https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v15i7.3506

elocation-id: e3506

González-Ruiz, Ail-Catzim, López-Orona, Medina-López, Estrada-Acosta, and López-Urquídez: Acetolactate synthase and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibiting herbicides in Avena fatua

Journal Metadata

Journal Identifier: remexca [journal-id-type=publisher-id]

Journal Title Group

Journal Title (Full): Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas

Abbreviated Journal Title: Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc [abbrev-type=publisher]

ISSN: 2007-0934 [pub-type=ppub]

Publisher

Publisher’s Name: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias

Article Metadata

Article Identifier: 10.29312/remexca.v15i7.3506 [pub-id-type=doi]

Article Grouping Data

Subject Group [subj-group-type=heading]

Subject Grouping Name: Articles

Title Group

Article Title: Acetolactate synthase and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibiting herbicides in Avena fatua

Contributor Group

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: González-Ruiz

Given (First) Names: Andrés

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Ail-Catzim

Given (First) Names: Carlos Enrique

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff2]

Superscript: 2

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: López-Orona

Given (First) Names: Carlos Alfonso

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Medina-López

Given (First) Names: Raymundo

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Estrada-Acosta

Given (First) Names: Mitzi Dayanira

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: López-Urquídez

Given (First) Names: Guadalupe Alfonso

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=corresp; rid=c1]

Superscript: §

Affiliation [id=aff1]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 1

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa-Facultad de Agronomía. Carretera Culiacán-Eldorado km 17.5, Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. CP. 80398. (ag-ruiz2009@hotmail.com; clopezorona@uas.edu.mx; raymedinalop@hotmail.com; mitziestrada@uas.edu.mx). [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa [content-type=normalized]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Facultad de Agronomía [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

State or Province: Culiacán

City: Sinaloa

Postal Code: 80398

Country: in an Address: Mexico [country=MX]

Email Address: ag-ruiz2009@hotmail.com

Email Address: clopezorona@uas.edu.mx

Email Address: raymedinalop@hotmail.com

Email Address: mitziestrada@uas.edu.mx

Affiliation [id=aff2]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 2

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California-Instituto de Ciencias Agrícolas. Carretera Delta Oaxaca s/n, Ejido Nuevo León, Mexicali, Baja California. CP. 21705. (carlos.ail@uabc.edu.mx). [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California [content-type=normalized]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Instituto de Ciencias Agrícolas [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

City: Mexicali

State or Province: Baja California

Postal Code: 21705

Country: in an Address: Mexico [country=MX]

Email Address: carlos.ail@uabc.edu.mx

Author Note Group

Correspondence Information: [§] Autor para correspondencia: alfonsolopezurquidez@uas.edu.mx [id=c1]

Publication Date [date-type=pub; publication-format=electronic]

Day: 04

Month: 12

Year: 2024

Publication Date [date-type=collection; publication-format=electronic]

Season: Oct-Nov

Year: 2024

Volume Number: 15

Issue Number: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: e3506

History: Document History

Date [date-type=received]

Day: 01

Month: 07

Year: 2024

Date [date-type=accepted]

Day: 01

Month: 10

Year: 2024

Permissions

License Information [license-type=open-access; xlink:href=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/; xml:lang=es]

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons

Abstract

Avena fatua is a very important weed in wheat worldwide. This also occurs in the Mexicali Valley, BC., where acetolactate synthase- and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides are used to control this grass. In the search for the best alternative for the producer, this research aimed to estimate the efficiency of these two groups of herbicides to control Avena fatua. The trials were carried out during the 2021-2022 autumn-winter cycle in three ejidos in said Valley (República Mexicana, Nayarit, and Sombrerete). The experiments included herbicides representative of each group. Acetolactate synthase was composed of iodosulfuron, flucarbazone, and pyroxsulam and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase was integrated by fenoxaprop and pinoxaden. The experiments were arranged in randomized complete blocks with four replications. An analysis of variance was carried out for weed control and density and crop yield; the effectiveness of herbicides was measured using a non-linear regression model. Weed control efficiency and weed index were estimated. The results indicate that the best group of herbicides was acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase. For example, in the projection of the level of damage, in the República Mexicana experiment, we have fenoxaprop= 77.16+0.78*DAA-0.009*DAA^2, that is, the damage to the weed increases slightly over time, at least until the 56 DAA. On the contrary, mesosulfuron loses efficiency of 6.41% daily in the second stage of the evaluated period: 138.20-6.41*DAA+0.07*DAA^2. In efficiency at the same site, fenoxaprop has 83.15% and Iodosulfuron only 37.5%.

Keyword Group [xml:lang=en]

Title: Keywords:

Keyword: biological effectiveness

Keyword: resistance

Keyword: weed control

Keyword: yield

Counts

Figure Count [count=0]

Table Count [count=11]

Equation Count [count=2]

Reference Count [count=19]

Page Count [count=0]

Abstract

Avena fatua is a very important weed in wheat worldwide. This also occurs in the Mexicali Valley, BC., where acetolactate synthase- and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides are used to control this grass. In the search for the best alternative for the producer, this research aimed to estimate the efficiency of these two groups of herbicides to control Avena fatua. The trials were carried out during the 2021-2022 autumn-winter cycle in three ejidos in said Valley (República Mexicana, Nayarit, and Sombrerete). The experiments included herbicides representative of each group. Acetolactate synthase was composed of iodosulfuron, flucarbazone, and pyroxsulam and acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase was integrated by fenoxaprop and pinoxaden. The experiments were arranged in randomized complete blocks with four replications. An analysis of variance was carried out for weed control and density and crop yield; the effectiveness of herbicides was measured using a non-linear regression model. Weed control efficiency and weed index were estimated. The results indicate that the best group of herbicides was acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase. For example, in the projection of the level of damage, in the República Mexicana experiment, we have fenoxaprop= 77.16+0.78*DAA-0.009*DAA^2, that is, the damage to the weed increases slightly over time, at least until the 56 DAA. On the contrary, mesosulfuron loses efficiency of 6.41% daily in the second stage of the evaluated period: 138.20-6.41*DAA+0.07*DAA^2. In efficiency at the same site, fenoxaprop has 83.15% and Iodosulfuron only 37.5%.

Keywords:

biological effectiveness, resistance, weed control, yield.

Introduction

Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) is one of the weed species that most affects winter crops worldwide (Tidemann et al., 2021). It is also one of the main weeds in the Mexicali Valley region in wheat crops (Herrera Andrade et al., 2010). Different strategies are used to solve this problem in crops, including the use of synthetic chemicals (Gao and Su, 2024). To control Avena fatua in wheat, several herbicides are applied, which are concentrated in two groups. On the one hand, there are Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) inhibitors and on the other, Acetyl Coenzyme A Carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (Cobb and Reade, 2010).

ALS inhibitors are used for their high efficacy, low environmental impact, and wide crop selectivity (Heap, 2020). Nonetheless, there are many biotypes resistant to APPs (aryloxyphenoxypropionates) and CHDs (cyclohexanediones) (Tafoya-Razo et al., 2022). This is due to a mutation in ACCase that reduces their sensitivity to the herbicide (Hassanpour-bourkheili et al., 2021). There are also weeds resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides, which, in most cases, is caused by a mutation at the site of action (Lonhienne et al., 2022), although, in some cases, it can be caused by limited absorption, translocation, and sequestration of the herbicide in the vacuoles (Yu and Powles, 2014).

For their part, Cruz-Hipólito et al. (2011) evaluated two biotypes of A. fatua, one from Mexico and the other from Chile, which were susceptible to pinoxaden, with a lethal concentration of 50. In addition, Torres-García et al. (2018) identified a mutation within the ALS enzyme and indicate that it is likely to cause resistance in A. fatua biotypes in Mexico. Based on the above, the effect of ALS- and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides on Avena fatua in wheat in the Mexicali Valley, BC., was evaluated.

Materials and methods

The study was carried out in three ejidos in the wheat-growing area of the Mexicali Valley, BC., during the autumn-winter 2020-2021 cycle, on farms with a history of herbicide application that has been deficient in controlling A. fatua. Ejido República Mexicana is located north of the Mexicali Valley, 60.931 km from the city, the agricultural plot was located at 32° 38’ 38.19” north latitude, 114° 48’ 50.4” west longitude, at 34 masl.

Ejido Nayarit is located in the central part, 39.426 km from the city, the farm was located at 32° 8’ 50.02” north latitude, 115° 16’ 44” west longitude, at 13 masl. Ejido Sombrerete is located south of the Valley at 63.41 km from the city, the agricultural plot was located at 32° 9’ 28.15” north latitude, 115° 3’ 48.19” west longitude, at 9 masl. The experiments were conducted with average maximum and minimum temperatures of 29.33 °C and 10.53 °C and the lowest rainfall of the year (SIMARBC, 2022). The crop was managed according to the farmers’ cultural practices, except for the application of herbicides.

In ejido República Mexicana, the herbicide was applied on December 27, 2020 (average height of A. fatua of 9.48 cm); in Ejido Nayarit, the herbicides were applied on January 17, 2021 (average weed height of 10.45 cm); in ejido Sombrerete, it was established on February 19, 2021 (average weed height of 11.37 cm) and the wheat in full tillering. This was what determined the moment of the application of the herbicide.

Herbicides were evaluated at recommended commercial doses (Table 1). In the application of the herbicides, a 25 L Forza 25 K2P2L two-stroke motorized sprayer was used, which was equipped with a 1.2 m distance spray boom with TeeJet 80.02 flat fan nozzles (uniform opening of 80° and an expenditure of 0.2 gallons min-1), calibrated at an expenditure of 295.5 L ha-1. Similarly, the application broth was adapted according to the optimal pH based on the herbicide and an average electrical conductivity of 1.31 dS m-1, for which a HO9812 g meter was used.

Table 1

ALS- and ACCase-inhibiting herbicides evaluated on A. fatua.

Active ingredient Brand Dose pH Chemical family MOA
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium Sigma Forte (OD 1.2%) 1.5 L ha-1 8.28 Sulfonylureas ALS
Flucarbazone sodium Everest® 70 WDG (70% w/w DG) 30 g ha-1 6.1 Sulfonyl-amino-carbonyl-triazolinones ALS
Pyroxsulam Across (OD 2.9%) 0.5 L ha-1 7.03 Triazolopyrimidine ALS
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Puma Super (oil in water emulsion 6.5%) 1 L ha-1 8.26 Aryloxy-phenoxy-propionates ACCase
Pinoxaden Axial (5%w/v EC) 1.2 L ha-1 7.55 Phenylpyrazoles ACCase

[i] Information collected from the technical data sheets of the commercial herbicides used in the present study. ALS= acetolactate synthase; ACCase= acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase; WDG= water dispersible granules; MOA= mechanism of action.

An experimental design of randomized complete blocks with four replications was applied. The experimental unit was 41.53 m2. The usable area was 18.96 m2. It was divided into four sampling units. Plant height, weed density, and herbicide control efficacy were evaluated. At each sampling point, five plants were randomly selected (20 per experimental unit).

The plant height was measured from the soil surface with a tape measure; to record the density of oats, the total plants per m2 and the grain yield in kg m-2 were counted; the damage was measured by visual observation using the scale of 1 to 9 of the European Weed Research Society. Data were obtained at 14, 28, 42, and 56 days after herbicide application (DAA). Weed control efficiency was calculated according to Mani et al. (1973); for this purpose, the following formula was applied:

WCE%= BMc-BMt BMc x100

Where: WCE= weed control efficiency (%); BMc= density of A. fatua plants m-2 in the control plot; BMt= density of A. fatua plants m-2 in the treated plot. The calculation of the weed index (WI) was carried out using the formula proposed by Gill and Kumar (1969):

WI= X-Y X x100

Where: X= yield (t ha-1) of the treatment of least competition of weeds; and Y= yield (t ha-1) of the experimental unit of the treatment evaluated.

An analysis of variance and a comparison of means between the treatments using Tukey’s test (p< 0.05) were performed; it was verified that the data had normal distribution using Shapiro’s test; it was also confirmed that the treatments had equal variances with Levene’s test. In addition, an analysis of the loss of biological effectiveness of herbicides was carried out based on the percentage of control reported each week. To this end, the second-order polynomial nonlinear regression model was applied. Statistical analyses were performed with the XLSTAT program, version 2022 (Addinsoft, 2022).

Results and discussion

Biological effectiveness of the herbicides evaluated

In the trial conducted in ejido República Mexicana, all treatments were highly effective on A. fatua at 14 DAA (Table 2). However, herbicides belonging to the ACCase group, pinoxaden and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, were better, with a damage percentage of 88.12 and 86.12%. The effect of these two herbicides remained constant during the experiment. In contrast, the herbicides of the ALS group (pyroxsulam, flucarbazone, and iodosulfuron) decreased their effectiveness after 14 DAA.

Table 2

Percentage of damaged A. fatua plants ±SE in the ejido República Mexicana experiment.

Treatments DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 0 ±0e 0 ±0d 0 ±0d 0 ±0c
Flucarbazone 71.75 ±4.24c 18.43 ±13.02c 3 ±0.87cd 1 ±0c
Pyroxsulam 80 ±1.84b 53.12 ±4.4b 3.87 ±1.48c 2.25 ±0.95c
Pinoxaden 88.12 ±1.89a 91.68 ±0.3a 90 ±3.35b 88.87 ±4.22b
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium 64.68 ±1.87d 8.18 ±3.95c 1.53 ±0.26cd 1 ±0c
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 86.12 ±2.49a 92.68 ±0.9a 93.75 ±0.51a 93.43 ±0.31a

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application.

With the nonlinear regression analysis, it was obtained that: fenoxaprop= 77.16+0.78*DAA-0.009*DAA^2; pinoxaden= 83.67+0.42*DAA-0.006*DAA^2; pyroxsulam= 137-4.27*DAA+0.03*DAA^2; flucarbazone= 144.61-6.21*DAA+0.065*DAA^2; iodosulfuron= 138.20-6.41*DAA+0.07*DAA^2. This indicates that the herbicides belonging to ACCase have a uniform trend over time. On the other hand, the herbicides of the ALS group, iodosulfuron and flucarbazone, had a daily loss of efficiency of 6.41 and 6.21%, respectively in the stage of 14 to 28 DAA.

In the ejido Nayarit experiment, herbicides had a high efficiency at 14 DAA, which increased slightly at 28 and 42 DAA for all herbicides, except for iodosulfuron and flucarbazone. In contrast, at 56 DAA, all herbicides caused less damage to the weed, but it was greater in ALS herbicides (Table 3).

Table 3

Percentage of damaged A. fatua plants ±SE in the ejido Nayarit experiment.

Treatments DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 0 ±0c 0 ±0c 0 ±0d 0 ±0b
Flucarbazone 69.68 ±0.6b 66.56 ±3.93b 64.37 ±2.42c 12.18 ±2.62b
Pyroxsulam 77.18 ±3.04a 82.18 ±1.18a 84.37 ±1.49ab 55 ±4.48a
Pinoxaden 73.12 ±1.8ab 85.93 ±3.2a 90.5 ±3.56a 72.37 ±11.13a
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium 71.87 ±4.35ab 72.18 ±3.44b 68 ±3.78c 9.37 ±1.56b
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 71.87 ±1.08ab 73.75 ±1.69b 81.87 ±5.83b 61.87 ±17.95a

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; and DAA= days after application.

The nonlinear regression analysis shows that: fenoxaprop= 48.2+2.03*DAA-0.033*DAA^2; pinoxaden= 36.61+3.21*DAA-0.05*DAA^2; pyroxsulam= 41.7+3.19*DAA-0.055*DAA^2; flucarbazone= 25.3+4.11*DAA-0.08*DAA^2; Iodosulfuron= 17.03+5.08*DAA-0.099*DAA^2. This means that pinoxaden would have an effectiveness of 77.29% at 50 DAA, iodosulfuron would have 24.36% on those same days. On the other hand, ACCase herbicides would have an effectiveness of 77.29% in pinoxaden and 67.34% in fenoxaprop.

In ejido Sombrerete, all herbicides had a suppressive effect at 14 DAA, which was maintained at 28 DAA and even increased in all treatments, although it was lower in flucarbazone. There was also a decrease at 42 DAA and a pronounced drop in the effectiveness of all treatments at 56 DAA (Table 4). In addition, the projection at 50 DAA, yielded with the nonlinear regression analysis, shows that pyroxsulam has an efficacy of 28.05%, pinoxaden of 27.68%, flucarbazone of 24.1%, fenoxaprop of 30.6%, and iodosulfuron of 28.59%.

Table 4

Percentage of damaged A. fatua plants ± SE in the ejido Sombrerete experiment.

Treatments DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 0 ±0b 0 ±0b 0 ±0b 0 ±0c
Flucarbazone 69.68 ±0.31a 63.75 ±4.3b 46.87 ±6.18a 4 ±1b
Pyroxsulam 65.62 ±3.17a 67.81 ±1.8ab 54.37 ±5.96a 4 ±1b
Pinoxaden 69.03 ±0.6a 68.12 ±0.63a 52.18 ±5.69a 4.93 ±3.13ab
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium 69.68 ±0.31a 70.93 ±1.44a 55 ±5.03a 4.31 ±1.14b
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 69.68 ±0.31a 70 ±0.51a 56.56 ±3.44a 7.18 ±2.19a

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application.

These results are consistent with Scursoni et al. (2011), who found that fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and pinoxaden provided similar control with values of 96 and 98% on A. fatua in wheat. This is because both inhibit the synthesis of fatty acids from narrow-leaved species (Rosales-Robles, 2006), stopping membrane synthesis, which is required for cell synthesis (Takano et al., 2020). On the other hand, herbicides that inhibit the acetolactate synthase enzyme inhibit the biosynthesis of branched-chain amino acids essential for weed growth and development.

In addition, plant death is not only due to starvation of these amino acids since the herbicide inhibits cell division as there is an accumulation of α-ketobutyrate and a decrease in phloem translocation (Cobb and Reade, 2010).

Effect of herbicides on wild oat plant density

The plant density in the ejido República Mexicana trial decreased from 28 DAA in all treatments compared to the control and maintained this decrease in the fenoxaprop and pinoxaden treatments in stages 42 and 56 DAA. The Table 5 shows that herbicides belonging to the ACCase group were more efficient over time.

Table 5

Efficiency of treatments (% control) and plant density of A. fatua ± SE in the Ejido República Mexicana experiment.

Treatments Variable DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control Density 362 ±75.5a 527 ±104.6a 722 ±108.8a 807 ±132.91a 743 ±60.5a
WCE (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Flucarbazone Density 466 ±31.9a 554 ±30.94a 704 ±44.72a 716 ±81.24bc 659 ±62.6a
WCE (%) -28.8 -5.1 2.4 11.3 11,4
Pyroxsulam Density 433 ±72.9a 482 ±16.09a 552 ±52.9ab 618 ±63.88b 769 ±35.5a
WCE (%) -19.5 8.5 23.6 23.4 -3.4
Pinoxaden Density 365 ±36.7a 359 ±40.28a 338 ±43.23b 295 ±78.53c 216 ±63.8b
WCE (%) -0.7 31.9 53.1 63.5 71
Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium Density 404 ±72.5a 368 ±61.6a 550 ±131.78ab 636 ±126.9ab 632 ±33a
WCE (%) 2.4 36.9 21.1 25.7 12.5
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Density 354 ±91.4a 393 ±73.41a 322.92 ±74.1b 256 ±116.27c 148 ±97.5b
WCE (%) -9 22.4 50.6 56.1 68.6

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application; WCE= weed control efficiency.

In the experiment carried out in ejido Nayarit, the difference between the two groups of herbicides is also marked, although in this case, the herbicides belonging to the ACCase group only prevented the increase in the population, since in the case of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, the density decreased 1.1 plants per day on average, while pinoxaden had a decrease of 1.66 plants per day (Table 6).

Table 6

Efficiency of treatments (% control) and plant density of A. fatua ± SE in the ejido Nayarit experiment.

Treatment Variable DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control Density 414 ±81.9a 553 ±80.9a 669 ±74.8a 768 ±129.8a 852 ±144.3a
WCE (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Flucarbazone Density 454 ±179.7a 470 ±147.9a 535 ±112ab 686 ±213.2a 692 ±181.2ab
WCE (%) -9.8 15 20 10.7 18.8
Pyroxsulam Density 477 ±89.5a 341 ±73.6a 413 ±90.8ab 590 ±117.7ab 632 ±231.9abc
WCE (%) -15.3 38.3 38.2 23.2 25.9
Pinoxaden Density 513 ±85.2a 308 ±20.21a 347 ±35.4b 274 ±4.1b 255 ±46.5c
WCE (%) -23.9 44.3 48.1 64.3 70.1
Iodosulfuron-methyl Density 525 ±51.2a 420 ±18.3a 453 ±4.2ab 566 ±54.6ab 610 ±27.8bc
WCE (%) -26.8 24.1 32.2 26.3 28.4
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Density 462 ±56.1a 404 ±37.7a 443 ±97.2ab 432 ±77.4ab 355 ±72.9bc
WCE (%) -11.7 27 33.7 43.8 58.3

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application; WCE= weed control efficiency.

In the experiment carried out in ejido Sombrerete, the density of plants in the different evaluations was not statistically different (p< 0.5) in all treatments. Nevertheless, at 56 DAA, the pinoxaden and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl treatments maintained lower plant density compared to the control, where the population gradually increased (Table 7).

Table 7

Efficiency of treatments (% control) and plant density of A. fatua ± SE in the ejido Sombrerete experiment.

Treatments Variable DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42
Control Density 361 ±75.93a 415 ±85.66a 439 ±75.66a 392 ±28.23a
WCE (%) 0 0 0 0
Flucarbazone Density 294 ±56.09a 301 ±41.85a 319 ±29.89a 305 ±3045a
WCE (%) 18.6 27.4 27.3 22.2
Pyroxsulam Density 276 ±56.28a 311 ±51.02a 310 ±61.46a 320 ±46.65a
WCE (%) 23.5 25.1 29.3 18.2
Pinoxaden Density 390 ±66.68a 307 ±39.25a 328 ±24.62a 350 ±59.01a
WCE (%) -8 25.9 25.3 10.7
Iodosulfuron-methyl Density 325 ±78.05a 402 ±49.54a 386 ±64.68a 374 ±51.77a
WCE (%) 10.1 3.1 12.0 4.5
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Density 383 ±88.64a 368 ±68.71a 315 ±18.32a 291 ±37.04a
WCE (%) -6 11.3 28.2 25.8

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application; WCE= weed control efficiency.

These results coincide with those obtained by Scursoni et al. (2011), who point out that with pinoxaden and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, the density of A. fatua in barley decreased. For their part, Baghestani et al. (2008) found that with the fenoxaprop and Iodosulfuron herbicides, the population of Avena ludoviciana (Diureu) decreased by 97.5%. Likewise, Scursoni et al. (2011) observed that with pinoxaden and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, the density of A. fatua plants in wheat decreased.

Effect of the herbicides evaluated on plant height in A. fatua

Regarding the height of the A. fatua plant, in the ejido República Mexicana experiment (Table 8), the control had the tallest plants in all stages of sampling; however, in the treatments of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and pinoxaden, they were smaller in the last two evaluations.

Table 8

Plant height of A. fatua (cm) ±SE in the ejido República Mexicana experiment.

Treatment DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 9.3 ±0.4a 26.7 ±1.2a 53.9 ±3.3a 72.8 ±2.7a 101 ±3.9a
Iodosulfuron-methyl 9.7 ±0.7a 19.4 ±0.9b 47.4 ±1.9b 68.6 ±3.9a 92.4 ±3.5b
Flucarbazone sodium 10.1 ±1.1a 16.9 ±1.4bc 41.6 ±2.4bc 65.9 ±1.4a 91.5 ±3.6bc
Pyroxsulam 9.3 ±0.9a 11.1 ±0.98d 39.1 ±1.8c 63.6 ±1.5a 89.1 ±2.8c
Pinoxaden 9.4 ±0.8a 11 ±0.5d 12.9 ±1d 24.9 ±4.1b 27.9 ±3d
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 9.1 ±0.9a 12.9 ±0.8cd 12.6 ±0.7d 22.3 ±3b 26.3 ±3.1d

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application.

In the ejido Nayarit trial, there was the same trend as the results obtained in the experiment in ejido República Mexicana (Table 9).

Table 9

Plant height of A. fatua (in cm) ±SE in the ejido Nayarit experiment.

Treatment DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 10.5 ±0.8a 13.8 ±1.6a 27.9 ±2.4a 43.9 ±3.8a 77.6 ±3.98a
Flucarbazone sodium 11.4 ±1.5a 9.6 ±1ab 16.3 ±2.3b 33.8 ±3.9ab 59.5 ±3.92b
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 10.8 ±0.9a 9.9 ±1ab 13.6 ±1.2b 25.6 ±3.5bc 53.1 ±5.32bc
Iodosulfuron-methyl 10.5 ±1.3a 9.6 ±0.9ab 15.8 ±2.8b 20.1 ±3b 59.4 ±4.7b
Pyroxsulam 9.7 ±0.2a 7.6 ±0.6b 10.1 ±0.7b 24.7 ±1bc 49.3 ±1.97bc
Pinoxaden 9.8 ±0.8a 8.6 ±0.7b 9.1 ±1.3b 16.7 ±2.8c 43 ±6.27c

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application.

In the ejido Sombrerete experiment, the plants of all the treatments were shorter than the control at 28 and 42 DAA, while at 56 DAA, the treatments that showed a decrease in growth were iodosulfuron, pyroxsulam and fenoxaprop (Table 10). Nonetheless, at 14 DAA, the flucarbazone and control treatments had the same behavior. At 28 and 42 DAA, the plant height in all herbicide treatments was lower than in the control.

Table 10

Plant height of A. fatua (cm) ±SE in the ejido Sombrerete experiment.

Treatment DAA 0 DAA 14 DAA 28 DAA 42 DAA 56
Control 11.6 ±1.9a 14.9 ±1.4a 36.5 ±3.3a 54.7 ±4.5a 94.6 ±5.7a
Flucarbazone sodium 13.7 ±2.5a 14.5 ±1.6a 27.8 ±4b 46.2 ±5.2ab 89.5 ±8a
Pinoxaden 10.2 ±1.4a 10.7 ±1.2a 25.3 ±2.5b 42.6 ±5b 89.6 ±5.7a
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 10 ±0.9a 11.3 ±1a 25.9 ±1.9b 44.1 ±4.7ab 82.9 ±5.5a
Pyroxsulam 12.3 ±2a 9.6 ±1.4a 24.3 ±2.7b 43.6 ±5.1ab 81.9 ±7.7a
Iodosulfuron-methyl 10.4 ±0.7a 9.3 ±0.9a 22.2 ±1.5b 41.8 ±1.7b 77.9 ±30a

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05). SE= standard error; DAA= days after application.

Effect of herbicide application on grain yield of wheat

The highest efficiency occurred in the treatments of the ACCase group, with pinoxaden having 84.54% and fenoxaprop having 83.15% in the trial developed in ejido República Mexicana, while those belonging to the ALS group had an efficiency of less than 45%. Similarly, in the ejido Nayarit experiment, the efficiency was lower than what occurred in most of the treatments of ejido República Mexicana, except for the pyroxsulam treatment, which went from 28.57 to 57.5%.

In ejido Sombrerete, the efficacy of herbicides was very low, with the fenoxaprop treatment having the highest efficiency, with 32.6%. Likewise, in the experiments where the herbicides of the ALS group were applied, the yields are similar to those obtained in the control of the three experiments. In addition, the effect of the herbicides of the ACCase group is high since the difference between yields is significant (p< 0.05) (Table 11).

Table 11

Wheat efficiency (%) and yield ± standard error in the experiments.

Treatment Ej. Rep. Mexicana Ej. Nayarit Ej. Sombrerete
(t ha-1) Efficiency (t ha-1) Efficiency (t ha-1) Efficiency
Control 1.5 ±0.26b 0 2 ±0.4b 0 4.2 ±0.63b 0
Flucarbazone 2.6 ±0.3b 42.31 2 ±0.24b 19.05 3.9±0.53b -7.69
Pyroxsulam 2.1 ±0.28b 28.57 5 ±0.6a 57.5 4.4 ±0.08b 4.55
Pinoxaden 9.7 ±1.02a 84.54 4 ±0.24a 65.31 4.5 ±0.77ab 6.67
Iodosulfuron-methyl 2.4 ±0.13b 37.5 2 ±0.12b 26.09 4.9 ±0.09ab 14.29
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 8.9 ±0.31a 83.15 5 ±1.07a 67.31 6.2 ±0.74a 32.26

[i] Values with different letters in a column are statistically different (Tukey p< 0.05).

Pinoxaden and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl treatments were the best and there was no significant difference between them (p< 0.05), which coincides with Scursoni et al. (2011), who did not find differences in yield in barley either when comparing these two herbicides. The herbicides of the ACCase group (fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and pinoxaden) influenced the control of A. fatua to the extent that this benefited the development of the crop.

This result reflects that A. fatua is a factor that limits the development and yield of wheat crops in the Mexicali Valley. Likewise, the yields obtained in these tests reflect the effect exerted by the density and height of the weeds and the action of herbicides (Herrera Andrade et al., 2010). On the other hand, the difference between trials, having higher percentages in ejido República Mexicana and lower in ejido Sombrete, is related to the height of the weeds at the time of herbicide application, especially the ALS group.

This statement is based on the fact that, in the ejido República Mexicana trial, the plants of A. fatua had a height of 9.48 cm at the time of application, while those of the Sombrerete trial had an average height of 11.37 cm; that is, a height greater than that recommended for the application of some herbicides evaluated.

Conclusions

Under the conditions in which this research was conducted, it is concluded that: a) all the herbicides evaluated cause damage to A. fatua, decrease its density and affect its height, at least until the first week after application; b) the fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and pinoxaden herbicides (ACCase group) had greater biological effectiveness on A. fatua than the herbicides of the ALS group, which was reflected in the yield of wheat; c) the level of efficacy of the herbicides evaluated affects wheat yields; and d) the herbicides of the ACCase group can be applied as an alternative control of A. fatua in the Mexicali Valley, BC., following the recommendations for their use.

Acknowledgements

Andrés González Ruiz is a student of the Doctoral Program in Agricultural Sciences of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa and has received a grant for his studies from CONAHCYT; for this reason, these institutions are thanked for the support provided.

Bibliography

1 

Addinsoft. 2022. XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution. New York. https://www.xlstat.com.

2 

Baghestani, M. A.; Zand, E.; Soufizadeh, S.; Beheshtian, M.; Haghighi, A.; Alireza, B.; Birgani, D. G.; Daryoush, G. B. and Deihimfard, R. 2008. Study on the efficacy of weed control in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with tank mixtures of grass herbicides with broadleaved herbicides. Crop Protection. 27(1):104-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.04.013.

3 

Cobb, A. H. and Reade, J. P. 2010. Inhibitor of acetolactate Synthase and Inhibitor ACCasa. Herbicides and plant physiology. Editors: Chris Ka Ulbars and Gerard Vaillancourt. Ed: Alberta. 25-44 pp.

4 

Cruz-Hipolito H.; Osuna, M. D.; Dominguez-Valenzuela, J. A.; Espinoza, N. N. and De Prado, R. 2011. Mechanism of resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua) from Latin America. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 59(13):7261-7267. Doi: 10.1021/jf201074k.

5 

Gao, W. T. and Su, W. H. 2022. Weed management methods for herbaceous field crops: a review. Agronomy. 14(486):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030486.

6 

Gill, G. S. and Kumar, V. K. 1969. Weed index, a new method for reporting weed control trials. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 14(2):96-98.

7 

Herrera Andrade, J. L.; Guzmán-Ruiz, S. C. y Loza-Venegas, E. 2010. Guía técnica para el área de influencia del campo experimental Valle de Mexicali, BC. y San Luis Río Colorado, Sonora. INIFAP-CIRNO. Mexicali, BC. Guía técnica # 1. 26-27 pp.

8 

Hassanpour-bourkheili, S.; Gherekhloo, J.; Kamkar, B. and Ramezanpour, S. S. 2021. Mechanism and pattern of resistance to some ACCase inhibitors in winter wild oat (Avena sterilis subsp. ludoviciana (Durieu) Gillet & Magne) biotypes collected within canola fields. Crop Protection. 143(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105541.

9 

Heap, I. M. 2020. Base de datos internacional de malezas resistentes a los herbicidas. www.weedscience.org.copyright©1993-2024. WeedScience.org.

10 

Lonhienne, T.; Cheng, Y.; García, M. D.; Hu, S. H.; Low, Y. S.; Scheck, G.; Williams, G. M.; and Guddat, L. W. 2022. Structural basis of resistance to herbicides that target acetohydroxyacid synthase. Nature communicatios. 13(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-022-31023-x.

11 

Mani, V. S.; Malla, M. L.; Gautam, K. C. and Bhagwandas, B. 1973. Weed killing chemical in potato cultivation.Indian Fmg. 23(8):17-18.

12 

Rosales-Robles, E. y Sánchez de la Cruz R. 2006. Clasificación y uso de los herbicidas por su modo de acción. Campo experimental Rio Bravo-INIFAP. Folleto técnico 35. 1-16 pp. https://www.compucampo.com/tecnicos/clasificacionherbs.pdf.

13 

Scursoni, J. A.; Martín, A.; Catanzaro, M. P.; Quiroga, J. and Goldar, F. 2011. Evaluation of post emergence herbicides for the control of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and barley in Argentina. Crop Protection. 30(1):18-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.09.003.

14 

SIMARBC. 2022. Sistema de Información para el manejo del agua de riego en Baja California (SIMARBC). Red Estatal de Estaciones Agroclimatológicas. http://apps.sedagro.gob.mx/simarbc/-P-MODAL-/OAoAANN~ufd6V1B5bElndlloAgA.

15 

Tafoya-Razo, J. A.; Mora-Munguía, S. A. and Torres-García, J. R. 2022. Diversity of herbicide resistance mechanisms of Avena fatua L. to Acetyl CoA Carboxylase Inhibiting Herbicides in the Bajio, Mexico. Plants. 11(13):1-13. Doi: 10.3390/plants11131644.

16 

Takano, H. K.; Ovejero, R. F. L.; Belchior, G. G.; Maymone, G. P. L. and Dayan, F. E. 2020. ACCase inhibiting herbicides: mechanism of action, resistance evolution and stewardship. Scientia Agricola. 78(1):1-11. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2019-0102.

17 

Tidemann, B. D.; Charles, M. G.; Geddes, C. M.; Hugh, J. B. and Beckie, H. J. 2021. Avena fatua and Avena sterilis. En: biology and management of problematic crop weed species. 43-66 pp. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822917-0.00015-X.

18 

Torres-García, J. R.; Tafoya-Razo, J. A.; Velázquez-Márquez, S. and Tiessen, A. 2018. Double herbicide resistant biotypes of wild oat (Avena fatua) display characteristic metabolic fingerprints before and after applying ACCase and ALS inhibitors. Acta Physiol. Plant. 40(1):11-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-018-2691-y.

19 

Yu, Q.; Powles, S. B. 2014. Metabolism-based herbicide resistance and cross resistance in crop weeds: a threat to herbicide sustainability and global crop production. Plant Physiol. 166(3):1106-1118. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.242750.