Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T08:00:38.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rapid necrosis: a novel plant resistance mechanism to 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2019

Andrew R. S. de Queiroz
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Crop Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul–UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Carla A. Delatorre
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul–UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Felipe R. Lucio
Affiliation:
Integrated Field Science, Dow AgroSciences Industrial LTDA, São Paulo, Brazil
Caio V. S. Rossi
Affiliation:
Integrated Field Science, Dow AgroSciences Industrial LTDA, São Paulo, Brazil
Luiz H. S. Zobiole
Affiliation:
Integrated Field Science, Dow AgroSciences Industrial LTDA, São Paulo, Brazil
Aldo Merotto Jr*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul–UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Aldo Merotto Jr, Department of Crop Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul–UFRGS, 7712 Bento Goncalves Avenue, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil91501-970. (Email: merotto@ufrgs.br)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Plants of Sumatran fleabane [Conyza sumatrensis (Retz.) E. Walker] were identified in a field with an unusual rapid leaf-injury herbicide symptoms after application of 2,4-D in mixture with glyphosate. The objectives of this study were to confirm the occurrence of resistance to 2,4-D herbicide and to characterize the occurrence of rapid necrosis as the mechanism associated with the herbicide resistance in C. sumatrensis. The studies performed were an initial screening, effect of 2,4-D alone and associated with glyphosate, cross- and multiple-resistance evaluation, effect of commercial formulation and analytical product, and rate of H2O2 evolution. The Marpr9-rn accession was identified with rapid necrosis symptoms and survival to 804 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D. The resistance factor to the herbicide 2,4-D was 18.6 at 49 d after spraying. The analytical product 2,4-D and the commercial formulation resulted in similar symptoms of rapid necrosis. This symptom did not occur for the six other auxinic herbicides (dicamba, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, fluroxypyr, halauxifen-methyl, picloram, and triclopyr), indicating absence of cross-resistance. Multiple resistance to the herbicides paraquat, saflufenacil, and ammonium glufosinate was not identified in the Marpr9-rn population. However, survival following treatment with the herbicides glyphosate and chlorimuron-ethyl occurred. The evolution of H2O2 began at 15 min after application and was less pronounced in low light. These results indicate the first case of resistance to 2,4-D and occurrence of rapid necrosis in C. sumatrensis.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

Introduction

Recently, biotypes of Sumatran fleabane [Conyza sumatrensis (Retz.) E. Walker] exhibiting an unusual contact-type herbicide symptom after application of 2,4-D in mixture with glyphosate were detected in Paraná State, Brazil, after burndown application before soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] sowing. In those plants, the classical epinasty symptoms in response to 2,4-D were not observed, and the plants exhibited, within a few hours, rapid leaf-cell death, visually similar to necrosis. After approximately 10 d, regrowth occurred, resulting in plant survival and seed production.

Herbicide resistance in the genus Conyza has been documented to the following modes of action: inhibitors of photosystem I and II, enolpyruvylshikimate phosphate synthase (EPSPS), and acetolactate synthase (ALS) (Fuerst et al. Reference Fuerst, Nakatani, Dodge and Arntzen1985; Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller, Stachler, Loux and Johnson2009; Lehoczki et al. Reference Lehoczki, Laskay, Polos and Mikulás1984; VanGessel Reference VanGessel2001). Multiple resistance has been reported to glyphosate (EPSPS inhibitor) and chlorimuron-ethyl (ALS inhibitor) (Santos et al. Reference Santos, Oliveira, Constantin, Francischini and Osipe2014) and to glyphosate, chlorimuron-ethyl, and paraquat (Heap Reference Heap2019). Chemical alternatives in use involve inhibitors of glutamine synthetase, as glufosinate-ammonium, and mainly the synthetic auxins dicamba and 2,4-D (Flessner et al. Reference Flessner, McElroy, Mccurdy, Toombs, Wehtje, Burmester, Price and Ducar2015; Soares et al. Reference Soares, Oliveira, López-Ovejero and Christoffoleti2012). The evolution of resistance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors possibly resulted in the increase of the selection pressure of 2,4-D in C. sumatrensis in southern Brazil.

Auxinic herbicides have been used as effective weed control agents since the introduction of 2,4-D herbicides in 1945 (Smith Reference Smith1989). Despite resistance to 2,4-D being reported as early as 1957 in wild carrot (Daucus carota L.) and spreading dayflower (Commelina diffusa Burm. f.) (Hilton Reference Hilton1957; Switzer Reference Switzer1957), the number of auxin-resistant weed species has been considered low based on long worldwide use of 2,4-D (Heap Reference Heap2019; Peterson et al. Reference Peterson, McMaster, Riechers, Skelton and Stahlman2016). Resistance to auxinic herbicides has been studied in several weeds such as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola L.), wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) (Burke et al. Reference Burke, Yenish, Pittmann and Gallagher2009; Hall et al. Reference Hall, Alam and Murr1993; Jugulam et al. Reference Jugulam, Dimeo, Veldhuis, Walsh and Hall2013; Valenzuela-Valenzuela et al. Reference Valenzuela-Valenzuela, Lownds and Sterling2001; Wang et al. Reference Wang, Deshpande and Hall2001). Different mechanisms have been implicated in resistance or tolerance to 2,4-D, such as decreased absorption in ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea L.) (Kohler et al. Reference Kohler, Throssell and Reicher2004), reduced translocation in R. raphanistrum and common hempnettle (Galeopsis tetrahit L.) (Goggin et al. Reference Goggin, Cawthray and Powles2016; Weinberg et al. Reference Weinberg, Stephenson, McLean and Hall2006), increased metabolism of 2,4-D in waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] (Figueiredo et al. Reference Figueiredo, Leibhart, Reicher, Tranel, Nissen, Westra, Bernards, Kruger, Gaines and Jugulam2018), and differential binding to auxin-binding proteins (Mockaitis and Estelle Reference Mockaitis and Estelle2008). To date, resistance to 2,4-D has been reported in 26 weed species, as well as seven cases of dicamba resistance, four cases of fluroxypyr resistance, and three cases of picloram resistance (Heap Reference Heap2019). The specific mechanisms of resistance are unknown for the majority of cases.

Two main types of auxin receptors are known, ABP1 and the complex SCFTIR1/AFB (Grones and Friml Reference Grones and Friml2015). ABP1 is believed to be involved in fast responses to auxin (Dahlke et al. Reference Dahlke, Luethen and Steffens2010), and the complex SCFTIR1/AFB acts in combination with the auxin regulators Aux/IAAs in the transcriptional response to auxins (Mockaitis and Estelle Reference Mockaitis and Estelle2008). The herbicide 2,4-D is thought to bind to the auxin receptor TIR1 or some analogue, causing higher expression of auxin-responsive genes, leading to increased synthesis of ethylene and abscisic acid (ABA) (Grossmann Reference Grossmann2010; Song Reference Song2014). Inability of plants to modulate the concentration of 2,4-D results in continuous auxin signaling, leading to the classical symptoms of epinasty, followed by growth inhibition and death (Grossmann Reference Grossmann2010). The resistance to auxinic herbicides related to lower translocation (Mithila et al. Reference Mithila, Hall, Johnson, Kelley and Riechers2011; Riar et al. Reference Riar, Burke, Yenish, Bell and Gill2011; Weinberg et al. Reference Weinberg, Stephenson, McLean and Hall2006) might involve changes in influx auxin transporters AUX1/LAX (AUXIN RESISTANT 1/LIKE AUX1), efflux-transporters PIN (PIN-FORMED), and ABC transporters (Cho and Cho Reference Cho and Cho2013; Titapiwatanakun and Murphy Reference Titapiwatanakun and Murphy2009). In Arabidopsis thaliana, mutations in genes coding for auxin receptors and transporters can generate plants resistant to auxinic herbicides (Kubes et al. Reference Kubes, Yang, Richter, Cheng, Młodzińska, Wang, Blakeslee, Carraro, Petrášek, Zažímalová, Hoyerová, Peer and Murphy2012; Roux and Reboud Reference Roux and Reboud2005; Walsh et al. Reference Walsh, Neal, Merlo, Honma, Hicks, Wolff, Matsumura and Davies2006; Yu and Wen Reference Yu and Wen2013). However, the role of these proteins in causing resistance to auxinic herbicides in weeds has not yet been characterized.

About 33 dicotyledonous weed species have been reported as having evolved resistance to auxinic herbicides (Heap Reference Heap2019). In general, resistant individuals are able to produce asymptomatic new growth within a week of herbicide application. Variation of 2,4-D effects in the genus Conyza has been described by studies developed by Kruger et al. (Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2008, Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2010), in which an accession was able to survive and produce seeds after treatment with 560 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D. In these studies, the resistance mechanism was not described, but abnormal symptomology has not been reported.

The symptoms described here in biotypes of C. sumatrensis are similar to those defined as rapid response or hypersensitive response, identified in giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) resistant to glyphosate (Brabham et al. Reference Brabham, Gerber and Johnson2011; Jeffery Reference Jeffery2014; Lespérance Reference Lespérance2015; Van Horn et al. Reference Van Horn, Moretti, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Schulz, Green, Jeffery, Lespérance, Tardif, Sikkema, Hall and McLean2017). Rapid cell death and H2O2 accumulation were found in leaves of this accession of A. trifida after glyphosate application, symptoms similar to those seen with photosystem I inhibitors (Jeffery Reference Jeffery2014). Alterations in chloroplast volume and starch accumulation in photosynthetic tissues were also found (Lespérance Reference Lespérance2015). These symptoms were inhibited in the absence of light (Jeffery Reference Jeffery2014) and appeared to be related to programmed cell death (Lespérance Reference Lespérance2015). Recently, Moretti et al. (Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017) suggested that a source of carbon might be required to induce rapid necrosis symptoms. Higher concentrations of [14C]glyphosate in mature leaves and lower concentrations in apical meristems of plants showing rapid necrosis symptoms compared with susceptible plants at 24 h after spraying suggest reduced translocation is a possible resistance mechanism (Lespérance Reference Lespérance2015). The nomenclature of this new mechanism of resistance is not a consensus. The denomination of “apoptosis” is described as inappropriate in plants (Doorn et al. Reference Doorn, Beers, Dangl, Franklin-Tong, Gallois, Hara-Nishimura, Jones, Kawai-Yamada, Lam, Mundy, Mur, Petersen, Smertenko, Taliansky and Van Breusegem2011), and “hypersensitivity” is more adequate for response to pathogens (Roden and Ingle Reference Roden and Ingle2009). “Rapid response” is also used, but the response could be related to several other plant reactions not associated with cell and tissue death. The term “rapid necrosis” is associated with the acute cell death response that develops rapidly in plants (Proskuryakov et al. Reference Proskuryakov, Konoplyannikov and Gabai2003), which is more closely related to the first observed symptom in the 2,4-D–resistant plants. It will be useful to rename this process once the actual cause of this mechanism of resistance is identified.

In glyphosate-resistant A. trifida with rapid necrosis symptoms, it was observed that the rapid increase of H2O2 (a reactive oxygen species, or ROS) predates leaf necrosis (Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017). The rise of ROS in response to auxins has also been demonstrated (Morré et al. Reference Morré, Brightman, Hidalgo and Navas1995; Pazmiño et al. Reference Pazmiño, Romero-Puertas and Sandalio2012; Peer et al. Reference Peer, Cheng and Murphy2013). Auxin-induced ROS production seems to be mediated, at least in part, by the NAD(P)H oxidase RbohD (Mangano et al. Reference Mangano, Denita-Juarez, Choi, Marzol, Hwang, Ranocha, Velasquez, Borassi, Barberini, Aptekmann, Muschietti, Nadra, Dunand, Cho and Estevez2017; Peer et al. Reference Peer, Cheng and Murphy2013), and it is a downstream signal for auxin (Schopfer et al. Reference Schopfer, Liszkay, Bechtold, Frahry and Wagner2002). However, ROS are also involved in auxin oxidation, an irreversible mechanism of auxin elimination (Peer et al. Reference Peer, Cheng and Murphy2013). Therefore, resistance to 2,4-D might be obtained by changing redox status. Consequences of ROS include lipid peroxidation followed by leaf necrosis. The rapid and deregulated production of ROS could be the mechanism causing the occurrence of rapid necrosis in plants that have resistance to herbicides.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the occurrence of resistance to 2,4-D herbicide and to characterize the rapid necrosis as the mechanism of resistance in C. sumatrensis.

Materials and Methods

Plant Material, Screening and Symptom Characterization

Seeds of 10 C. sumatrensis plants were individually collected in the spring of 2016 in a crop field located in the city of Maripá, PR, Brazil (24.55°S, 53.72°W), where the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate were used in the burndown application. Plants in that area showed an atypical symptomatology of 2,4-D herbicide associated with the occurrence of rapid necrosis and resumption of plant growth similar to the effect of contact herbicides (Figure 1A). The susceptible control populations used in this study consisted of the accessions Londs4-s (23.33°S, 51.21°W) and SM (29.71°S, 53.73°W) collected in Londrina, PR, and Santa Maria, RS, Brazil, respectively. The procedure for seed germination started by soaking the seeds in water at 4 ± 2 C for 4 d. After that, the seeds were transferred to plastic trays (15 cm by 10 cm) containing substrate based on charcoal rice husks and vermiculite in a ratio of 1:1. Pots were maintained in a growth chamber (Percival, Boone, IA, USA) at a temperature of 23 ± 3 C and a photoperiod of 13 h (300 μmol m−2 s−1). Plants with one developed leaf were transplanted into 200-ml plastic pots with drainage holes containing a mixture (3:1) of the substrate described earlier and soil (classified as Hapludult, sandy clay loam, with 34% clay). The fertilizer NPK (5-20-10) was added at 5 g kg−1 of substrate and soil mixture. Six individual plants derived from each of the field-sampled plants were used for a total of 60 plants. The plants were maintained in a greenhouse at 25 ± 5 C and irrigated daily.

Figure 1. Conyza sumatrensis plants (A) under field conditions showing the rapid necrosis symptoms and (B) in the greenhouse after 2 h. The susceptible Londs4-s (left) and Marpr9-rn (right) accessions at 1 (C), 2 (D), and 21 (E) d after treatment of 806 g ha−1 of 2,4-D.

The initial screening was performed with the herbicide 2,4-D (DMA® 806 BR SL, Dow AgroSciences Industrial, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) at a dose of 804 g ae ha−1. The herbicide application was performed when the plants were between 7- and 12-cm tall (7 to 10 leaves) in a spray chamber (Generation III Research Sprayer, DeVries Manufacturing, Hollandale, MN, USA) calibrated at 262 kPa delivered by an 80.02E nozzle, resulting in an output volume equivalent to 200 L ha−1. The symptoms of rapid necrosis were monitored at 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 420 min and 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 15, 21, and 28 d after treatment (DAT). After the last evaluation (28 DAT), the surviving plants with rapid necrosis were selected and transplanted to 5-kg pots. Before flowering, the plants were protected with a soft and fine tulle fabric to avoid pollen contamination and seed movement. The following studies were conducted using seeds from a single rapid necrosis surviving plant named Marpr9-rn.

Additional characterization of the rapid necrosis symptoms was performed regarding the effect of glyphosate and of the compounds present in the commercial 2,4-D formulation. The evaluation of the effect of glyphosate (Glizmax Prime® SL, Dow AgroSciences Industrial) was performed by application of the herbicide 2,4-D at doses of 40.2 and 402 g ae ha−1, glyphosate at 864 g ae ha−1, and 2,4-D at 402 g ae ha−1 in a tank mixture with glyphosate at 864 g ae ha−1. The evaluation of the effect of the 2,4-D formulation consisted of commercial 2,4-D herbicide (DMA® 806 BR), 2,4-D analytical product (ACS standard) with 98% purity (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) diluted in a solution of water and ethanol 50/50%, and an untreated check. Both 2,4-D treatments were applied at a dose of 804 g ae ha−1. The experiment was conducted once, and the number of replicates was five. Plant growth and herbicide spraying conditions were similar to those described earlier. The plant injury evaluation was performed at 2, 4, and 8 h and 1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 DAT. Data analyses were performed using ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s test at 5%.

Dose–Response Curve to 2,4-D

The experiments were carried out with completely randomized design, in a bifactorial arrangement, with four replicates. The experiments were repeated, and results were also confirmed in plants from the second generation (seeds from the second autocross derived from single-seed descendants of the plants identified in the field). Factor A consisted of two 2,4-D–susceptible (Londs4-s and SM) and Marpr9-rn accessions. Factor B was the 2,4-D dosage: 0, 50.25, 100.5, 201, 402, 804, and 1,608 g ae ha−1. Herbicide spraying was performed as described earlier. The occurrence of symptoms of rapid necrosis was evaluated at 2 and 4 h and 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 DAT by scoring the visual injury at percentage scale, where 0% corresponded to absence of symptoms and 100% to total plant necrosis. The injury was converted to percent tolerance (green leaves) by calculating 100 − injury. Fresh and dry aboveground weight were evaluated at 49 DAT. Data were analyzed by ANOVA followed by a three-parameter nonlinear logistic model:

([1]) $$[y = a/1\, + \,{\left( {x/{x_0}} \right)^b}]$$

where y is the response expressed as percentage of the untreated control, a is the asymptotic value of y at the upper limit, b is the slope of the curve around the point of inflection, and x 0 is the dose required to reduce the y value by 50% (LD50) when a = 100. The software SigmaPlot v. 11 was used to perform the regressions. The resistance factor (RF) was obtained by the ratio of the LD50 values of the resistant and susceptible accessions.

Analyses of Cross-Resistance and Multiple Resistance

The experiments were carried out in a completely randomized design in a factorial arrangement with four independent biological replicates and were repeated twice. The doses used are described in Table 1. In all experiments, Factor A consisted of the known susceptible Londs4-s and the putative resistant Marpr9-rn. The cross-resistance experiment consisted of the herbicides 2,4-D, fluroxypyr (Prestige® EC, Dow AgroSciences Industrial), picloram (Padron® SL, Dow AgroSciences Industrial), florpyrauxifen-benzyl (Loyant™SL, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA), and halauxifen-methyl (Arylex™ SC, Dow AgroSciences).

Table 1. Herbicide and doses used in cross-resistance, dose–response, and multiple-resistance experiments.

a Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil; https://www.corteva.br.

b Dow AgroSciences LCC, Indianapolis, IN, USA; https://www.corteva.us.

c BASF Corporation, Durham, NC, USA; www.basf.com/usa.

d Bayer AG, Belford Roxo, RJ, Brazil; https://www.bayer.com.br.

e UPL do Brasil, Ituverava, SP, Brazil; https://br.uplonline.com.

f Syngenta, Paulínia, SP, Brazil; https://www.syngenta.com.br.

An additional cross-resistance dose−response experiment was carried out with the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba (Clarity® SL, BASF, Durham, NC, USA), and triclopyr (Garlon 480 BR® EC, Dow AgroSciences Industrial). The visual injury was evaluated at 2, 14, and 49 DAT. Data were analyzed as described earlier for the dose−response curve for 2,4-D.

For the multiple-resistance experiment, Factor B was the herbicides 2,4-D, saflufenacil (Heat® WG, BASF, Guaratinguetá, SP, Brazil), chlorimuron-ethyl (Clorim WG, DVA Agro do Brasil, Barueri, SP, Brazil), paraquat (Gramoxone® SL, Syngenta, Paulínia, SP, Brazil), ammonium glufosinate (Finale® SL, Bayer, Belford Roxo, RJ, Brazil), and glyphosate (Glizmax Prime® SL, Dow AgroSciences Industrial). Factor C was the doses as described in Table 1. The herbicides were applied when the plants presented 10 to 15 leaves (10 to 14 cm). The spraying conditions and plant injury evaluations were the same as described earlier. The visual injury was evaluated at 2, 14, and 49 DAT. Fresh and dry aboveground weights were evaluated at 49 DAT. Data analyses for the cross- and multiple resistance were evaluated using ANOVA followed by a Tukey test at 5%.

Evaluation of Presence of H2O2 in Function of Light

The evaluation of the presence of H2O2 was performed using the 3,3′-diaminobenzidine-hydrochloride (DAB) staining method (Jeffery Reference Jeffery2014; Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017). In the first experiment, the treatments consisted of the susceptible Londs4-s and Marpr9-rn accessions at the 8- to 10-leaf stage treated with 804 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D, with paraquat at 600 g ai ha−1 as the positive control and a negative untreated control. The application of the herbicides was performed as already described. Mature leaves were sampled by cutting the petiole base with a scalpel at 7 h after treatment (HAT).

In the second experiment, two 12-mm-diameter leaf disks were collected from the fifth and sixth leaves using a metal hole puncher after 804 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D spraying at time intervals of 0, 15, 30, 60, 120 240, 420, and 1440 min after treatment. Plants were continuously exposed to high (848 μmol m−2 s−1) and low light (29 μmol m−2 s−1) in a greenhouse with a temperature of 25 ± 5 C. The low-light treatment was obtained with two layers of black mesh with 80% shading. The radiation measure was evaluated at 1200 hours on a sunny day, and the light sensor was positioned at plant level. Each experiment was conducted once, with four replicates.

Leaf and leaf disks were infiltrated with DAB (1 mg ml−1, pH 3.8) and incubated in DAB solution at room temperature overnight. After incubation, samples were decolorized by being boiled in 90% ethanol for 10 min to remove chlorophyll before being photographed. The presence of H2O2 was visualized by color change (brown) where DAB polymerized with this compound. The analysis of the amount of area with DAB was carried out using the color deconvolution tool in Image J (Ruifrok and Johnston Reference Ruifrok and Johnston2001).

Results and Discussion

Screening and Symptom Characterization

Different mechanisms have been associated with resistance to the herbicide 2,4-D; however, to date, none have been connected with the symptoms of rapid necrosis. Therefore, the characterization of this new phenotype’s response to 2,4-D, as determined here, is the first report of the resistance mechanism. The symptoms of rapid necrosis were observed in all six replicates of nine out of the 10 field-sampled plants evaluated after application at 804 g ha−1 of 2,4-D in the Marpr9-rn population. The seeds were collected from plants under field conditions approximately 2 mo after spraying, and because of that, seeds from a susceptible plant may also have been sampled, resulting in absence of the rapid necrosis symptoms in one individual. The atypical symptoms of the rapid necrosis in the population Marpr9-rn were noticeable at approximately 2 h after 2,4-D application, with partial leaf wilt and light necrotic spots (Figure 1B), and after 4 h, leaf necrosis appeared mainly in the borders and tips (Figure 1C). At 1 DAT, the leaves presented total necrosis in the blade region (Figure 1D). The progression of the rapid necrosis symptoms was continuously observed, and at 21 DAT, plant growth resumed via development of axillary buds (Figure 1E). The symptoms were observed in the mature leaves and the meristems; rapid necrosis symptoms were absent from young leaves. The symptoms were more evident in the upper leaves, and the lower leaves presented only necrotic spots, probably due to lower herbicide interception. In plants of the susceptible accession, only the usual epinasty symptoms were observed. The symptoms observed in the Marpr9-rn plants are consistent to those of hypersensitivity to pathogens (Bestwick et al. Reference Bestwick, Brown and Mansfield1998) as well as those described by Brabham et al. (Reference Brabham, Gerber and Johnson2011) and Van Horn et al. (Reference Van Horn, Moretti, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Schulz, Green, Jeffery, Lespérance, Tardif, Sikkema, Hall and McLean2017) in glyphosate-resistant A. trifida. The time required in the present study for the necrosis symptoms to appear in C. sumatrensis treated with the herbicide 2,4-D differed slightly from the time reported for A. trifida in response to glyphosate. The onset of necrosis occurred before 4 h after 2,4-D treatment. Van Horn et al. (Reference Van Horn, Moretti, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Schulz, Green, Jeffery, Lespérance, Tardif, Sikkema, Hall and McLean2017) described necrosis occurring within 6 h after glyphosate application in A. trifida. However, a significant delay in the occurrence of the rapid necrosis occurs for plants growing at low radiation (Jeffery Reference Jeffery2014). In addition, the rapid necrosis symptoms caused by glyphosate in A. trifida is more pronounced in the older leaves, similar to what was observed in the present study. The apical meristem of the treated plants was not affected with rapid necrosis symptom.

The occurrence of rapid necrosis associated with 2,4-D has not been previously described. Therefore, to confirm 2,4-D as the causal agent of this symptomatology, additional evaluations were performed. Considering the similarities between rapid necrosis caused by 2,4-D and the effects of glyphosate in A. trifida, response to glyphosate (864 g ae ha−1) was evaluated; rapid necrosis was not observed (Figure 2), despite the occurrence of glyphosate resistance in C. sumatrensis in the region where seeds were sampled. Glyphosate has been extensively used at burndown and for POST application for Conyza spp. control. However, the symptoms of rapid necrosis identified in C. sumatrensis were caused only by 2,4-D, and this symptom also occurred when this herbicide was sprayed in mixture with glyphosate (Figure 2). The intensity and the time required for the onset of the rapid necrosis symptoms depended on the 2,4-D dose.

Figure 2. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession at 4 h (A) and 1 d (B) after treatment of 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides alone and in combination.

To confirm that rapid necrosis was a response to 2,4-D and not to any other component of the commercial herbicide formulation, a solution equivalent to 804 g ae ha−1 of the analytical product 2,4-D (ACS grade) diluted in ethanol 50% v/v was prepared. The rapid necrosis symptoms occurred similarly for applications of both the commercial and laboratory 2,4-D products (Figure 3B; Table 2). That indicates that other compounds used in the formulation of the herbicide 2,4-D herbicide (DMA™ 806 BR) are not associated with the rapid necrosis and that the 2,4-D molecule is the cause of this symptom.

Figure 3. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Londs4-s (susceptible) (A) and Marpr9-rn (B) accessions at 8 h after treatment of 804 g ha−1 of 2,4-D analytical product (reagent) diluted in ethanol 50% and of the commercial DMA formulation.

Table 2. Plant injury (%) in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of the 2,4-D analytical product and commercial DMA formulation at 2, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT).

a Lowercase letters compare accessions in the same time (rows), and uppercase letters compare herbicide treatments (columns); P > 0.05 using Tukey’s test.

Dose–Response Curve to 2,4-D

The role of 2,4-D in the rapid necrosis symptoms having been confirmed, the increased tolerance obtained from rapid necrosis was determined. In the evaluation at 2 HAT, only drooping and initial slight necrotic spots symptoms were observed in the Marpr9-rn accession, even for the highest dose of 2,4-D (1,608 g ha−1). No visual symptoms were present in the susceptible Londs4-s accession (Figure 4A and B). At 4 HAT, rapid necrosis began to occur at doses equal to or higher than 100.5 g ha−1 of 2,4-D in the Marpr9-rn accession, and mild epinasty appeared in the susceptible Londs4-s (Figure 4C and D). In the evaluation performed at 1 DAT, the typical 2,4-D symptom of epinasty was clearly observed in the susceptible Londs4-s accession, but the more pronounced symptoms of rapid necrosis occurred in the Marpr9-rn accession (Figure 4E and F). Even in the lower leaves, where rapid necrosis was not present, epinasty symptoms were not observed, an indication that the 2,4-D herbicide may not have been translocated from the treated leaves. In the following evaluations, the resumption of growth of the Marpr9-rn plants was observed in contrast to the mortality of the susceptible accession Londs4-s (Figure 4G and H). The dose–response curves of the evaluations at 1, 14, and 49 DAT are shown in Supplementary Figure S1. The result of the rapid necrosis symptoms is the resumption of plant growth in the Marpr9-rn accession, indicated by the increasing RF. In the evaluation at 7 DAT, the RF was 1.16, and this value was 18.62 in the evaluation at 49 DAT (Table 3). In this evaluation, the LD50 was 1,133 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D for the Marpr9-rn accession and 60.8 and 56.2 g ha−1 for the susceptible Londs4-s and SM accessions, respectively (Table 3).

Figure 4. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Londs4-s (susceptible) and Marpr9-rn accessions treated with 0, 50.25, 100.5, 201, 402, 804, and 1,608 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D at 2 (A, B) and 4 h (C, D) and 1 (E, F) and 28 d (G, H) after treatment.

Table 3. Parameters of the logistic equation,a concentrations of the herbicide 2,4-D required for 50% reduction of 100 − visual injury (LD50) of Conyza sumatrensis, and resistance factor (RF) in the whole-plant dose–response studies.

a y = a/1 + (x/x 0)b, where y is the response expressed as percentage of the untreated control, a is the asymptotic value of y at the upper limit, b is the slope of the curve around the point of inflection, x 0 is the dose required to reduce the y values by 50% (LD50) when a equals 100. P < 0.05 for all log-logistic equations.

b DAT, days after treatment.

c Concentrations required for 50% reduction of 100 − injury (%) (LD50); P < 0.05.

d Values in this column are 95% confidence intervals.

e RF: LD50 ratio between the corresponding biotype and the susceptible Londs4-s accession.

There have been no scientific reports of resistance to 2,4-D herbicide in the Conyza genus. However, in a study carried out with horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.), tolerance differences between populations were evidenced, with an LD50 amplitude of 12.3 to 19.7 g ae ha−1 and LD90 of 42 g to 107 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D among the most susceptible and tolerant populations, respectively (Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2008). The LD values obtained in that study are low and possibly do not characterize herbicide resistance. In addition, the occurrence of rapid necrosis in response to 2,4-D was not observed. In 2,4-D–resistant A. tuberculatus plants, the dose required to reduce growth by 50% (GR50) was 176 g ha−1, and the resistance factor was 8-fold in relation to the susceptible accession (Figueiredo et al. Reference Figueiredo, Leibhart, Reicher, Tranel, Nissen, Westra, Bernards, Kruger, Gaines and Jugulam2018). In the same study, previous application of cytochrome P450 inhibitor reduced the GR50 of the resistant accession 7-fold, indicating that 2,4-D detoxification was likely to be the mechanism responsible for resistance. However, the occurrence of rapid necrosis has not been reported in 2,4-D–resistant A. tuberculatus accessions. The occurrence of rapid necrosis has been reported only in A. trifida in response to glyphosate, but the mechanism of resistance is unknown (Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017).

Cross-Resistance to Auxinic Herbicides

Mechanisms related to defects in the general auxin response pathway are likely to cause resistance to other auxinic herbicides (LeClere et al. Reference LeClere, Wu, Westra and Sammons2018). Therefore, studies were conducted to characterize the response of this accession to several additional auxinic herbicides. At 1 d after treatment, the rapid necrosis symptoms were observed in response to 2,4-D but not the other four auxinic herbicides tested (Table 4). The symptom caused by these other auxin herbicides was consistent with the typical auxin-induced epinasty (Figure 5A). At 21 DAT, regrowth was evident only for 2,4-D treatment (Figure 5B). The plants of the Marpr9-rn accession were also susceptible to the herbicides dicamba and triclopyr, as indicated in the dose–response study, in which the RF values at 49 DAT were 1.2 and 0.8, respectively (Table 5; Supplementary Figure S2). Therefore, Marpr9-rn is resistant to 2,4-D, but cross-resistance to the other auxinic herbicides—fluroxypyr, triclopyr and picloram (pyridine carboxylic acid), dicamba (benzoic acid), and florpyrauxifen-benzyl and halauxifen-methyl (arykpicolin acid)—was not identified.

Table 4. Plant injury (%) in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of five auxinic herbicides at 1, 14, and 49 d after treatment (DAT) and fresh weight at 49 DAT.

a Lowercase letters compare means between accessions in the same time (rows), and uppercase letters compare means within accessions (columns); P > 0.05 using Tukey’s test.

Figure 5. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession treated with the auxinic herbicides 2,4-D, fluroxypyr, picloram, halauxifen-methyl, and florpyrauxifen benzyl ester at 1 (A) and 21 d (B) after spraying.

Table 5. Parameters of the logistic equation,a concentrations of the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, and triclopyr required for 50% reduction of 100 − visual injury (LD50) and shoot fresh weight (GR50) of Conyza sumatrensis, and resistance factor (RF) in the whole-plant dose–response studies.

a y = a/1 + (x/x 0)b, where y is the response expressed as percentage of the untreated control, a is the asymptotic value of y at the upper limit, b is the slope of the curve around the point of inflection, x 0 is the dose required to reduce the y values by 50% (LD50) when a equals 100. P < 0.05 for all log-logistic equations.

b DAT, days after treatment.

c Concentrations required for 50% reduction of fresh weight (GR50) or 100 − injury (%) (LD50); P < 0.05.

d Values in this column are 95% confidence intervals.

e RF: LD50 ratio between the correspondent biotype and the susceptible Londs4-s accession.

To date, resistance to 2,4-D has been reported in 21 weed species, in some cases coupled with resistance to other auxinic herbicides (Heap Reference Heap2019). Cross-resistance to 2,4-D, MCPA, and dicamba herbicides was identified in L. serriola (Burke et al. Reference Burke, Yenish, Pittmann and Gallagher2009) and oriental mustard (Sisymbrium orientale L.) (Preston et al. Reference Preston, Dolman and Boutsalis2013). A complete understanding of the mechanism of resistance to auxinic herbicides has yet to be determined for most resistant species. However, there are several reports about the process possibly involved in the resistance. One possibility is related to defects in the downstream response from auxins, such as the induction of ethylene synthesis. In S. arvensis, the resistance to picloram was associated with the activity of the acetyl-CoA synthase enzyme that is a precursor of ethylene (Hall et al. Reference Hall, Alam and Murr1993). Similarly, 20-fold lower ethylene levels were identified in a biotype of C. solstitialis resistant to picloram (Fuerst et al. Reference Fuerst, Sterling, Norman, Prather, Irzyk, Wu, Lownds and Callihan1996). Reduction of ethylene might be associated with the induction of de novo synthesis of a 19-kDa protein found in those biotypes. Reduced translocation was also reported as the mechanism of resistance to 2,4-D in S. orientale (Dang et al. Reference Dang, Malone, Boutsalis, Krishnan, Gill and Preston2018) and L. serriola (Riar et al. Reference Riar, Burke, Yenish, Bell and Gill2011). It was recently observed in plants of R. raphanistrum susceptible to 2,4-D that the application of inhibitors of auxin efflux or ABCB transporters mimicked the reduced translocation of the resistant biotype (Goggin et al. Reference Goggin, Cawthray and Powles2016).

Changes in the ability to sense the auxin may also cause resistance. Variation of the modulation of calcium transport in the cell was associated with S. arvensis resistance to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Deshpande and Hall2001). A comparative study with tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) cells with antisense ABP1 suggested that resistance to auxinic herbicides would occur due to the lower concentration of ABP (Mithila and Hall Reference Mithila and Hall2005). In kochia [Bassia scoparia (L.) A. J. Scott], cross-resistance was endowed by mutation of two base pairs (GGTs – AATR) in the gene IAA16 (LeClere et al. Reference LeClere, Wu, Westra and Sammons2018). IAA16 is a member of AUX/IAA family that inhibits the action of auxin-responsive factors in the absence of auxin and is labeled to degradation by 26S proteasome upon auxin interaction with the CFTIR1/AFB complex (Song Reference Song2014). The complete cross-resistance pattern to herbicides from the different chemical families was not evaluated in these studies. In addition, the phenotype of rapid necrosis was not reported in any of the studies cited.

Multiple-Resistance Analysis

Resistance to other herbicides caused by the same mechanism involved in rapid necrosis in response to 2,4-D was not expected, considering that cross-resistance was not found. However, taking into account that C. sumatrensis has been reported as resistant to other herbicides, resistance to several other herbicide modes of action applied at recommended doses was assessed in addition to 2,4-D. The evaluation of the herbicide plant injury effects at 14 and 49 DAT indicated that the herbicides paraquat, ammonium glufosinate, and saflufenacil were efficient for controlling the 2,4-D–resistant Marpr9-rn accession (Table 6; Figure 6). However, low herbicide efficacy was observed for glyphosate at 1,440 and 2,880 g ha−1 and chlorimuron-ethyl at 20 and 40 g ha−1, indicating that resistance to these herbicides could also occur in the 2,4-D–resistant Marpr9-rn accession. Resistance of Conyza spp. to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors is one the main problems related to weed control in several regions of the world (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013; Urbano et al. Reference Urbano, Borrego, Torres, Leon, Jimenez, Dinelli and Barnes2007; VanGessel Reference VanGessel2001). The occurrence of multiple resistance to glyphosate and chlorimuron-ethyl herbicides in C. sumatrensis was previously identified in the same region where Marpr9-rn was collected by Santos et al. (Reference Santos, Oliveira, Constantin, Francischini and Osipe2014). In this study, it was observed the occurrence of accessions with LD50 of 449.60 g ae ha−1 for glyphosate and 26.12 g ai ha−1 for chlorimuron-ethyl, resulting in a RF of 6.74 and 26.09, respectively. More recently, C. sumatrensis accessions with multiple resistance to the herbicides glyphosate, chlorimuron-ethyl, and paraquat have been reported (Heap Reference Heap2019). However, in the present study, the survival of plants treated with the herbicide paraquat at the doses of 400 and 800 g ai ha−1 was not evidenced.

Table 6. Plant injury (%) at 2, 14, and 49 d after treatment (DAT) and fresh weight at 49 DAT in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of six herbicides with different mechanisms of action.

a Lowercase letters compare means between accessions in the same time (rows), and uppercase letters compare means within accessions (columns); P > 0.05 using Tukey’s test.

Figure 6. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession treated with 1X (dose 1) (A) and 2X (dose 2) (B) of 2,4-D, paraquat, saflufenacil, ammonium glufosinate, glyphosate, and chlorimuron-ethyl at 14 d after treatment.

The high frequency of resistance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors and the absence of rapid necrosis symptoms in the resistant accessions of Conyza identified previously (Santos et al. Reference Santos, Oliveira, Constantin, Francischini and Osipe2014; Vargas et al. Reference Vargas, Bianchi, Rizzardi, Agostinetto and Dal Magro2007) indicate that multiple resistance of the Marpr9-rn occurred independently to 2,4-D resistance. Therefore, the evolution of resistance to 2,4-D associated with rapid necrosis in this accession likely occurred in plants that previously had developed resistance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors. The broad expansion of no-till systems was initially based on the use of glyphosate alone in burndown applications, despite recommendations for use of multiple herbicides. The problem of glyphosate resistance was not evident before the utilization of transgenic soybean resistant to glyphosate. Consequently, Conyza resistance to this herbicide evolved rapidly, and this problem was solved with ALS inhibitors, more specifically chlorimuron-ethyl. Once again, the continuous use of this herbicide in mixture with glyphosate in burndown and PRE applications, and sometimes POST, resulted in multiple resistance to both products.

The herbicide 2,4-D has been used in burndown applications in no-till for several decades. However, the use of this herbicide was always in combination with glyphosate or followed by other contact herbicides, mainly paraquat. Due to the already present resistance of Conyza spp. to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors, the selection pressure for 2,4-D increased, and these species were initially controlled by 2,4-D alone. The consequence of that was the selection of 2,4-D resistance, probably caused by mechanisms independent from those of resistance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors. Rapid necrosis was also identified in A. trifida in response to glyphosate (Brabham et al. Reference Brabham, Gerber and Johnson2011; Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017; Van Horn et al. Reference Van Horn, Moretti, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Schulz, Green, Jeffery, Lespérance, Tardif, Sikkema, Hall and McLean2017). However, the effect of glyphosate on the Marpr9-rn accession observed in the present study was not associated with rapid necrosis (Figures 2 and 6). Therefore, this new mechanism of resistance appears to be elicited by two different herbicides, glyphosate and 2,4-D, in two different species, A. trifida and C. sumatrensis, respectively. The origin and regulation of the rapid necrosis mechanism of resistance and the similarities between these two cases of herbicide resistance remain to be discovered.

Evaluation of Presence of H2O2 in Function of Light

ROS production is essential for the development of the epinasty symptom in plants treated with 2,4-D (Pazmiño et al. Reference Pazmiño, Rodríguez-Serrano, Sanz, Romero-Puertas and Sandalio2014). In these studies, H2O2 production was identified after the occurrence of epinasty symptoms within 3 to 4 DAT of the herbicide to sensitive plants. It is possible that enzymes involved in oxidative stress relief may act on sensitive plants within the first hours after 2,4-D application. Preliminary studies with susceptible and resistant C. sumatrensis accessions indicated formation of H2O2 in the leaves of the resistant Marpr9-rn accession caused by 2,4-D at 7 HAT (Supplementary Figure S3). The herbicide paraquat caused similar symptoms in the Marpr9-rn and susceptible Londs4-s accessions, indicating that the method was effective for identification of H2O2 formation (Supplementary Figure S3). A subsequent study based on earlier evaluations indicated that H2O2 had already increased at 15 min after the application of 2,4-D in both accessions (Figure 7; Supplementary Figure S4). However, in the Marpr9-rn accession, H2O2 production increased substantially at 30 min after application and remained high until 1 DAT. For the susceptible Londs4-s accession, H2O2 remained constant until 420 min (7 h) after application (Figure 7). The presence of peroxide was equal in both accessions 1 d after the 2,4-D herbicide application. Several studies report the effect of 2,4-D on the production of H2O2 and other ROS in the plant death process (McCarthy-Suárez Reference McCarthy-Suárez2017; Pazmiño et al. Reference Pazmiño, Romero-Puertas and Sandalio2012; Rodríguez-Serrano et al. Reference Rodríguez-Serrano, Pazmiño, Sparkes, Rochetti, Hawes, Romero-Puertas and Sandalio2014; Romero-Puertas et al. Reference Romero-Puertas, Mccarthy, Gómez, Sandalio, Corpas, Del Río and Palma2004).

Figure 7. Percentage of leaf disk area with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine-hydrochloride (DAB) dye in Conyza sumatrensis susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D (Marpr9-rn) accessions in two light conditions. Average of three replicates ± SE.

The results obtained in the present study indicated the production of H2O2 at 15 min after application in both accessions, but only in the resistant Marpr9-rn did the production increase greatly after that (Figure 7; Supplementary Figure S4). Production of H2O2 is associated with the first appearance of the rapid necrosis visual symptoms, which occurred at 2 h after herbicide spraying, as described earlier (Figure 1). The increase of H2O2 in the susceptible Londs4-s at 1 d after 2,4-D application was associated with the beginning of the epinastic response.

Light intensity influenced the H2O2 production in the Marpr9-rn accession. In the low-light condition (29 μmol m−2 s−1), the amount of leaf area labeled by DAB was lower in relation to the high-light condition (848 μmol m−2 s−1) (Figure 7; Supplementary Figure S4). Atypical dehydration symptoms also showed late onset in the low-light condition, 4 HAT, in contrast to 1 HAT in high-light condition. A similar delay was also observed in A. trifida resistant to glyphosate (Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017) and in the hypersensitivity response to plant pathogens (Roden and Ingle Reference Roden and Ingle2009). The light effect appears to modulate the velocity of the beginning of the rapid necrosis and certainly is related to the variability of the occurrence of this symptom in experimental and field conditions.

The causes of the rapid increase in H2O2 (ROS) production in herbicide hypersensitivity in weeds have not yet been elucidated (Ghanizadeh and Harrington Reference Ghanizadeh and Harrington2017). Also, it is not yet known whether the reduced herbicide translocation occurs due to the rapid foliar necrosis or if this necrosis occurs due to the absence of translocation of the herbicide. In the studies examining rapid necrosis of A. trifida in response to glyphosate, it was verified that the joint supply of the amino acids phenylalanine and tryptophan inhibited the occurrence of the rapid necrosis phenotype (Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Van Horn, Robertson, Segobye, Weller, Young, Johnson, Douglas Sammons, Wang, Ge, d’Avignon, Gaines, Westra, Green and Jeffery2017). The biosynthesis of these amino acids is inhibited by the action of glyphosate. Based on these results, the authors concluded that the phenotype of rapid necrosis was not caused by the herbicide molecule but by the effects of the herbicide mechanism. To date, rapid necrosis in C. sumatrensis has been found to be specific for 2,4-D herbicide and does not occur in response to glyphosate, which indicates that in this species, this symptom is not possibly associated with amino acid biosynthesis as described for glyphosate effect in A. trifida.

In conclusion, the biotype Marpr9-rn is resistant to 2,4-D and the rapid necrosis symptoms begin at approximately 2 h after herbicide application with partial leaf wilt and light necrotic spots. A build-up of ROS precedes the visual occurrence of the rapid necrosis in the resistant biotype. This symptom occurs faster under light conditions, which are conditions that favor the herbicidal effects of 2,4-D. Cross-resistance to other auxinic herbicides was not identified in the Marpr9-rn biotype, but multiple resistance to ALS and EPSPS inhibitors occurs, apparently caused by independent mechanisms. This is the first report of resistance to the herbicide 2,4-D caused by rapid necrosis. This rapid response phenotype had been previously reported only for glyphosate in A. trifida (Brabham et al. Reference Brabham, Gerber and Johnson2011). Knowledge about the origin and regulation of rapid necrosis resulting in resistance to these herbicides is not available. Rapid necrosis is a new mechanism of herbicide resistance and characterizes the increasing complexity of weed control based only on herbicide strategies.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dow AgroSciences Industrial LTDA, especially the Integrated Field Scientist Team, for assistance in seed collection and shipment. The authors are grateful to the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for a scholarship granted to ARSdQ and fellowships awarded to CAD and the sixth author. Funding was provided by CNPq and Dow AgroSciences Industrial LTDA. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.65

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Vencill, University of Georgia

References

Bestwick, CS, Brown, IR, Mansfield, JW (1998) Localized changes in peroxidase activity accompany hydrogen peroxide generation during the development of a nonhost hypersensitive reaction in lettuce. Plant Physiol 118:10671078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brabham, CB, Gerber, CK, Johnson, WG (2011) Fate of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in the presence and absence of glyphosate. Weed Sci 59:506511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Yenish, JP, Pittmann, D, Gallagher, RS (2009) Resistance of a prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) biotype to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 23:586591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, J, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Occurrence of glyphosate and cloransulam resistant Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.) in Ontario. Can J Plant Sci 93:851855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, M, Cho, HT (2013) The function of ABCB transporters in auxin transport. Plant Signal Behav 8:e22990CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlke, RI, Luethen, H, Steffens, B (2010) ABP1: an auxin receptor for fast responses at the plasma membrane. Plant Signal Behav 5:13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dang, HT, Malone, JM, Boutsalis, P, Krishnan, M, Gill, G, Preston, C (2018) Reduced translocation in 2,4-D-resistant oriental mustard populations (Sisymbrium orientale L.) from Australia. Pest Manag Sci 74:1524–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doorn, WG van, Beers, EP, Dangl, JL, Franklin-Tong, VE, Gallois, P, Hara-Nishimura, I, Jones, AM, Kawai-Yamada, M, Lam, E, Mundy, J, Mur, LAJ, Petersen, M, Smertenko, A, Taliansky, M, Van Breusegem, F, et al. (2011) Morphological classification of plant cell deaths. Cell Death Differ 18:12411246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueiredo, MRA, Leibhart, LJ, Reicher, ZJ, Tranel, PJ, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P, Bernards, ML, Kruger, GR, Gaines, TA, Jugulam, M (2018) Metabolism of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid contributes to resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population. Pest Manag Sci 74:23562362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, McElroy, JS, Mccurdy, JD, Toombs, JM, Wehtje, GR, Burmester, CH, Price, AJ, Ducar, JT (2015) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with dicamba in Alabama. Weed Technol 29:633640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, EP, Nakatani, HY, Dodge, AD, Arntzen, Penner D (1985) Paraquat resistance in Conyza. Plant Physiol 77:984989CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuerst, EP, Sterling, TM, Norman, MA, Prather, TS, Irzyk, GP, Wu, Y, Lownds, NK, Callihan, RH (1996) Physiological characterization of picloram resistance in yellow starthistle. Pestic Biochem Physiol 56:149161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghanizadeh, H, Harrington, KC (2017) Non-target site mechanisms of resistance to herbicides. Crit Rev Plant Sci 36:2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, DE, Cawthray, GR, Powles, SB (2016) 2,4-D resistance in wild radish: reduced herbicide translocation via inhibition of cellular transport. J Exp Bot 67:32233235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grones, P, Friml, J (2015) Auxin transporters and binding proteins at a glance. J Cell Sci 128:17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci 66:113120Google ScholarPubMed
Hall, JC, Alam, SMM, Murr, DP (1993) Ethylene biosynthesis following foliar application of picloram to biotypes of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) susceptible or resistant to auxinic herbicides. Pestic Biochem and Physiol 47:3643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: May 13, 2019Google Scholar
Hilton, HW (1957) Herbicide Tolerant Strains of Weeds. Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Annual Report. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Manoa Library. Pp 6972Google Scholar
Jeffery, T (2014) Investigation into the Molecular and Biochemical Mechanisms of Resistance in Two Biotypes of Glyphosate Resistant Giant Ragweed. MS dissertation. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. 77 pGoogle Scholar
Jugulam, M, Dimeo, N, Veldhuis, LJ, Walsh, M, Hall, JC (2013) Investigation of MCPA (4-chloro-2-ethylphenoxyacetate) resistance in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.). J Agric Food Chem 61:1251612521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, EA, Throssell, CS, Reicher, ZJ (2004) 2,4-D rate response, absorption, and translocation of two ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea) populations. Weed Technol 18:917923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2008) Response and survival of rosette-stage horseweed (Conyza canadensis) after exposure to 2,4-D. Weed Sci 56:748752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations after exposure to postemergence 2,4-D. Weed Sci 58:413419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Stachler, JM, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG (2009) Frequency, distribution, and characterization of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) biotypes with resistance to glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 57:652659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubes, M, Yang, H, Richter, GL, Cheng, Y, Młodzińska, E, Wang, X, Blakeslee, JJ, Carraro, N, Petrášek, J, Zažímalová, E, Hoyerová, K, Peer, WA, Murphy, AS (2012) The Arabidopsis concentration-dependent influx/efflux transporter ABCB4 regulates cellular auxin levels in the root epidermis. Plant Journal 69:640654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeClere, S, Wu, C, Westra, P, Sammons, RD (2018) Cross-resistance to dicamba, 2,4-D, and fluroxypyr in Kochia scoparia is endowed by a mutation in an AUX/IAA gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E2911E2920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoczki, E, Laskay, G, Polos, E, Mikulás, J (1984) Resistance to triazine herbicides in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 32:669674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lespérance, M (2015) Programmed Cell Death and Altered Translocation Cause Glyphosate Resistance in Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.). MS dissertation. Guelph, Ontário: University of Guelph. 95 pGoogle Scholar
Mangano, S, Denita-Juarez, SP, Choi, H-S, Marzol, E, Hwang, Y, Ranocha, P, Velasquez, SM, Borassi, C, Barberini, ML, Aptekmann, AA, Muschietti, JP, Nadra, AD, Dunand, C, Cho, H-T, Estevez, JM (2017) Molecular link between auxin and ROS-mediated polar growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:52895294CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy-Suárez, I (2017) Role of reactive oxygen species in auxin herbicide phytotoxicity: current information and hormonal implications—are gibberellins, cytokinins, and polyamines involved? Botany 95:369385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J, Hall, JC (2005) Comparison of ABP1 over-expressing Arabidopsis and under-expressing tobacco with an auxinic herbicide-resistant wild mustard (Brassica kaber) biotype. Plant Sci 169:2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J, Hall, JC, Johnson, WG, Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2011) Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Science 59:445457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mockaitis, K, Estelle, M (2008) Auxin receptors and plant development: a new signaling paradigm. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 24:5580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moretti, ML, Van Horn, CR, Robertson, R, Segobye, K, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Johnson, WG, Douglas Sammons, R, Wang, D, Ge, X, d’Avignon, A, Gaines, TA, Westra, P, Green, AC, Jeffery, T, et al. (2017) Glyphosate resistance in Ambrosia trifida. Part 2. Rapid response physiology and non-target-site resistance. Pest Manag Sci 74:10791088CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morré, DJ, Brightman, AO, Hidalgo, A, Navas, P (1995) Selective inhibition of auxin-stimulated NADH oxidase activity and elongation growth of soybean hypocotyls by thiol reagents. Plant Physiol 107:12851291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pazmiño, DM, Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Sanz, M, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sandalio, LM (2014) Regulation of epinasty induced by 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in pea and Arabidopsis plants. Plant Biol 16:809818CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pazmiño, DM, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sandalio, LM (2012) Insights into the toxicity mechanism of and cell response to the herbicide 2,4-D in plants. Plant Signal Behav 7:425427CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peer, WA, Cheng, Y, Murphy, AS (2013) Evidence of oxidative attenuation of auxin signalling. J Exp Bot 64:26292639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Skelton, J, Stahlman, PW (2016) 2,4-D past, present, and future: a review. Weed Technol 30:303345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, C, Dolman, FC, Boutsalis, P (2013) Multiple resistance to acetohydroxyacid synthase–inhibiting and auxinic herbicides in a population of oriental mustard (Sisymbrium orientale). Weed Sci 61:185192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proskuryakov, SY, Konoplyannikov, AG, Gabai, VL (2003) Necrosis: a specific form of programmed cell death? Exp Cell Res 283:116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riar, DS, Burke, IC, Yenish, JP, Bell, J, Gill, K (2011) Inheritance and physiological basis for 2,4-D resistance in prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola L.). J Agric Food Chem 59:9417–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roden, LC, Ingle, RA (2009) Lights, rhythms, infection: the role of light and the circadian clock in determining the outcome of plant–pathogen interactions. Plant Cell Online 21:25462552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Serrano, M, Pazmiño, DM, Sparkes, I, Rochetti, A, Hawes, C, Romero-Puertas, MC, Sandalio, LM (2014) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid promotes S-nitrosylation and oxidation of actin affecting cytoskeleton and peroxisomal dynamics. J Exp Bot 65:47834793CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero-Puertas, MC, Mccarthy, I, Gómez, M, Sandalio, LM, Corpas, FJ, Del Río, LA, Palma, JM (2004) Reactive oxygen species-mediated enzymatic systems involved in the oxidative action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Plant Cell Environ 27:11351148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, F, Reboud, X (2005) Is the cost of herbicide resistance expressed in the breakdown of the relationships between characters? A case study using synthetic-auxin-resistant Arabidopsis thaliana mutants. Genet Research 85:101110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruifrok, AC, Johnston, DA (2001) Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 23:291299Google ScholarPubMed
Santos, G, Oliveira, JR RS, Constantin, J., Francischini, AC, Osipe, JB (2014) Multiple resistance of Conyza sumatrensis to chlorimuron-ethyl and glyphosate. Planta Daninha 32:409416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopfer, P, Liszkay, A, Bechtold, M, Frahry, G, Wagner, A (2002) Evidence that hydroxyl radicals mediate auxin-induced extension growth. Planta 214:821828CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, AE (1989) Degradation, fate, and persistence of phenoxyalkanoic acid herbicides in soil. Rev Weed Sci 4:124Google Scholar
Soares, DJ, Oliveira, WS, López-Ovejero, RF, Christoffoleti, P (2012) Control of glyphosate resistant hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) with dicamba and 2,4-D. Planta Daninha 30:401406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, Y (2014) Insight into the mode of action of 2, 4 -dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4 -D) as an herbicide. J Int Plant Biol 56:106113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Switzer, CM (1957) The existence of 2,4-D-resistant strains of wild carrot. Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Control Conference 11:315318Google Scholar
Titapiwatanakun, B, Murphy, AS (2009) Post-transcriptional regulation of auxin transport proteins: cellular trafficking, protein phosphorylation, protein maturation, ubiquitination, and membrane composition. J Exp Bot 60:10931107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbano, JM, Borrego, A, Torres, V, Leon, JM, Jimenez, C, Dinelli, G, Barnes, J (2007) Glyphosate-resistant HAIRY FLEABANE (Conyza Bonariensis) in Spain. Weed Technol 21:396401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela-Valenzuela, JM, Lownds, NK, Sterling, TM (2001) Clopyralid uptake, translocation, metabolism, and ethylene induction in picloram-resistant yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.). Pestic Biochem Physiol 71:1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, MJ (2001) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horn, CR, Moretti, ML, Robertson, RR, Segobye, K, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Johnson, WG, Schulz, B, Green, AC, Jeffery, T, Lespérance, MA, Tardif, FJ, Sikkema, PH, Hall, JC, McLean, MD, et al. (2017) Glyphosate resistance in Ambrosia trifida: Part 1. Novel rapid cell death response to glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 74:10711078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargas, L, Bianchi, M, Rizzardi, M, Agostinetto, D, Dal Magro, T (2007) Conyza bonariensis biotypes resistant to the glyphosate in southern Brazil. Planta Daninha 25:573578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, TA, Neal, R, Merlo, AO, Honma, M, Hicks, GR, Wolff, K, Matsumura, W, Davies, JP (2006) Mutations in an auxin receptor homolog AFB5 and in SGT1b confer resistance to synthetic picolinate auxins and not to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or indole-3-acetic acid in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 142:542552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Deshpande, S, Hall, JC (2001) Calcium may mediate auxinic herbicide resistance in wild mustard. Weed Sci 49:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, T, Stephenson, GR, McLean, MD, Hall, JC (2006) MCPA (4-chloro-2-ethylphenoxyacetate) resistance in hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit L.). J Agric Food Chem 54:91269134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J, Wen, CK (2013) Arabidopsis aux1 rcr1 mutation alters AUXIN RESISTANT1 targeting and prevents expression of the auxin reporter DR5:GUS in the root apex. J Exp Bot 64:921933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Conyza sumatrensis plants (A) under field conditions showing the rapid necrosis symptoms and (B) in the greenhouse after 2 h. The susceptible Londs4-s (left) and Marpr9-rn (right) accessions at 1 (C), 2 (D), and 21 (E) d after treatment of 806 g ha−1 of 2,4-D.

Figure 1

Table 1. Herbicide and doses used in cross-resistance, dose–response, and multiple-resistance experiments.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession at 4 h (A) and 1 d (B) after treatment of 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides alone and in combination.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Londs4-s (susceptible) (A) and Marpr9-rn (B) accessions at 8 h after treatment of 804 g ha−1 of 2,4-D analytical product (reagent) diluted in ethanol 50% and of the commercial DMA formulation.

Figure 4

Table 2. Plant injury (%) in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of the 2,4-D analytical product and commercial DMA formulation at 2, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT).

Figure 5

Figure 4. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Londs4-s (susceptible) and Marpr9-rn accessions treated with 0, 50.25, 100.5, 201, 402, 804, and 1,608 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D at 2 (A, B) and 4 h (C, D) and 1 (E, F) and 28 d (G, H) after treatment.

Figure 6

Table 3. Parameters of the logistic equation,a concentrations of the herbicide 2,4-D required for 50% reduction of 100 − visual injury (LD50) of Conyza sumatrensis, and resistance factor (RF) in the whole-plant dose–response studies.

Figure 7

Table 4. Plant injury (%) in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of five auxinic herbicides at 1, 14, and 49 d after treatment (DAT) and fresh weight at 49 DAT.

Figure 8

Figure 5. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession treated with the auxinic herbicides 2,4-D, fluroxypyr, picloram, halauxifen-methyl, and florpyrauxifen benzyl ester at 1 (A) and 21 d (B) after spraying.

Figure 9

Table 5. Parameters of the logistic equation,a concentrations of the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, and triclopyr required for 50% reduction of 100 − visual injury (LD50) and shoot fresh weight (GR50) of Conyza sumatrensis, and resistance factor (RF) in the whole-plant dose–response studies.

Figure 10

Table 6. Plant injury (%) at 2, 14, and 49 d after treatment (DAT) and fresh weight at 49 DAT in susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D with rapid necrosis (Marpr9-rn) accessions of Conyza sumatrensis in response to the application of six herbicides with different mechanisms of action.

Figure 11

Figure 6. Plants of the Conyza sumatrensis Marpr9-rn accession treated with 1X (dose 1) (A) and 2X (dose 2) (B) of 2,4-D, paraquat, saflufenacil, ammonium glufosinate, glyphosate, and chlorimuron-ethyl at 14 d after treatment.

Figure 12

Figure 7. Percentage of leaf disk area with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine-hydrochloride (DAB) dye in Conyza sumatrensis susceptible (Londs4-s) and resistant to 2,4-D (Marpr9-rn) accessions in two light conditions. Average of three replicates ± SE.

Supplementary material: Image

Queiroz et al. supplementary material

Figure S2
Download Queiroz et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 19.7 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Queiroz et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Queiroz et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 703.3 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Queiroz et al. supplementary material

Figure S4

Download Queiroz et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 10.7 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Queiroz et al. supplementary material

Figure S3

Download Queiroz et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 11.4 MB