Absorption and translocation of dicamba in dicamba-tolerant wild tomato

Zangoueinejad, Rouzbeh; Tseng, Te‐Ming

doi:10.1139/cjps-2019-0314

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, in our previous study (Zangoueinejad et al 2020a), we indicated that TOM198, TOM199, and TOM300 absorbed a lower amount of dicamba than two commercial tomato cultivars (Better Boy and Money Maker) after herbicide application at the drift rate (2.8 g ae ha -1 ). However, no difference in the herbicide distribution pattern was observed between them.…”

Section: Absorption and Distributionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Dose-Response Study to Evaluate Dicamba Tolerance in Selected Wild Tomato Germplasm

Zangoueinejad¹,

Castro²,

Stallworth³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A greenhouse dose-response study was conducted to determine the tolerance of three wild tomato accessions (TOM199, TOM198, TOM300) in comparison to a commercial cultivar (Better Boy) against the dicamba application at five rates (0, 70, 140, 210, and 280 g ae ha-1) at 14 and 28 days after treatment (DAT). Several physiological traits were evaluated at 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 DAT. Wild accessions and cultivar were killed at all rates above 70 g ae ha-1 at 14 and 28 DAT, which is why differences between accessions and cultivar were only evident at 70 g ae ha-1. The GR50 (the herbicide rate that causes 50% reduction in dry weight) of Better Boy was 4.4 g ae ha-1 at 28 DAT, and this cultivar was approximately 11-fold more sensitive than wild accessions. At 7 DAT, the levels of H2O2 for wild accessions were lower than Better Boy up to 5 at 70 g ae ha-1 of dicamba. Furthermore, wild accessions showed lower herbicide absorption than Better Boy at all dicamba doses at 1, 3, and 7 DAT. All the three wild accessions expressed tolerance to the dicamba application at the dose of 70 g ae ha-1. At the same time, Better Boy and wild accessions were susceptible to dicamba application at rates of 140, 210, and 280 g ae ha-1.

show abstract

Section: Absorption and Distributionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Dose-Response Study to Evaluate Dicamba Tolerance in Selected Wild Tomato Germplasm

Zangoueinejad¹,

Castro²,

Stallworth³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sirons et al (1982) reported the persistence of dicamba residue on tomato plants exposed to five rates of dicamba ranging from 1.1 to 112 g ha −1 , but the studies were conducted in a growth chamber, and it is unclear whether the homogenized plant sample used for residue testing included tomato fruits. Zangoueinejad et al (2020) applied 2.8 g ha −1 dicamba to susceptible and resistant tomato lines in a greenhouse study and documented differences in herbicide uptake and partitioning within young plants at 1, 3, and 7 DAT, but did not report on dicamba residue partitioning in tomato fruits. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the persistence of dicamba and select metabolites from tomato shoot and fruit tissues following exposure to reduced rates of dicamba under field conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dicamba residue persistence in processing tomato

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is zero tolerance for dicamba and dicamba metabolite residue in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit following exposure to dicamba. Field trials were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the persistence of dicamba and metabolite [5-hydroxy dicamba and 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA)] residue in processing tomato shoots and fruits. Dicamba was applied 49 days after transplanting at 0, 0.53, 5.3, and 53 g ae ha−1. Tomato plants were harvested 5, 10, 20, 40, and 61 days after treatment (DAT). No 5-hydroxy dicamba was recovered from any sample. In 2020, the DCSA metabolite was detected from tomato shoot tissue when dicamba was applied at 53 g ha−1 rate at 0 (14 µg kg−1), 5 (3 µg kg−1), and 20 DAT (5 µg kg−1) and in tomato fruit tissue at 53 g ha−1 at 20 (2 µg kg−1) and 61 DAT (2 µg kg−1). In 2021, DCSA was not detected from tomato shoot or fruit tissues at any harvest date. By 5 DAT, dicamba was only detected from tomato shoot tissues treated with 53 g ha−1. At 0 DAT, dicamba residue was detectable only from tomato fruit on plants treated with 53 g ha−1. Tomato fruit dicamba residue from plants treated with 5.3 g ha−1 had a predicted peak of 19 µg kg−1 at 11.3 DAT. Tomato fruit dicamba residue from plants treated with 53 g ha−1 decreased from 164 to 8 µg kg−1 from 5 to 61 DAT. Furthermore, this study confirms that dicamba is detectable in tomato fruits 61 DAT following exposure to 5.3 or 53 g ha−1 dicamba. Growers who suspect dicamba exposure should include tomato fruit tissue with their collected sample or sample tomato fruits separately.

show abstract

“…Pronamide was extracted using a method similar to that of Zangoueinejad et al (2020). Foliage and root samples were cut into 5-mm segments with scissors and placed in 2-ml microcentrifuge tubes (Avantor, Radnor, PA) and were weighed to 0.10 g using an analytical scale (Mettler Toledo AE260, Marshall Scientific, Hampton, NH).…”

Section: Foliar-only Application Of Pronamidementioning

confidence: 99%

Target-site and non–target site mechanisms of pronamide resistance in annual bluegrass (Poa annua) populations from Mississippi golf courses

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mitotic-inhibiting herbicide pronamide controls susceptible annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) pre- and post-emergence, but in some resistant populations, post-emergence activity is compromised, hypothetically due to a target-site mutation, lack of root uptake, or an unknown resistance mechanism. Three suspected pronamide-resistant (LH-R, SC-R, and SL-R) and two pronamide-susceptible (BS-S and HH-S) populations were collected from Mississippi golf courses. Dose-response experiments were conducted to confirm and quantify pronamide resistance, as well as resistance to flazasulfuron and simazine. Target-sites known to confer resistance to mitotic-inhibiting herbicides were sequenced, as were target-sites for herbicides inhibiting acetolactate synthase (ALS) and photosystem II (PSII). Pronamide absorption, and translocation was investigated following foliar and soil applications. Dose-response experiments confirmed pronamide resistance of LH-R, SC-R, and SL-R populations, as well as instances of multiple resistance to ALS and PSII inhibiting herbicides. Sequencing of the α-tubulin gene confirmed the presence of a mutation that substituted isoleucine for threonine at position 239 (Thr239-Ile) in LH-R, SC-R, SL-R, and BS-S populations. Foliar application experiments failed to identify differences in pronamide absorption and translocation between the five populations, regardless of harvest time. All populations had limited basipetal translocation—only 3–13% of the absorbed pronamide—across harvest times. Soil application experiments revealed that pronamide translocation was similar between SC-R, SL-R, and both susceptible populations across harvest times. The LH-R population translocated less soil-applied pronamide than susceptible populations, 24, 72, and 168 HAT, suggesting that reduced acropetal translocation may contribute to pronamide resistance. This study reports three new pronamide-resistant populations, two of which are resistant to two modes-of-action (MOA), and one of which is resistant to three MOA. Results suggest that both target-site- and translocation-based mechanisms may be associated with pronamide resistance. Further research is needed to confirm the link between pronamide resistance and the Thr239-Ile mutation of the α-tubulin gene.

show abstract

Absorption and translocation of dicamba in dicamba-tolerant wild tomato

Cited by 7 publications

References 31 publications

Dose-Response Study to Evaluate Dicamba Tolerance in Selected Wild Tomato Germplasm

Dose-Response Study to Evaluate Dicamba Tolerance in Selected Wild Tomato Germplasm

Dicamba residue persistence in processing tomato

Target-site and non–target site mechanisms of pronamide resistance in annual bluegrass (Poa annua) populations from Mississippi golf courses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About