-83
pubmed: 12472684
Evolution. 2009 Feb;63(2):479-97
pubmed: 19154370
Funct Plant Biol. 2011 Jul;38(7):535-552
pubmed: 32480907
Evolution. 2002 Apr;56(4):768-75
pubmed: 12038534
Pest Manag Sci. 2018 Oct;74(10):2265-2276
pubmed: 29235732
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:443-65
pubmed: 18444904
Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Sep;15(9):378-383
pubmed: 10931680
Evolution. 1996 Aug;50(4):1478-1491
pubmed: 28565711
New Phytol. 2012 Apr;194(2):477-87
pubmed: 22296328
New Phytol. 2009 Dec;184(4):783-93
pubmed: 19780985
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Feb;94(2):159-65
pubmed: 15562289
Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Dec;31(12):940-952
pubmed: 27743611
Pest Manag Sci. 2018 May;74(5):1134-1142
pubmed: 27766747
Evol Appl. 2013 Feb;6(2):231-42
pubmed: 23798973
Pest Manag Sci. 2018 Feb;74(2):293-301
pubmed: 28834134
Plant Signal Behav. 2007 Jul;2(4):306-7
pubmed: 19704630
Nature. 1991 Aug 8;352(6335):522-4
pubmed: 1865906
Appl Plant Sci. 2017 Feb 14;5(2):
pubmed: 28224055
Pest Manag Sci. 2009 Nov;65(11):1174-81
pubmed: 19757500
Plant Physiol. 2014 Nov;166(3):1119-31
pubmed: 25104723
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 18;11(8):e0161533
pubmed: 27537419
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 20;108(51):20666-71
pubmed: 22143780
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 27;115(13):E2911-E2920
pubmed: 29531066
Plant Cell Rep. 2013 Jun;32(6):741-57
pubmed: 23553556
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0146021
pubmed: 26717316
Science. 2007 May 25;316(5828):1185-8
pubmed: 17525337
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:89-113
pubmed: 18444897
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 13;9(1):16695
pubmed: 31723191
Curr Biol. 2013 Aug 5;23(15):1497-504
pubmed: 23891109
Genetics. 2004 Jan;166(1):449-60
pubmed: 15020435
Plant Mol Biol. 2012 Jul;79(4-5):359-73
pubmed: 22580954