It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Intense selection by pesticides and antibiotics has resulted in a global epidemic of evolved resistance. In agriculture and medicine, using mixtures of compounds from different classes is widely accepted as optimal resistance management. However, this strategy may promote the evolution of more generalist resistance mechanisms. Here we test this hypothesis at a national scale in an economically important agricultural weed: blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides), for which herbicide resistance is a major economic issue. Our results reveal that greater use of herbicide mixtures is associated with lower levels of specialist resistance mechanisms, but higher levels of a generalist mechanism implicated in enhanced metabolism of herbicides with diverse modes of action. Our results indicate a potential evolutionary trade-off in resistance management, whereby attempts to reduce selection for specialist resistance traits may promote the evolution of generalist resistance. We contend that where specialist and generalist resistance mechanisms co-occur, similar trade-offs will be evident, calling into question the ubiquity of resistance management based on mixtures and combination therapies.
Mixtures of antibiotics or pesticides can help reduce the evolution of resistance to individual compounds. Here, Comont et al. show that in blackgrass, an important agricultural weed, herbicide mixtures do reduce specialized resistance but instead can select for a generalized resistance mechanism.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Rothamsted Research, Department of Biointeractions and Crop Protection, Harpenden, UK (GRID:grid.418374.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2227 9389)
2 University of Sheffield, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, South Yorkshire, UK (GRID:grid.11835.3e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9262); School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Southwell, UK (GRID:grid.12361.37) (ISNI:0000 0001 0727 0669)
3 Newcastle University, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle, UK (GRID:grid.1006.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0462 7212)
4 Bayer Crop Science, Weed Resistance Research, Frankfurt, Germany (GRID:grid.1006.7)
5 University of Sheffield, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, South Yorkshire, UK (GRID:grid.11835.3e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9262)
6 Rothamsted Research, Department of Biointeractions and Crop Protection, Harpenden, UK (GRID:grid.418374.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2227 9389); Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board, Kenilworth, UK (GRID:grid.420736.4)