| Literature DB >> 27099626 |
Michael B Ashworth1, Michael J Walsh2, Ken C Flower3, Martin M Vila-Aiub4, Stephen B Powles2.
Abstract
Herbicides have been the primary tool for controlling large populations of yield depleting weeds from agro-ecosystems, resulting in the evolution of widespread herbicide resistance. In response, nonherbicidal techniques have been developed which intercept weed seeds at harvest before they enter the soil seed bank. However, the efficiency of these techniques allows an intense selection for any trait that enables weeds to evade collection, with early-flowering ecotypes considered likely to result in early seed shedding. Using a field-collected wild radish population, five recurrent generations were selected for early maturity and three generations for late maturity. Phenology associated with flowering time and growth traits were measured. Our results demonstrate the adaptive capacity of wild radish to halve its time to flowering following five generations of early-flowering selection. Early-maturing phenotypes had reduced height and biomass at maturity, leading to less competitive, more prostrate growth forms. Following three generations of late-flowering selection, wild radish doubled its time to flowering time leading to increased biomass and flowering height at maturity. This study demonstrates the potential for the rapid evolution in growth traits in response to highly effective seed collection techniques that imposed a selection on weed populations within agro-ecosystems at harvest.Entities:
Keywords: biomass; evolution; flowering height; flowering time; phenotypic resistance; wild radish
Year: 2016 PMID: 27099626 PMCID: PMC4831463 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Hierarchy of flowering time selection applied to the commencing wild radish population (G0).
Flowering time advancement [days to flowering and cumulative growing degree‐days (GDD)] of each wild radish accession during selection
| Selected generations | Unselected control generations | Phenotypic advancement in first flowering between selected and control generations | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected line | Selection coefficient (1‐selected plants ratio) | Sowing date | Selection dates | Days to first flowering | Cumulative GDD (°C d) | Control line | Days to first flowering | Cumulative GDD (°C d) | Change in days to first flowering | Change in cumulative GDD (°C d) | |
| Early‐flowering time selection | Commencing G0 | 0.99 | 5 Sept 2011 | 5 Oct 2011 | 30 | 446 | |||||
| EF1 | 0.95 | 9 Dec 2011 | 30 Dec 2011 | 21 | 382 | CE1 | 26 | 467 | −5 | −85 | |
| EF2 | 0.95 | 9 March 2012 | 31 March 2012 | 22 | 369 | CE2 | 30 | 468 | −8 | −99 | |
| EF3 | 0.95 | 23 May 2012 | 4 July 2012 | 42 | 349 | CE3 | 72 | 521 | −30 | −172 | |
| EF4 | 0.95 | 4 Dec 2012 | 24 Dec 2012 | 19 | 269 | CE4 | 34 | 506 | −15 | −237 | |
| EF5 | Final early selected | CE5 | Final early control | – | – | ||||||
| Late‐flowering time selection | Commencing G0 | 0.99 | 4 June 2012 | 4 Sept 2012 | 68 (92) | 447 (936) | |||||
| LF1 | 0.95 | 8 Nov 2012 | 6 Jan 2013 | 25 (48) | 512 (1024) | CL1 | 21 | 482 | 4 | 30 | |
| LF2 | 0.95 | 11 Feb 2013 | 14 April 2013 | 28 (62) | 484 (2214) | CL2 | 21 | 436 | 7 | 48 | |
| LF3 | Final late selected | CL3 | Final late control | – | – | ||||||
Bracketed data denotes days to last flowering selection (last 10% of the population).
Bracketed data denotes cumulative degree‐days until final last flowering individuals were selected (last 10% of the population).
Figure 2The observed population response to early‐flowering time selection against the unselected commencing wild radish population G0 (__•__). Early‐flowering time‐selected generations EF1 (…∆…), EF2 (…×…), EF3 (…□…), EF4 (…◊…) and EF5 (…○…). Each symbol represents cumulative data points of 75 replicate plants. The plotted lines are predicted cumulative flowering date curves fitted to a four‐parameter logistic model [1].
Mean height of first flower and aboveground biomass at flowering for the commencing (G0), early‐selected (EF1–EF5) and late‐selected (LF1–LF3) generations
| Selection | Selected line | Height (cm) | Biomass (g plant−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early‐flowering time selection | EF5 | 33 a | 4 a |
| EF4 | 44 b | 7 ab | |
| EF3 | 46 b | 10 b | |
| EF2 | 72 c | 17 c | |
| EF1 | 69 c | 16 c | |
| Unselected control early flowering | CE5 | 90 e | 22 d |
| CE4 | 83 de | 22 d | |
| CE3 | 89 de | 21 d | |
| CE2 | 80 d | 20 d | |
| CE1 | 88 de | 21 d | |
| Unselected | Commencing G0 | 88 de | 22 d |
| Unselected control late flowering | CL1 | 84 de | 20 d |
| CL2 | 90 e | 22 d | |
| CL3 | 87 de | 19 d | |
| Late‐flowering time selection | LF1 | 112 f | 29 e |
| LF2 | 121 f | 35 f | |
| LF3 | 140 g | 46 g |
Different letters indicate significant difference between means (Tukey separation) at P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3The relationship between the height of the first flower and days to flowering for the commencing (G0), early‐selected (EF1–EF5) and late‐selected (LF1–LF3) generations. Each symbol represents individual plants (each population n = 75; LF3 n = 64).
Figure 4The relationship between biomass at flowering and days to flowering for the commencing (G0), early‐selected (EF1–EF5) and late‐selected (LF1–LF3) generations. Each symbol represents individual plant biomass measurements (each population n = 75; LF3 n = 64).
Figure 5The observed population response to late‐flowering time selection against the unselected commencing wild radish population G0 (__•__). late‐selected generations LF1 (…×…), LF2 (…∆…) and LF3 (…□…). each symbol represents cumulative data points of 75 replicate plants [except LF3 = 65 plants (max 86%)]. the plotted lines are predicted cumulative flowering date curves fitted to a four‐parameter logistic model [1].