Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:33:37.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neal E. Hoss ,
Kassim Al-Khatib ,
Dallas E. Peterson  and
Thomas M. Loughin
Neal E. Hoss
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Thomas M. Loughin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr with selected weed species. In the greenhouse glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr were applied at 0.25, 0.5, and 1 times their label rates of 1,121, 410, and 70 g ha−1, respectively, on 10- to 15-cm black nightshade, common waterhemp, eastern black nightshade, field bindweed, giant ragweed, ivyleaf morningglory, prairie cupgrass, velvetleaf, and yellow nutsedge. Glyphosate applied at the 1-time rate caused injury greater than or similar to injury from the 1-time rate of glufosinate or imazethapyr on black nightshade, common waterhemp, eastern black nightshade, field bindweed, giant ragweed, prairie cupgrass, and velvetleaf. The 1-time rate of glufosinate injured ivyleaf morningglory and yellow nutsedge more than did the 1-time rate of glyphosate or imazethapyr. Under field conditions glyphosate caused the greatest injury to common waterhemp, prairie cupgrass, and velvetleaf across plant growth stages. Giant ragweed and ivyleaf morningglory injury was more dependent on growth stage, with the 15- and 30-cm growth stages more susceptible to glyphosate than to glufosinate or imazethapyr. Differential response of these weed species may be caused by differences in herbicide translocation. Glyphosate was translocated more in both giant ragweed and ivyleaf morningglory, and these species were injured more by glyphosate than by glufosinate or imazethapyr at the larger growth stages.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosateimazethapyrblack nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. SOLNIcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAeastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dun. SOLPTfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEprairie cupgrass, Eriochloa contracta Hitchc. ERICOvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESWeed shiftgrowth stageherbicide rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 110 - 117
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. Champaign, IL50, 167.Google Scholar
Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Weed-Crop Ecology Principles in Weed Management. Scituate, MA: Brenton. pp. 1–13, 373–398.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Foliar absorption and translocation of herbicides from aqueous solution and treated soil. Weed Sci. 40:281–287.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Liberty herbicide supplemental label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Aventis CropScience USA.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Weather Data Library. Kansas State University Research and Extension. Available at http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/. Accessed: September 2001.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, F. J. 1991. Weed Science Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley. pp. 167–170.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1995. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci. 43:572–577.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.Google Scholar
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:299–308.Google Scholar
Biederbeck, V. O., Campbell, C. A., and Hunter, J. H. 1997. Tillage effects on soil microbial and biochemical characteristics in a fallow-wheat rotation in a Dark Brown soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 77:309–316.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgett, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11:189–198.Google Scholar
Bromilow, R. H., Evins, A. A., Nicholls, P. H., Todd, A. D., and Briggs, G. G. 1996. The effect on soil fertility of repeated applications of pesticides over 20 years. Pestic. Sci. 48:63–72.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, D. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and small flower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628–634.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. M. 2001. Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci. 49:8–13.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 16:326–331.Google Scholar
Cole, T. A., Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Behavior of imazethapyr in soybeans (Glycine max), peanut (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:639–644.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Degennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 32:472–476.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:191–213.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 29–52, 67–94, 274–278.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate a unique global herbicide. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 1–14, 617–638.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 13:354–360.Google Scholar
Gray, R. S., Taylor, J. S., and Brown, W. J. 1996. Economic factors contributing to the adoption of reduced tillage technologies in central Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:661–668.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2001. International Survey of Herbicide ResistantWeeds. Available at http://www.weedresearch.com/in.asp.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residue. Weed Sci. 44:156–161.Google Scholar
Kishore, G. M. and Shah, D. M. 1988. Amino acid biosynthesis inhibitors as herbicides. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 57:627–663.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, R. P., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Weed control with non-selective herbicides in soybean (Glycine max) stale seedbed culture. Weed Technol. 8:159–164.Google Scholar
Lee, L. J. and Ngim, J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L) Gaertn) in Malaysia. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:336–339.Google Scholar
Little, D. L. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of the imidazolinone herbicide. Pages 53–69 In Shaner, D. L. and O’Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. 1991. Influence of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 103–137 In Shaner, D. L. and O’Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Maddox, L. 2000. Weed community shifts associated with continuous glyphosate applications in corn and soybean rotation. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 53:22.Google Scholar
Muzik, T. J. 1976. Influence of environmental factors on toxicity to plants. Pages 203–247 In Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Ecology. Volume 2. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Report on Biotechnology Varieties. Available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0601.txt.Google Scholar
Neto, F. S., Coble, H. D., and Corbin, F. T. 2000. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-glufosinate in Xanthium strumarium, Commelina difusa, and Ipomoea purpurea. Weed Sci. 48:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, W. and Crabtree, G. 1986. Absorption, translocation, and toxicity of glyphosate and oxyfluorfen in yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 34:923–929.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14:667–674.Google Scholar
Post-Beittenmiller, D. 1996. Biochemistry and molecular biology of wax production in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 47:405–430.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46:604–607.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of imazethapyr to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 7:900–905.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1980. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of 14C-glyphosate in several weed species. Weed Res. 20:195–200.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J. and Wax, L. M. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci. 45:378–381.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, M. L., and Matthiesen, R. L. 1975. Response of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and soybean (Glycine max) to bentazon, glyphosate, and perfluidone. Weed Sci. 23:215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 13:542–547.Google Scholar
Tworkoski, T. J., Welker, W. V., and Vass, G. D. 2000. Weed community changes following diuron, simazine, or terbacil application. Weed Technol. 14:197–203.Google Scholar
Unland, D. R., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1999. Interactions between imazamox and diphenylethers. Weed Sci. 47:462–466.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Glasgow, J. L. 2001. Conyza canadensis insensitivity to glyphosate. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:32.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Yonce, M. H. and Skroch, W. A. 1989. Control of selected perennial weeds with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 37:360–364.Google Scholar