Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:

login

Log in through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Journal Article

Fitness of Double vs. Single Herbicide-Resistant Canola

Marie-Josée Simard, Anne Légère, Ginette Séguin-Swartz, Harikumar Nair and Suzanne Warwick
Weed Science
Vol. 53, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2005), pp. 489-498
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047056
Page Count: 10
Were these topics helpful?
See something inaccurate? Let us know!

Select the topics that are inaccurate.

Cancel
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($29.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Fitness of Double vs. Single Herbicide-Resistant Canola
Preview not available

Abstract

Since 1995, canola cultivars with herbicide resistance (HR) have been readily adopted by Canadian producers. Gene flow between these cultivars with different HR traits has led to the occurrence of double herbicide-resistant (2HR) volunteers. To evaluate the fitness of canola volunteers with double HR, we compared three 2HR combinations to each of their parent single-HR plants (1HR: glufosinate-R, imidazolinone-R, glyphosate-R) commercial canola lines in separate greenhouse experiments. The replacement series design included five ratios of 2HR vs. 1HR plants at a single density of 129 plants m⁻² and three stress treatments: herbicide application with either glufosinate, imazethapyr, or glyphosate; competition with a wheat crop; and a control without herbicide or wheat competition. Fitness indicators included above-ground biomass at 5 and 12 to 16 wk, seed production, and reproductive allocation. The 2HR plants showed delayed reproductive growth but were generally as competitive as 1HR commercial lines. Plant biomass of 2HR canola was comparable to or greater than 1HR canola, whereas seed biomass of 2HR canola was less than that of 1HR canola in half of the cases, likely because of delayed reproductive growth and early harvesting. Glufosinate-glyphosate 2HR was the fittest combination. Herbicide application had little effect on 2HR biomass at harvest, except for imazethapyr, which reduced the biomass and seed production of 2HR plants with imidazolinone-glyphosate resistance by 30%. The latter effect could have been from the unsuspected presence of 2HR plants with only one of the two acetolactate synthase mutations conferring resistance to imidazolinones. Wheat competition reduced fitness values of both 2HR and 1HR canola similarly, but seed production was still 64% that of the controls. Overall, there was little indication of reduced fitness in 2HR canola compared with commercial 1HR varieties.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
489
    489
  • Thumbnail: Page 
490
    490
  • Thumbnail: Page 
491
    491
  • Thumbnail: Page 
492
    492
  • Thumbnail: Page 
493
    493
  • Thumbnail: Page 
494
    494
  • Thumbnail: Page 
495
    495
  • Thumbnail: Page 
496
    496
  • Thumbnail: Page 
497
    497
  • Thumbnail: Page 
498
    498
Part of Sustainability