Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T16:18:14.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alexis L. Knispel ,
Stéphane M. McLachlan ,
Rene C. Van Acker  and
Lyle F. Friesen
Alexis L. Knispel*
Affiliation:
Environmental Conservation Lab, Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
Stéphane M. McLachlan
Affiliation:
Environmental Conservation Lab, Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
Lyle F. Friesen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: alexis_knispel@umanitoba.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gene flow among herbicide-resistant (HR) canola varieties can lead to the development of multiple HR canola plants, creating volunteer canola management challenges for producers. In western Canada, escaped populations of HR canola are ubiquitous outside of cultivated fields, yet the extent of gene flow resulting in herbicide resistance trait stacking in individuals within these populations remains unknown. The objectives of this study were to document the presence of single and multiple herbicide resistance traits and assess the extent of gene flow within escaped canola populations. Seed was collected from 16 escaped canola populations along the verges of fields and roadways in four agricultural regions in southern Manitoba from 2004 to 2006. Glyphosate resistance was found in 14 (88%) of these populations, glufosinate resistance in 13 (81%) populations, and imidazolinone resistance in five (31%) populations. Multiple herbicide resistance was observed at levels consistent with previously published canola outcrossing rates in 10 (62%) of the tested populations. In 2005 and 2006, maternal plants from two escaped populations were tested using trait indicator test strips for glyphosate and glufosinate resistance to confirm outcrossing events. In 2005, two of 13 tested maternal plants with single herbicide resistance traits produced progeny with both glyphosate and glufosinate resistance. In 2006, of 21 tested plants, 10 single HR maternal plants produced multiple HR progeny, and five nonresistant maternal plants produced resistant offspring. This is the first report indicating that intraspecific gene flow results in stacking of herbicide resistance traits in individuals within escaped canola populations, confirming that multiple HR canola volunteers are not confined to agricultural fields. Results of this study suggest that escaped populations of crop plants can contribute to the spread of genetically engineered novel traits, which has important implications for containment, especially for highly controversial pharmaceutical and industrial traits in crop plants.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosatecanola, Brassica napus L. BRSNSEscaped volunteergene flowgenetically modified cropsherbicide resistanceoutcrossingroadside ditches
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 72 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aono, M., Wakiyama, S., Nagatsu, M., Nakajima, N., Tamaoki, M., Kubo, A., and Saji, H. 2006. Detection of feral transgenic oilseed rape with multiple-herbicide resistance in Japan. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5:77–87.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., and Hall, L. M. et al. 2006. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1243–1264.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Warwick, S. I., Nair, H., and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2003. Gene flow in commercial fields of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Ecol. Appl. 13:1276–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and Brown, S. L. 1995. Seed limitation and the dynamics of feral oilseed rape on the M25 motorway. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 259:49–54.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and Brown, S. L. 2004. Spatially structured population dynamics in feral oilseed rape. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271:1909–1916.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Brown, S. L., Hails, R. S., Kohn, D. D., and Rees, M. 2001. Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature. 409:682–683.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Hails, R. S., Rees, M., Kohn, D. H., and Buxton, J. 1993. Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature. 363:620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbert, J. L. and McVetty, P. B. E. 2001. Plot-to-plot, row-to-row, and plant-to-plant outcrossing studies in oilseed rape. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:657–664.Google Scholar
De Corby, K. A., Van Acker, R. C., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., and Friesen, L. F. 2007. Emergence timing and recruitment of volunteer spring wheat. Weed Sci. 55:60–69.Google Scholar
Demeke, T., Perry, D. J., and Scowcroft, W. R. 2006. Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1–23.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. 2001. When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiol. 125:1543–1545.Google Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95:1342–1347.Google Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Shirtliffe, S. J., and Thomas, A. G. 2003. Harvest losses of canola (Brassica napus) cause large seedbank inputs. Weed Sci. 51:83–86.Google Scholar
Hall, L., Topinka, K., Huffman, J., Davis, L., and Good, A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci. 48:688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, L. M., Rahman, M. H., Gulden, R. H., and Thomas, A. G. 2005. Volunteer oilseed rape: will herbicide-resistance traits assist ferality?. in Gressel, J., ed. Crop Ferality and Volunteerism. Boca Raton, FL Taylor and Francis Books. 59–79.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. N., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2006. Emergence timing of volunteer canola in spring wheat fields in Manitoba. Weed Sci. 54:873–882.Google Scholar
Légère, A. 2005. Risks and consequences of gene flow from herbicide-resistant crops: canola (Brassica napus) as a case study. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:292–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation 2006a. Manitoba Management Plus Program. http://www.masc.mb.ca/mmpp.nsf/Home_Page.html. Accessed: May 15, 2007.Google Scholar
Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation 2006b. Yield Manitoba 2006. Published by Farmers' Independent Weekly Ltd., Box 1846, Station Main, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3R1. 52.Google Scholar
Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation 2007. Yield Manitoba 2007. Published by Farmers' Independent Weekly Ltd., Box 1846, Station Main, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3R1. 52.Google Scholar
Marvier, M. and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauro, I. J. and McLachlan, S. M. 2008. Farmer experiences attitudes toward risks associated with genetically modified crops in Manitoba, Canada. Ag. Human Val. In press.Google Scholar
Pessel, D., Lecomte, J., Emeriau, V., Krouti, K., Messean, A., and Gouyon, P. H. 2001. Persistence of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) outside of cultivated fields. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102:841–846.Google Scholar
Rakow, G. and Woods, D. L. 1987. Outcrossing in rape and mustard under Saskatchewan prairie conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:147–151.Google Scholar
Rédei, G. P. 1982. Genetics. New York Macmillan. 98–99.Google Scholar
Scott, S. E. and Wilkinson, M. J. 1998. Transgene risk is low. Nature. 393:320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simard, M. J., Légère, A., Pageau, D., LaJeunesse, J., and Warwick, S. 2002. The frequency and persistence of volunteer canola (Brassica napus) in Quebec. Weed Technol. 16:433–439.Google Scholar
Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Séguin-Swartz, G., Nair, H., and Warwick, S. 2005. Fitness of double vs. single herbicide-resistant canola. Weed Sci. 53:489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, S., Khachatourians, G. C., and Phillips, P. W. B. 2002. Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nature Biotech. 20:537–541.Google Scholar
Tan, S., Evans, R. R., Dahmer, M. L., Singh, B. K., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:246–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Acker, R. C., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., Friesen, L. F., and Entz, M. H. 2003. GM–non-GM crops coexistence in western Canada: Can it work?. in. Manitoba Agronomists Conference. Winnipeg, Manitoba University of Manitoba. 189–196. http://www.umanitoba.ca/afs/agronomists_conf/2003/pdf/vanacker_GM_nonGM_crops.pdf. Accessed: May 23, 2007.Google Scholar
Waines, J. G. and Hegde, S. G. 2003. Intraspecific gene flow in bread wheat as affected by reproductive biology and pollination ecology of wheat flowers. Crop Sci. 43:451–463.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I., Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Braun, L., Zhu, B., Mason, P., Séguin-Swartz, G., and Stewart, C. N. 2003. Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: Brassica rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theor. Appl. Genet. 107:528–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, M. J., Elliott, L. J., Allainguillaume, J., Shaw, M. W., Norris, C., Welters, R., Alexander, M., Sweet, J., and Mason, D. C. 2003. Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science. 302:457–459.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Y., Beckie, H. J., and Matsuo, K. 2006. Transgenic oilseed rape along transportation routes and port of Vancouver in western Canada. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5:67–75.Google Scholar