Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Hisashi Kato-Noguchi
 + 1472 word(s) 1472 2021-09-24 04:29:59 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 233 word(s) 1705 2021-09-26 03:34:59 | |
3 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 237 word(s) 1709 2021-09-26 03:35:36 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kato-Noguchi, H. Ludwigia decurrens Walter. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/14552 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
Kato-Noguchi H. Ludwigia decurrens Walter. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/14552. Accessed April 20, 2024.
Kato-Noguchi, Hisashi. "Ludwigia decurrens Walter" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/14552 (accessed April 20, 2024).
Kato-Noguchi, H. (2021, September 25). Ludwigia decurrens Walter. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/14552
Kato-Noguchi, Hisashi. "Ludwigia decurrens Walter." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 September, 2021.
Ludwigia decurrens Walter
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants10091973

Ludwigia decurrens Walter is a dicotyledonous plant belonging to the family Onagraceae. It is native to Central Eastern USA but has been spreading quickly and has naturalized in aquatic and riparian ecosystems (including rice paddy fields) in many countries; therefore, it is now considered an invasive noxious weed. L. decurrens is highly competitive with rice and causes a significant reduction in rice production. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of the herbicide penoxsulam for the control of L. decurrens in rice fields. The seeds of L. decurrens were collected from four villages in Indonesia, and penoxsulam was applied to L. decurrens in seven dosages (0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 g a.i. /ha) 3 weeks after seed sowing. The plant populations from Hegarmanah, Jatisari, and Joho showed complete mortality at the recommended dosage of penoxsulam (10 g a.i. /ha). However, the plants from Demakan grew, flowered, and produced seeds 56 days after treatment with 40 g a.i. /ha of penoxsulam. The resistance index value of the population was 36.06. 

herbicide resistance invasive Ludwigia decurrens penoxsulam rice weed

1. Introduction

Ludwigia decurrens Walter, belonging to the Onagraceae family, is a synonym of Jussiaea decurrens Walter D.C. It is an annual or woody perennial herb that stands upright reaching 2 m of height, with alternate branches. The leaves are opposite, narrowly elliptical, 4–12 cm long, and 1–3 cm wide. A single flower with four bright yellow petals is produced in the upper leaf axis. A seed capsule develops immediately below the flower and contains up to 1000 seeds per capsule [1][2][3]. The species grows in wetlands including paddy fields, riverbanks, ponds, and slow-moving streams [1][4]. It has adapted to these aquatic habitats through the development of rhizomes with aerenchyma [5].
L. decurrens is native to Central Eastern USA but has been introduced accidentally into many countries in South and East Asia and Africa, where it is now considered an invasive noxious weed [1][2][4][6][7]. It produces a large number of seeds and spreads rapidly in the wet zone through seeds and plant fragments floating on water [1][4][8]. It has also allelopathic properties. The exudates of the plants inhibited the growth of Corchorus olitorius L. and increased its mortality [9]. Allelopathy may also be involved in L. decurrens invasion [10][11][12]. The severe invasion of some plant species often causes a significant reduction of biodiversity in the invaded ecosystems [13][14]. The risk of a negative environmental impact for L. decurrens is high because of its pest dispersal potential [4].
L. decurrens emerges along with rice seedlings and grows in rice paddy fields. It is highly competitive with rice due to its fast growth rate and a life cycle similar to that of rice and causes a significant reduction in rice production [1][15]. L. decurrens suppresses the development of tillers, panicles, leaves, and spikelets of rice plants. Consequently, the risk of an economic impact due to lower crop yields and quality is high [4]. For example, L. decurrens has been reported to reduce rice grain yield by around 30% [15]. Penoxsulam is one of the pre-emergence herbicides widely used in rice cultivation [16]. It is an acetolactate synthase (ALS; EC 4.6.3.8) inhibitor and is an efficient broad-spectrum herbicide against grass and broadleaf weeds [17]. This herbicide has been effective in controlling L. decurrens. However, excessive application of herbicides increases the potential to develop resistant weeds [18][19][20]. The appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds was predicted by Harper in 1956 [21], and a herbicide resistant-weed was first observed in sugarcane plantations in Hawaii [22]. Following this, triazine-resistant Senecio vulgaris L. [23] and 2,4-D-resistant Convolvulus arvensis L. [24] were recorded. Currently, 264 herbicide-resistant weed species—522 cases (species × site of action) for 164 herbicides—have been reported in 94 crops in 71 countries [25]. The present study was conducted due to reports of L. decurrens becoming difficult to control in rice paddy fields of Central Java, Indonesia. The efficiency of penoxsulam on L. decurrens collected from four Central Java villages was evaluated, and a penoxsulam-resistant L. decurrens population was confirmed for the first time.

2. Discussion on Ludwigia decurrens Walter

An invasive plant species, L. decurrens, has been spreading quickly and naturalized into aquatic and riparian ecosystems including rice paddy fields in many countries [1][2][4][6][7]. This species has been reported to occupy 50% of the invaded plant community, and thus is considered one of the most aggressive weed species [3][8]. Consequently, the risks associated with L. decurrens invasion are high from both an environmental and an economic perspective [4]. Management of L. decurrens relies on physical and chemical methods [26], and penoxsulam has effectively controlled L. decurrens so far. However, we identified penoxsulam-resistant L. decurrens plants from a Demakan population for the first time in this study (Figure 1, Table 1). The resistance index value of the population was 36.06 (Table 2), and the plants made flowers and produced seeds (Figure 2).
Plants 10 01973 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of penoxsulam on four populations of L. decurrens 28 days after herbicide application.
Table 1. Effect of penoxsulam on the percentage of damage to L. decurrens.
  Penoxsulam Dosage (g a.i. ha−1)
Population 0 2.5 5 10 10 40 80
Hegarmanah 0 a,A 89.18 a,B 92.22 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B
Jatisari 0 a,A 87.22 a,B 92.17 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B 100 a,B
Joho 0 a,A 82.53 b,B 92.23 a,C 100 a,C 100 a,C 100 a,C 100 a,C
Demakan 0 a,A 20.11 c,B 37.57 b,C 38.24 b,C 51.2 b,D 72.85 b,E 100 a,F
 
Plants 10 01973 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of penoxsulam on the Demakan population of L. decurrens 56 days after herbicide application.
Table 2. Herbicide dose required for 50% reduction (GR50) of dry biomass and resistance index.
Population c d b r2 GR50
(g a.i. ha−1)		 Resistance
Index		 Level of
Resistance
Hegarmanah 20.11 100 1.29 0.86 0.63 - -
Jatisari 20.11 100 1.42 0.91 0.81 1.28 Susceptible
Joho 20.11 100 1.75 0.97 1.23 1.95 Susceptible
Demakan 20.11 100 1.53 0.92 22.72 36.06 Resistance
GR50 values of penoxsulam were obtained by nonlinear regression using the log-logistic dose–response equation. The resistance index against penoxsulam was calculated by the ratio of the GR50 value of the Hegarmanah population to those of the other three populations.
The percentage of damage was calculated from the comparison between the dry weight of herbicide-treated L. decurrens and that of control L. decurrens. Damage of 100% indicates complete inhibition. Values in each column followed by the same lowercase letters (vertical direction) and uppercase letters (horizontal direction) are not significantly different at p < 0.05 according to the Tukey test.
The possibility of the herbicide-resistant L. decurrens to spread and dominate in the surrounding area may be high because of the properties of the species [3][8]. The total area of rice paddy fields is 20,460 ha in the Sukoharjo regency, which the Demakan village belongs to [27]. In addition, the protected forest Gunung Merbabu and the Gajah Mungkur water reservoir are located 20 and 50 km from the study area of the Demakan village, respectively. L. decurrens has been recorded to spread up to 120 km through seeds and plant fragments floating on water [28]. Therefore, the appearance of herbicide-resistant L. decurrens could be a possible threat for the nearby protected areas.
The excess application of herbicides with a single mode of action increases the risk of causing gene mutations leading to the appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds. Many other factors, such as cropping system, weed potentiality, and environment, also increase the appearance of resistant weeds [18][19][20]. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. is one of the most dangerous weeds in crop production and is mainly controlled by herbicides [25][29][30]. Continuous and excess applications of herbicides such as ALS-inhibiting and acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase; E.C.6.4.1.2)-inhibiting herbicides have originated multiple-herbicide-resistant E. crus-galli populations [25][29][30][31][32][33].
ALS is the enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway of the branched-chain amino acids valine, leucine, and isoleucine [34]. ALS is an important target site for at least four structurally distinct classes of herbicides, i.e., sulfonylureas [35][36], imidazolinones [37], triazolopyrimidines [38], and pyrimidinylsalicylates [39]. The ALS inhibitor penoxsulam has become the most widely used herbicide in rice cultivation since its introduction [16][33]. There have been 103 cases of weed resistance to ALS herbicides in rice cultivation [18][25]. Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau from Malaysia’s Penang Island was found to be resistant to several ALS enzyme-inhibiting herbicides, such as the sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicide groups. Monochoria vaginalis (Burm.f.) Kunth from rice fields with an intensive use of herbicides in Chonnam, Korea, was resistant to the sulfonylurea and pyrimidinylsalicylate groups. Therefore, some ALS herbicide-resistant weed species showed resistance to multiple herbicides [18][25]. Based on the data from herbicide-resistant weed species, 7 penoxsulam resistant-weed species with 19 cases have been reported: Echinochloa crus-galli, Echinochloa oryzicola Vasing., Cyperus iria L., Cyperus difformis L., Cyperus esculentus L., Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl., and Sagittaria montevidensis Cham. & Schltdl. Of the 19 penoxsulam resistance cases, 17 experienced cross or multiple resistance [25]. All penoxsulam-resistant weed species reported belong to monocotyledonous plant species, and Echinochloa crus-galli was the most frequently reported. Ours is the first report of a penoxsulam-resistant weed from dicotyledonous plant species and also the first report of a herbicide-resistant population of L. decurrens [25].
According to Heap [18][25], there are five primary mechanisms of herbicide resistance: (1) target-site resistance, (2) enhanced metabolism of herbicides, (3) decreased absorption and translocation of herbicides, (4) sequestration of herbicides, and (5) gene amplification of target genes. Resistance to ALS inhibitors, ACCase inhibitors, triazine and dinitroaniline herbicides is often caused by target-site resistance mechanism. Target-site resistance may be caused by gene mutations that modify the herbicide binding site, inhibiting herbicide binding [18][33]. Mutations in ALS inhibitors have been reported in the amino acids Thr102 (four cases), Ala103 (one case), and Pro103 (21 cases) of the ALS protein (the amino acid number is standardized according to the sequence of the ALS protein in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh.) in various weed species [25]. The high frequency of herbicide application can increase the possibility of gene mutations that modify the herbicide binding sites [18][33]. As describe earlier, farmers of Demakan villages applied penoxsulam twice during each rice growing season with three rice cultivations per year for over 10 years, without herbicide rotation. Therefore, it is possible that penoxsulam resistance in L. decurrens may have been caused by mutations leading to the modification of the herbicide binding sites, causing target-site resistance.
The appearance of resistance to multiple herbicides in weeds is a serious issue for weed control. In fact, populations of Lolium rigidum Gaud. were found to be resistant in seven herbicide action sites [18][25][40]. Populations of Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats. showed resistance to PSII inhibitors, ALS inhibitors, ACCase inhibitors, 4-HPPD inhibitors, glyphosate, and others [18][25]. Population of Ludwigia prostrata Roxb., which belongs to the same genus of L. decurrens, from South Korea, showed multiple resistance to ALS inhibitor herbicides, such as sulfonylureas, imidazolinones, and pyrimidinylsalicylates [18][25]. Therefore, further investigation of resistance to multiple herbicides in L. decurrens is necessary.
The most common herbicide resistance management strategy may be to rotate herbicide action sites [41][42]. This practice may delay the evolution of herbicide resistance. The employment of herbicide mixtures, such as combinations of ALS inhibitors, ACCase inhibitors, glyphosate, glufosinate, 4-HPPD inhibitors, and synthetic auxins may also delay the appearance of resistance. However, it is essential to identify the penoxsulam resistance mechanism in L. decurrens to design an efficient herbicide resistance management strategy.

References

  1. Chandrasena, J.P.N.R. Ludwigia decurrens Walt. A new rice-field weed in Sri Lanka. J. Natl. Sci. Found. Sri Lanka 1988, 16, 97–103.
  2. Barua, I.C. The genus Ludwigia (Onagraceae) in India. Rheedea 2010, 20, 59–70.
  3. USDA; NCRS. Plant Guide. Willow Primrose. Available online: https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=LUDE4 (accessed on 2 May 2021).
  4. Tag Archives; Ludwigia Decurrens (Winged Water-Primrose). Available online: https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/?tag=ludwigia-decurrens (accessed on 2 May 2021).
  5. Bedoya, A.M.; Madriñán, S. Evolution of the aquatic habit in Ludwigia (Onagraceae): Morpho-anatomical adaptive strategies in the Neotropics. Aquat. Bot. 2015, 120 Pt B, 352–362.
  6. Oyedeji, O.; Oziegbe, M.; Taiwo, F.O. Antibacterial, antifungal and phytochemical analysis of crude extracts from the leaves of Ludwigia abyssinica A. Rich. and Ludwigia decurrens Walter. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 1192–1199.
  7. Kong, L.P.; Peng, Y.F.; You, K.; Peng, H.H.; Wang, G.H. Ludwigia decurrens Walt., a naturalized hydrophyte in mainland China. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot. 2019, 27, 338–342.
  8. Cronk, Q.C.B.; Fuller, J.L. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Ecosystems; Earthscan Publications: London, UK, 2001; pp. 1–241.
  9. Sakpere, A.M.; Oziegbe, M.; Bilesanmi, I.A. Allelopathic effects of Ludwigia decurrens and L. adscendens subsp. diffusa on germination, seedling growth and yield of Corchorus olitorius L. Not. Sci. Biol. 2010, 2, 75–80.
  10. Lockwood, J.L.; Simberloff, D.; McKinney, M.L.; Von Holle, B. How many, and which, plants will invade natural areas. Biol. Invasions 2001, 3, 1–8.
  11. Cappuccino, N.; Arnason, J.T. Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biol. Lett. 2006, 2, 189–193.
  12. Chengxu, W.; Mingxing, Z.; Xuhui, C.; Bo, Q. Review on allelopathy of exotic invasive plants. Procedia Eng. 2011, 18, 240–246.
  13. Kumar, R.P.; Singh, J.S. Invasive alien plant species: Their impact on environment, ecosystem services and human health. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 111, 106020.
  14. Langmaier, M.; Lapin, K. Systematic review of the impact of invasive alien plants on forest regeneration in European temperate forests. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 113, 524969.
  15. Dharmaratne, P.G.; Ranamukaarachchi, S.L. Sensitivity of rice to Ludwigia decurrens (L.). Trop. Agric. Res. 1991, 3, 180–194.
  16. Larelle, D.; Mann, R.; Cavanna, S.; Bernes, R.; Duriatti, A.; Mavrotas, C. Penoxsulam, a new broad spectrum rice herbicide for weed control in European Union paddies. In Proceedings of the International Congress Crop Science and Technology, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 10–12 November 2003; British Crop Protection Council: Farnham, UK, 2003; pp. 75–80.
  17. Johnson, T.C.; Martin, T.P.; Mann, R.K.; Pobanz, M.A. Penoxsulam-structure-activity relationships of triazolopyrimidine sulfonamides. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2009, 17, 4230–4240.
  18. Heap, I. Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1306–1315.
  19. Baucom, R.S. Evolutionary and ecological insights from herbicide-resistant weeds: What have we learned about plant adaptation, and what is left to uncover? New Phytol. 2019, 223, 68–82.
  20. Moss, S.; Ulber, L.; Hoed, I.D. A herbicide resistance risk matrix. Crop Prot. 2019, 115, 13–19.
  21. Harper, J.L. The evolution of weeds in relation to resistance to herbicides. In Proceedings of the 3rd British Weed Control Conference, British Weed Control Council, Farnham, UK, 5–8 November 1956; pp. 179–188.
  22. Hilton, H.W. Herbicide tolerant strains of weeds. In Hawaiian Sugar Planters Assocociation Annual Repport; University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1957; pp. 69–72.
  23. Ryan, G.F. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and Atrazine. Weed Sci. 1970, 18, 614–616.
  24. Schweizer, E.E.; Swink, J.F. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 1971, 19, 717–721.
  25. Heap, I. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. Available online: http://www.weedscience.org (accessed on 2 May 2021).
  26. Thouvenot, L.; Haury, J.; Thiébaut, G. A success story: Water primroses, aquatic plant pests. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2013, 23, 790–803.
  27. Statistical Bureau of Sukoharjo Regency. Available online: https://sukoharjokab.bps.go.id/indicator/153/80/1/luas-penggunaan-lahan.html (accessed on 24 June 2021).
  28. Grewell, B.J.; Netherland, M.D.; Thomason, M.J.S. Establishing Research and Management Priorities for Invasive Water Primroses (Ludwigia spp.); U.S. Army Crops of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–42.
  29. Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P. The World’s Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology; University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1977; pp. 1–609.
  30. Chen, G.; Wang, Q.; Yao, Z.; Zhu, L.; Dong, L. Penoxsulam-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice fields in China. Weed Biol. Manag. 2016, 16, 16–23.
  31. Riar, D.S.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Srivastava, V.; Nandula, V.; Bond, J.A.; Scott, R.C. Physiological and molecular basis of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 278–289.
  32. Matzenbacher, F.O.; Bortoly, E.D.; Kalsing, A.; Merotto, A. Distribution and analysis of the mechanisms of resistance of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to imidazolinone and quinclorac herbicides. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 1044–1058.
  33. Fang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, T.; Yan, B.; Li, J.; Dong, L. Target-site and metabolic resistance mechanisms to penoxsulam in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 8085–8095.
  34. Shimizu, T.; Nakayama, I.; Nagayama, K.; Miyazawa, T.; Nezu, Y. Acetolactate synthase inhibitors. In Herbicide Classes in Development; Böger, P., Wakabayashi, K., Hirai, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 1–41.
  35. LaRossa, R.A.; Van Dyk, T.K.; Smulski, D.R. Toxic accumulation of 2-ketobutyrate caused by inhibition of the branched-chain amino acid biosynthetic enzyme acetolactate synthase in Salmonella typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 1987, 169, 1372–1378.
  36. Ray, T.B. Site of action of chlorsulfuron: Inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 1984, 75, 827–831.
  37. Shaner, D.L.; Anderson, P.C.; Stidham, M.A. Potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 1984, 76, 545–546.
  38. Subramanian, M.V.; Gerwick, B.C. Inhibition of Acetolactate Synthase by Triazolopyrimidines; ACS Symposium Series 389; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 277–288.
  39. Shimizu, T.; Nakayama, I.; Nakano, T.; Nezu, Y.; Abe, H. Inhibition of plant acetolactate synthase by herbicides, pyrimidinylsalicylic acids. J. Pesticide Sci. 1994, 19, 59–67.
  40. Henckes, J.R.; Cechin, J.; Schmitz, M.F.; Piasecki, C.; Vargas, L.; Agostinetto, D. Fitness cost and competitive ability of ryegrass susceptible and with multiple resistance to glyphosate, iodosulfuron-methyl, and pyroxsulam. Planta Daninha 2019, 37, e019197532.
  41. Feng, P.C.C.; CaJacob, C.A.; Martino-Catt, S.J.; Cerny, R.E.; Elmore, G.A.; Heck, G.R.; Haung, J.; Kruger, W.M.; Malven, M.; Miklos, J.A.; et al. Glyphosate-resistant crops: Developing the next generation products. In Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds, History, Development, and Management; Nandula, V.K., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 45–65.
  42. Green, J.M.; Castle, L.A. Transitioning from single tomultipleherbicide resistant crops. In Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds, History, Development, and Management; Nandula, V.K., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 67–91.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Hisashi Kato-Noguchi
View Times: 1.0K
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 26 Sep 2021
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback