Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Conventional crossing of soft wheat cultivars resistant to imazamox and glufosinate resulted in two (Rados and Helter) lines resistant to both herbicides. Stacked traits conferring this dual herbicide resistance in these lines, compared with a susceptible (S) cultivar, were characterized. RESULTS Rados and Helter lines were ∼ 18‐fold more resistant (R) to glufosinate, and between 15.1 and 19.8‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar. Resistance to glufosinate and imazamox decreased up to 12% and 50%, respectively, when the herbicides were applied sequentially. The basal activities of the acetolactate and glutamine synthases were similar between R and S plants. Rados and Helter lines were 11.7‐ and 17.7‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar, due to the Ser653–Asn mutation in their imi‐ ALS genes. R lines, susceptible to glufosinate at the target site level, showed lower ammonia accumulation evidencing the activity of the phosphinothricin acetyl transferase. Absorption and translocation patterns for 14 C‐imazamox and 14 C‐glufosinate were similar between R and S cultivars and so do not contribute to resistance. CONCLUSION Stacked traits conferring dual herbicide resistance to the lines Rados and Helter come from the resistant parents. These R lines are potential tools for weed management in wheat production, mainly via herbicide rotation. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Rados and Helter were about 18-fold more resistant to glufosinate than the susceptible cultivar.
Verbatim
e0“Rados and Helter lines were ∼ 18‐fold more resistant (R) to glufosinate, and between 15.1 and 19.8‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rados and Helter were 15.1 to 19.8-fold more resistant to imazamox than the susceptible cultivar.
Verbatim
e0“Rados and Helter lines were ∼ 18‐fold more resistant (R) to glufosinate, and between 15.1 and 19.8‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential herbicide application reduced glufosinate resistance by up to 12%.
- Taxon
- soft wheatt0
- Treatment
- herbicides were applied sequentiallye0
- Outcome
- Resistance to glufosinatee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 12%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Resistance to glufosinate and imazamox decreased up to 12% and 50%, respectively, when the herbicides were applied sequentially”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential herbicide application reduced imazamox resistance by up to 50%.
- Taxon
- soft wheatt0
- Treatment
- herbicides were applied sequentiallye0
- Outcome
- Resistance to glufosinate and imazamoxe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 50%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Resistance to glufosinate and imazamox decreased up to 12% and 50%, respectively, when the herbicides were applied sequentially”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal acetolactate and glutamine synthase activities were similar in resistant and susceptible plants.
Verbatim
e0“The basal activities of the acetolactate and glutamine synthases were similar between R and S plants”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rados had 11.7-fold greater imazamox resistance than the susceptible cultivar, attributed to Ser653–Asn in imi‐ ALS.
Verbatim
e0“Rados and Helter lines were 11.7‐ and 17.7‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar, due to the Ser653–Asn mutation in their imi‐ ALS genes”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Helter had 17.7-fold greater imazamox resistance than the susceptible cultivar, attributed to Ser653–Asn in imi‐ ALS.
Verbatim
e0“Rados and Helter lines were 11.7‐ and 17.7‐fold more resistant to imazamox than the S cultivar, due to the Ser653–Asn mutation in their imi‐ ALS genes”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Resistant lines accumulated less ammonia despite target-site susceptibility to glufosinate, indicating phosphinothricin acetyl transferase activity.
Verbatim
e0“R lines, susceptible to glufosinate at the target site level, showed lower ammonia accumulation evidencing the activity of the phosphinothricin acetyl transferase”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Absorption and translocation of labelled imazamox and glufosinate were similar in resistant and susceptible cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Absorption and translocation patterns for 14 C‐imazamox and 14 C‐glufosinate were similar between R and S cultivars”
t0“soft wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The resistant lines were proposed as tools for weed management through herbicide rotation.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- weed management in wheat productione0
- Qualifier
- mainly via herbicide rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These R lines are potential tools for weed management in wheat production, mainly via herbicide rotation”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.