Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:14:24.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of POST herbicides on weeds during compensatory growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hank J. Mager ,
Bryan G. Young  and
John E. Preece
Hank J. Mager
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, 1205 Lincoln Drive, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
John E. Preece
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, 1205 Lincoln Drive, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Death of the apical shoot and subsequent compensatory growth from previously inhibited axillary buds is a possible result of POST weed control practices. The objective of this research was to determine the efficacy of glyphosate and lactofen on ivyleaf morningglory, common waterhemp, and giant ragweed during mechanically stimulated compensatory growth. Plants were grown in the greenhouse to a height (or lateral growth) of 15 cm; at which time, the apical shoots were removed by cutting just above the cotyledonary node. Plants were allowed to regrow to 15 cm and treated with lactofen or glyphosate. Herbicide treatments were also applied to intact plants that were 15 cm in height for comparison. Weed response to herbicides during mechanically stimulated compensatory growth varied by weed species and herbicide. Giant ragweed under compensatory growth was less sensitive to both glyphosate and lactofen compared with intact plants. Comparison of GR50 (the herbicide dose that reduced dry weight by 50%) values indicated that ivyleaf morningglory under compensatory growth was 1.5 times more sensitive to glyphosate than intact plants. Conversely, previously injured ivyleaf morningglory plants were less sensitive to lactofen than intact plants. The GR50 for glyphosate applied to intact common waterhemp plants and plants under compensatory growth was similar. However, common waterhemp plants under compensatory growth were more sensitive to lactofen at the three lowest rates evaluated compared with intact plants. In summary, the efficacy of foliar herbicides applied to weeds that exhibit compensatory growth may be different from weeds under a normal growth state.

Keywords

Glyphosatelactofencommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEApical dominanceregrowth
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 321 - 325
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

Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1992. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 6:13–18.Google Scholar
Fietsam, J. F. W. 2003. Evaluation of herbicide drift reduction nozzles and agents in field and wind tunnel experiments. . Southern Illinois University, Carbonale, IL. 98 p.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2001. Reduced fitness of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) surviving glyphosate. Weed Technol 15:492–496.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toller, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci 36:345–353.Google Scholar
Jaremo, J., Nilsson, P., and Toumi, J. 1996. Plant compensatory growth: herbivory or competition? Oikos 77:238–247.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci 50:157–161.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O., Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999. Statistical tests for hormesis and effective dosages in herbicide dose response. Agron. J 91:713–721.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L. and Smeda, R. J. 2000. Assessment of glyphosate resistance in common waterhemp. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 55:38.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage 1991. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agch0392.txt.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2002 Field Crops Summary. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0503.txt.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol 6:19–24.Google Scholar