Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:34:39.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Rates and Application Timings of Saflufenacil for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadenis) Prior to Planting No-Till Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lucas N. Owen ,
Thomas C. Mueller ,
Christopher L. Main ,
Jason Bond  and
Lawrence E. Steckel
Lucas N. Owen
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN 37920
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Jason Bond
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301 Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Managing glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed in no-till cotton continues to be a serious challenge for midsouthern producers. Field studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 to evaluate spring burndown applications of saflufenacil on GR horseweed prior to planting cotton. Saflufenacil controlled GR horseweed at least 94% up to 7 d before planting (DBP) without causing significant cotton injury. Saflufenacil applied at 7 or 14 DBP controlled GR horseweed while still providing residual control until planting. Moreover, saflufenacil, on silt loam soil evaluated in this study, showed no more injury than dicamba applied 7 or more DBP. Results indicated that saflufenacil is an option in cotton for controlling GR horseweed much closer to cotton planting than 42 DBP (current saflufenacil label). At 25 g ha−1, which is the standard labeled rate in cotton, saflufenacil provided > 90% control of GR horseweed. Saflufenacil as a GR horseweed burndown, could replace the current dicamba standard every other year to reduce the probability of horseweed developing resistance to dicamba or salflufenacil.

El manejo de la maleza Conyza canadensis resistente al glifosato en el cultivo de Gossypium hirsutum (algodón) con cero labranza, sigue siendo un serio desafío para los productores de la región media del sur. En 2008 y 2009 se realizaron estudios de campo para evaluar el saflufenacil aplicado en primavera para el control de Conyza canadensis resistente al glifosato antes de la siembra del algodón. El saflufenacil controló Conyza canadensis, al menos en 94% hasta los 7 días antes de la siembra (DBP), sin causar daños significativos al cultivo. El saflufenacil aplicado a los 7 o 14 DBP controló la Conyza canadensis GR, al mismo tiempo que proporcionaba un control residual hasta la siembra. Adicionalmente, el saflufenacil en suelo loam-limoso evaluado en este estudio, no causó más daño que el dicamba aplicado 7 o más días antes de la siembra. Los resultados indican que el saflufenacil es una opción para controlar la Conyza canadensis en el algodón mucho mas cerca de la siembra que los 42 DBP (como indica la recomendación en la etiqueta para este herbicida). A la dosis estándar de 25 g/ha recomendada para el algodón, el saflufenacil proporcionó > 90% de control de la Conyza canadensis GR. El saflufenacil utilizado como un eliminador químico de la Conyza canadensis GR, podría reemplazar al tratamiento estándar con dicamba en años alternos, para reducir la probabilidad de que la maleza desarrolle resistencia al dicamba o al saflufenacil.

Keywords

Horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. Phytogen 485WRFHerbicidepreemergencepreseeding burn-offprotoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 5
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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–143.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2008. Kixor herbicide, worldwide technical brochure. Produced by the Kixor global marketing team. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Agricultural Products.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2009a. Sharpen herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Agricultural Products.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2009b. Clarity herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Agricultural Products.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza canadensis . Weed Technol. 2:269–270.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:655–672.Google Scholar
Main, C. L. and Hayes, R. M. 2010. Cotton defoliation timing. University of Tennessee Extension Publication W075. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/wfiles/W225.pdf Accessed: September 27, 2010.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants. Boston, MA PWS Publishersp. 734 p.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2008. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: February 27, 2010.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant (Conyza canadensis) horseweed in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Liebl, R. A., Walter, H., Bowe, S. J., Holt, T. J., and Westberg, D. E. 2008. BAS 800H: a new herbicide for preplant burndown and preemergence dicot weed control. [Abstract.] Lawrence, KS: Weed Sci. Soc. Am 48:120.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Faircloth, J. C., Culpepper, A. S., Steckel, L. E., and York, A. C. 2008. Cotton response to preemrgence applications of fomesafen. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 61:102.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) Populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Steckel, L. E., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2006. Biotic and abiotic factors influence horseweed emergence. Weed Sci. 54:1101–1105.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Forest plants of the southeast and their wildlife uses. Auburn, AL Southern Weed Science Society. 42 p.Google Scholar
Owen, L., Steckel, L., Main, C. L., and Mueller, T. 2009. Application timings and rates of saflufenacil (Kixor) in no-till cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 62:312.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2008. Statistical Analysis Software. Version 9.1. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Scott, R. C., Boyd, J. W., and Smith, K. L. 2009. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. MP44. http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/HTML/MP-44.asp. Accessed: Sept 29, 2010. 39 p.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2005. Horseweed. University of Tennessee FACT sheet. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/wfiles/W106.pdf. Accessed: June 18, 2010.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton (Gossypium hirustum). Weed Technol. 20:1047–1051.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Culpepper, S. A. 2006. Impact and management of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the southern region. Abstract 46.4. National IPM Conference. Athens, Georgia Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Gwathmey, C. O. 2009. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) interference in cotton (Gossypium hirsutium). Weed Sci. 57:346–350.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Paulsgrove, M. D. 2002. Clomazone, fomesafen and bromoxynil systems for bromoxynil resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:838–844.Google Scholar
Wild, A., Sauer, H., and Rhule, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis. I. Inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Natuforsch 42:263–269.Google Scholar