Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.C., Z.H., M.D.O., J.T. and T.S.; methodology, M.C., M.D.O., G.M.M., Z.H. and J.T.; software, M.C. and M.D.O.; validation, Z.H., J.T. and T.S.; formal analysis, M.C. and G.M.M.; investigation, M.C., M.D.O., G.M.M., Z.H. and J.T.; resources, J.T. and T.S.; data curation, M.C., M.D.O. and G.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C. and J.T.; writing—review and editing, M.C., M.D.O., G.M.M., Z.H., J.T. and T.S.; visualization, M.D.O., J.T. and T.S.; supervision, J.T. and T.S.; project administration, J.T. and T.S.; funding acquisition, J.T. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for tribenuron-methyl in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population, while short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of tribenuron-methyl.
Figure 1.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for tribenuron-methyl in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population, while short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of tribenuron-methyl.
Figure 2.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for florasulam in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of florasulam.
Figure 2.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for florasulam in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of florasulam.
Figure 3.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for imazamox in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of imazamox.
Figure 3.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for imazamox in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of imazamox.
Figure 4.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for imazamox and imazamox plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of imazamox.
Figure 4.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for imazamox and imazamox plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of imazamox.
Figure 5.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for 2,4-D in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of 2,4-D.
Figure 5.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for 2,4-D in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of 2,4-D.
Figure 6.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for dicamba in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of dicamba.
Figure 6.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for dicamba in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S). Solid line denotes the S population and short-dashed lines denote the R populations. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of dicamba.
Figure 7.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for 2,4-D and 2,4-D plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of 2,4-D.
Figure 7.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for 2,4-D and 2,4-D plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of 2,4-D.
Figure 8.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for dicamba and dicamba plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of dicamba.
Figure 8.
Dose–response curves represented in percentages of fresh weight reduction compared to untreated control for dicamba and dicamba plus malathion (M) at 1000 g ai ha−1 in Papaver rhoeas populations, R3, R4, and susceptible (S). Long-dashed lines denote S population for imazamox and imazamox +M, solid line denotes the R populations for imazamox, and short-dashed lines denote the R populations for imazamox +M. The arrow denotes the recommended field rate of dicamba.
Table 1.
Main characteristics of the herbicides used in this study.
Table 1.
Main characteristics of the herbicides used in this study.
Site of Action | Herbicide | Company | Commercial Product | Concentration | Formulation |
---|
ALS inhibitor | florasulam | Corteva | Nikos® | 5% w/v | SC |
imazamox | BASF | Pulsar 40® | 4% w/v | SL |
tribenuron-methyl | DuPont | Granstar SX® | 50% w/w | SG |
Auxin mimics
| 2,4-D | Dow AgroSciences | Esteron 60® | 60% w/v | SL |
dicamba | Syngenta | Banvel® D | 48% w/v | SL |
Table 2.
Herbicide range of doses applied to Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 2.
Herbicide range of doses applied to Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Field Rate g ai ha−1 | Pop | Rates g ai ha−1 |
---|
florasulam | 7.5 | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 | 0.46 0.93 1.875 3.75 7.5 15 30 |
S | 0.46 0.93 1.875 3.75 7.5 15 30 |
imazamox | 40 | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 | 2.5 5 10 20 40 80 160 |
S | 0.62 1.25 2.5 5 10 20 40 |
tribenuron-methyl | 18.7 | R1, R2, R3, R4, | 2.33 4.67 9.35 18.7 37.4 74.8 149.6 299.2 598.4 1196.8 |
R5, R6 | 18.7 37.4 74.8 149.6 299.2 598.4 1196.8 |
S | 0.29 0.58 1.16 2.33 4.67 9.35 18.7 |
2,4-D | 600 | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 | 37.5 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 |
S | 18.75 37.5 75 150 300 600 |
dicamba | 144 | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 | 9 18 36 72 144 288 576 |
S | 4.5 9 18 36 72 144 |
Table 3.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for tribenuron-methyl in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 3.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for tribenuron-methyl in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 | ED90 | RF90 |
---|
tribenuron-methyl | S | 2.56 ± 0.09 | 0.45 ± 0.10 | 1 | 18.2998 | 1 |
R1 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 34.78 ± 8.84 * | 77.28 | 5129.35 | 225.34 |
R2 | 0.59 ± 0.13 | 118.54 ± 3.99 * | 263.42 | 11,188.74 | 491.55 |
R3 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 43.909 ± 6.99 * | 97.55 | 6475.70 | 284.49 |
R4 | 0.47 ± 0.07 | 81.00 ± 8.80 * | 180 | 8685.36 | 474.63 |
R5 | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 84.77 ± 8.18 * | 188.37 | 501.84 | 14.4 |
R6 | 1.35 ± 0.39 | 45.80 ± 14.65 * | 101.71 | 168.99 | 9.24 |
Table 4.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for florasulam in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 4.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for florasulam in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 | ED90 | RF90 |
---|
florasulam | S | 2.5 ± 0.07 | 0.40 ± 0.17 | 1 | 5.67 | 1.00 |
R1 | 1.47 ± 0.24 | 0.41 ± 0.06 ns | 1.02 | 2.59 | 0.9 |
R2 | 1.37 ± 0.09 | 0.54 ± 0.02 ns | 1.35 | 2.49 | 0.43 |
R3 | 1.89 ± 0.86 | 0.58 ± 0.06 ns | 1.45 | 4.16 | 0.73 |
R4 | 2.84 ± 0.74 | 0.62 ± 0.15 ns | 1.54 | 24.09 | 4.24 |
R5 | 1.07 ± 0.13 | 0.37 ± 0.04 ns | 0.92 | 3.12 | 0.55 |
R6 | 1.67 ± 0.14 | 0.52 ± 0.01 ns | 1.3 | 5.76 | 1.01 |
Table 5.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for imazamox in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 5.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for imazamox in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 | ED90 | RF90 |
---|
imazamox | S | 1.1 ± 0.09 | 0.78 ± 0.04 | 1 | 4.98 | 1.00 |
R1 | 1.49 ± 0.21 | 3.83 ± 0.41 * | 4.91 | 16.89 | 3.39 |
R2 | 1.29 ± 0.13 | 3.92 ± 0.39 * | 5.02 | 15.42 | 3.09 |
R3 | 0.81 ± 0.07 | 8.73 ± 0.82 * | 11.19 | 115.61 | 23.21 |
R4 | 0.91 ± 0.20 | 9.01 ± 2.46 * | 11.55 | 109.52 | 21.99 |
R5 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 2.2 ± 0.80 ns | 2.82 | 27.38 | 5.59 |
R6 | 0.56 ± 0.03 | 4.82 ± 1.16 * | 6.17 | 42.57 | 8.54 |
Table 6.
Presence of different amino acid changes at positions 197 and 574 in different Papaver rhoeas populations.
Table 6.
Presence of different amino acid changes at positions 197 and 574 in different Papaver rhoeas populations.
Position | | 197 | 574 |
---|
AA a | Pro/Pro | Pro/Arg | Pro/His | Pro/Leu | Pro/Ser | Pro/Asn | Pro/Thr | Pro/Leu |
---|
S | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
R1 | - | - | + | - | - | - | + | - |
R2 | - | - | + | - | - | - | + | - |
R3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - |
R4 | - | - | - | + | - | - | + | - |
R5 | - | - | - | - | - | + (*) | + (*) | - |
R6 | - | - | - | + (*) | - | + (*) | + | - |
Table 7.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for imazamox and imazamox plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Table 7.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for imazamox and imazamox plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 |
---|
imazamox | S | 1.20 ± 0.11 | 1.03 ± 0.06 | 1 |
+Malathion | 0.95 ± 0.31 | 0.99 ± 0.21 | 1 |
R3 | 0.92 ± 0.09 | 9.71 ± 1.04 | 9.42 |
+Malathion | 0.87 ± 0.16 | 4.32 ± 0.92 * | 4.19 |
R4 | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 11.85 ± 1.94 | 11.50 |
+Malathion | 0.95 ± 0.17 | 4.69 ± 0.83 * | 4.73 |
Table 8.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 8.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 | ED90 | RF90 |
---|
2,4-D | S | 1.12 ± 0.01 | 30.63 ± 2.41 | 1 | 222.43 | 1.00 |
R1 | 1.87 ± 0.03 | 68.35 ± 7.23 * | 2.23 | 220.32 | 0.9 |
R2 | 1.39 ± 0.2 | 94.48 ± 8.75 * | 3.08 | 461.41 | 2.07 |
R3 | 1.93 ± 0.16 | 75.95 ± 3.63 * | 2.47 | 237.68 | 1.08 |
R4 | 1.38 ± 0.17 | 94.62 ± 6.63 * | 3.08 | 461.41 | 2.07 |
R5 | 1.31 ± 0.16 | 88.84 ± 5.33 * | 2.90 | 474.73 | 2.13 |
R6 | 1.32 ± 0.14 | 106. 41 ± 9.51 * | 3.47 | 563.03 | 2.53 |
Table 9.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for dicamba in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Table 9.
Estimated parameters for non-linear regressions for fresh weight reduction for dicamba in Papaver rhoeas populations, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 | ED90 | RF90 |
---|
dicamba | S | 1.46 ± 0.16 | 22.76 ± 1.93 | 1 | 103.63 | 1.00 |
R1 | 1.61 ± 0.22 | 21. 63 ± 2.11 ns | 0.95 | 102.65 | 0.95 |
R2 | 1.72 ± 0.25 | 22.57 ± 1.85 ns | 0.99 | 81.00 | 0.91 |
R3 | 1.09 ± 0.09 | 39.18 ± 3.45 * | 1.72 | 376.04 | 3.62 |
R4 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 81.23 ± 19.67 * | 3.56 | 1154.44 | 11.14 |
R5 | 0.96 ± 0.03 | 38.34 ± 5.56 * | 1.68 | 379.60 | 3.66 |
R6 | 1.23 ± 0.13 | 45.65 ± 6.23 * | 2.00 | 437.61 | 4.12 |
Table 10.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Table 10.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 |
---|
2,4-D | S | 1.22 ± 0.21 | 30.63 ± 3.41 | 1 |
+Malathion | 1.24 ± 0.08 | 35. 87 ± 1.74 ns | 1.16 |
R4 | 1.23 ± 0.15 | 89. 11± 7.23 | 2.9 |
+Malathion | 1.12 ± 0.08 | 20. 68 ± 1.82 * | - |
R6 | 1.19 ± 0.02 | 101.30 ± 6.05 | 3.36 |
+Malathion | 1.43 ± 0.12 | 48.81 ± 2.36 * | 1.62 |
Table 11.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D and 2,4-D plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Table 11.
Estimated parameters for fresh weight reduction for 2,4-D and 2,4-D plus malathion (1000 g ai ha−1) in Papaver rhoeas populations R3, R4, and susceptible (S).
Herbicide | Population | Slope | ED50 | RF50 |
---|
dicamba | S | 1.45 ± 0.16 | 22.76 ± 1.93 | 1 |
+Malathion | 1.59 ± 0.22 | 22.44 ± 1.88 ns | 1 |
R4 | 1.72 ± 0.20 | 172.84 ± 11.36 | 7.8 |
+Malathion | 1.43 ± 0.35 | 28.08 ± 5.39 * | 1.27 |
R6 | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 102.40 ± 13.05 | 4.6 |
+Malathion | 1.41 ± 0.18 | 42.67 ± 4.27 * | 1.9 |