Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:33:24.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Seeding Rate and Weed Control on Glyphosate-Resistant Alfalfa Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Calvin F. Glaspie ,
S. Ann McCordick ,
Timothy S. Dietz ,
James J. Kells ,
Richard H. Leep  and
Wesley J. Everman
Calvin F. Glaspie
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 478 Plant and Soil Science, East Lansing, MI 48824
S. Ann McCordick
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection 140 Research Lane, Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Z3Canada
Timothy S. Dietz
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 478 Plant and Soil Science, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 478 Plant and Soil Science, East Lansing, MI 48824
Richard H. Leep
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 478 Plant and Soil Science, East Lansing, MI 48824
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 478 Plant and Soil Science, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of glyphosate-resistant (GR) alfalfa offers a new weed management system for alfalfa establishment; however, alfalfa seeding rates are based on conventional cultivars. Determining optimum seeding rates allows forage producers to maximize yield, quality, and profitability with GR alfalfa. Field experiments were established in 2005 and 2006 to determine the effect of seeding rate and weed control on GR alfalfa yield, forage quality, and persistence up to 3 yr after establishment. Seeding rates of 4.5, 9.0, and 18 kg ha−1 were evaluated. Weed control methods during the seeding year included no herbicide, glyphosate applied once before the first harvest, and glyphosate applied once before the first harvest and then 7 to 10 d following subsequent harvests. Alfalfa yield was greater at higher seeding rates and when weeds were removed with glyphosate. Season forage yields were the greatest with the 18 kg ha−1 seeding rate and where no herbicide was applied. Weed biomass often was lower at the higher seeding rates and was 91 to 98% lower in the glyphosate treatments compared to the nontreated. Forage quality was not affected by seeding rate but varied by herbicide treatment depending on establishment year. Plant density increased with seeding rate and treatment effects persisted for three growing seasons. Herbicide treatment did not affect stand density as greatly as seeding rate and did not influence stand longevity.

La introducción de alfalfa resistente al glifosato (GR) ofrece un nuevo sistema de manejo de malezas para el establecimiento del cultivo; sin embargo, las densidades de siembra para la alfalfa se basan en cultivares convencionales. Determinar las densidades óptimas de siembra permitiría a los productores de forraje maximizar el rendimiento, calidad y rentabilidad de la alfalfa GR. En 2005 y 2006, se establecieron estudios de campo para determinar el efecto de la densidad de siembra y el control de malezas en el rendimiento, calidad del forraje y la persistencia de alfalfa resistente al glifosato hasta tres años después del establecimiento. Se evaluaron densidades de siembra de 4.5, 9.0 y 18 kg ha−1. Los métodos de control de maleza durante el año de la siembra incluyeron: 1) ningún herbicida, 2) glifosato aplicado una vez antes de la primera cosecha y 3) glifosato aplicado una vez antes de la cosecha y de 7 a 10 días después de las cosechas subsecuentes. A mayores densidades de siembra, el rendimiento de la alfalfa también fue mayor, así como cuando se eliminaron las malezas con glifosato. Los rendimientos de forraje fueron mayores con una densidad de siembra de 18 kg ha−1 y donde no se aplicó ningún herbicida. Frecuentemente, la biomasa de la maleza fue menor a mayores densidades de siembra y fue de 91 a 98% más baja con los tratamientos de glifosato, en comparación con los testigos no tratados. La calidad del forraje no se vio afectada por la densidad de siembra, pero varió de acuerdo al tratamiento de herbicida, dependiendo del año de establecimiento. La densidad de las plantas se incrementó con la densidad de siembra y los efectos del tratamiento persistieron durante 3 temporadas de cultivo. El tratamiento con herbicida no afectó la densidad de la parcela tanto como la densidad de siembra, y no influyó en la longevidad de la misma.

Keywords

AlfalfaMedicago sativa L.Biomass yieldforage qualityglyphosateherbicideseeding rate
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 230 - 238
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

Becker, R. L., Sheaffer, C. C., Miller, D. W., and Swanson, D. R. 1998. Forage quality and economic implications of systems to manage giant foxtail and oat during alfalfa establishment. J. Prod. Agric 11:300–308.Google Scholar
Bolger, T. P. and Meyer, D. W. 1983. Influence of plant density on alfalfa yield and quality. Pages. 7–41. in Proceedings of the American Forage and Grassland Council, Eau Claire, WI.Google Scholar
Bradley, K., Kallenbach, R., and Roberts, C. A. 2010. Influence of seeding rate and herbicide treatments on weed control, yield and quality of spring-seeded glyphosate-resistant alfalfa. Agron. J. 102:751–758.Google Scholar
Deynze, A. V., Putnam, D. H., Orloff, S., Lanini, T., Canevai, M., Vargas, R., Hembree, K., Mueller, S., and Teuber, L. 2006. Roundup Ready alfalfa: An emerging technology. Pub. No. 8153. Davis, CA: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University California, Davis.Google Scholar
Dillehay, B. L. and Curran, W. S. 2010. Comparison of herbicide programs for weed control in glyphosate-resistant alfalfa. Weed Technol 24:130–138.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1984. Effects of common dandelion on alfalfa drying time and yield. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Cont. Conf 39:113–114.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1986. Do weeds affect forage quality?. Pages. 161–170. in Proceedings of the 16th National Alfalfa Improvement Symposium, Fort Wayne, IN.Google Scholar
Hach, C. C., Brayton, S. V., and Kopelove, A. B. 1985. A powerful Kjeldahl nitrogen method using peroxymonosulfuric acid. J. Agric. Food Chem 33:1117–1123.Google Scholar
Hall, M. H., Herbrock, N. S., Pierson, P. P., Caddel, J. L., Owens, V. N., Sulc, R. M., Undersander, D. J., and Whitesides, R. E. 2010. The effects of glyphosate-tolerant technology on reduced alfalfa seeding rates. Agron. J. 102:911–916.Google Scholar
Hall, M. H., Nelson, C. J., Coutts, J. H., and Stout, R. C. 2004. Effect of seeding rate on alfalfa stand longevity. Agron. J. 96:717–722.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. H. and Krueger, C. R. 1973. Effect of establishment method, variety, and seeding rate on production and quality of alfalfa under dryland and irrigation. Agron. J. 65:755–759.Google Scholar
Kephart, K. D., Twidwell, E. K., Bortnem, R., and Boe, A. 1992. Alfalfa yield and component responses to seeding rate several years after establishment. Agron. J. 84:827–831.Google Scholar
Marten, G. C., Sheaffer, C. C., and Wyse, D. L. 1987. Forage nutritive value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agron. J. 79:980–986.Google Scholar
McCaslin, M., Fitzpatrick, S., and Temple, S. 2000. Roundup Ready alfalfa: progress report. Pages. 45. in Proceedings of the 29th National Alfalfa Symposium and 30th California Alfalfa Symposium, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
McCordick, S. A., Hilger, D. E., Leep, R. H., and Kells, J. J. 2008a. Establishment systems for glyphosate-resistant alfalfa. Weed Technol 22:22–29.Google Scholar
McCordick, S. A., Hilger, D. E., Leep, R. H., and Kells, J. J. 2008b. Forage quality of glyphosate-resistant alfalfa as influenced by establishment systems. Weed Technol 22:635–640.Google Scholar
Moline, W. J. and Robinson, L. R. 1971. Effects of herbicides and seeding rates on production of alfalfa. Agron. J. 63:614–616.Google Scholar
Moore, J. E. and Undersander, D. J. 2002. Relative forage quality: alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Pages. 16–32. in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1985. Effect of weed control and companion crop on alfalfa and sainfoin establishment, yields and nutrient composition. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:107–116.Google Scholar
Orloff, S. B., Vargas, R. N., Canevari, W. M., and Hembree, K. J. 2003. Progress in Roundup Ready alfalfa. Pages. 112–116. in Proceedings of the 33rd California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Bailey, W. A., Armel, G. R., Whaley, C. M., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Response of selected weeds and glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean to two glyphosate salts. Weed Technol 17:560–564.Google Scholar
Shenk, J. S. and Westerhaus, M. O. 1991. Population definition, sample selection, and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Sci 31:469–474.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Hayes, R. M., Montgomery, R. F., and Mueller, T. C. 2007. Evaluating glyphosate treatments on Roundup Ready alfalfa for crop injury and feed quality. Forage and Grazing Lands. DOI: . Accessed: February 23, 2010.Google Scholar
Temme, D. G., Harvey, R. S., Fawcett, R. S., and Young, A. W. 1979. Effects of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51–54.Google Scholar
VanSoest, P. J. and Robertson, J. B. 1985. Analysis of Forages and Fibrous Foods. A Laboratory Manual for Animal Science 613, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 202 p.Google Scholar
Wakefield, R. C. and Skaland, N. 1965. Effects of seeding rate and chemical weed control on establishment and subsequent growth of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.). Agron. J. 67:547–550.Google Scholar
Watkins, K. L., Veum, T. L., and Krause, G. F. 1987. Total nitrogen determination of various sample types: a comparison of the Hach, Kjeltec and Kjeldahl methods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 70:410–412.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1981. Weed control in established dryland alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Sci 29:615–618.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Burgener, P. A. 2009. Evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant and conventional alfalfa weed control systems during. Weed Technol 23:257–263.Google Scholar