Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:22:08.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Glyphosate Application Timing and Rate in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter H. Sikkema ,
Christy Shropshire ,
Allan S. Hamill ,
Susan E. Weaver  and
Paul B. Cavers
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Christy Shropshire*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Paul B. Cavers
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over 3 yr at two locations to evaluate the effect of glyphosate rate and time of application on common lambsquarters control, density, dry weight, seed production, and the number of seedlings emerging from soil cores taken the year after herbicide application in glyphosate-resistant corn. Glyphosate was applied at 0, 112, 225, 450, 675, or 900 g ai/ha when common lambsquarters were at the two-, four-, or six-leaf stage of growth. Nicosulfuron was applied to all experimental areas to control annual grasses. Visual estimates of percent control increased, whereas density, dry weight, seed production, and seedlings emerging the year after treatment decreased as the rate of glyphosate was increased from 0 to 450 g/ha. Increasing the glyphosate rate above 450 g/ha had little effect on these parameters. Corn yield declined only at glyphosate rates below 450 g/ha. Time of application had no effect on common lambsquarters control and corn yield because little emergence occurred after the first glyphosate application. There was no interaction between glyphosate rate and time of application for any of the parameters evaluated. In these studies, the application of glyphosate at half the manufacturer's registered rate provided control of common lambsquarters equivalent to the full-registered rate with no measured increase in weed seed production and no increase in weed seedlings emerging from soil cores the year after herbicide application. The results suggest that in some cases the use of reduced herbicide rates can provide excellent weed control and maintain crop yields, while reducing the cost of production and the environmental impact of herbicides. The use of extremely low rates (112 or 225 g/ha), however, resulted in reduced corn yields, increased common lambsquarters seed production and seedlings emerging the year after application, and possibly increased weed management costs in subsequent years.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pride G4286’, ‘DeKalb 493RR’Reduced ratesweed controlweed seed productionDAA, days after application.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 908 - 916
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

Andersson, L. 1994. Seed production and seed weight of six weed species treated with MCPA. Swed. J. Agric. Res 24:95–100.Google Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:394–398.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. 32. Chenopodium album . L. Can. J. Plant Sci 58:1061–1072.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1988. Interference of four annual weeds in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:764–769.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 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898–903.Google Scholar
Corrigan, K. A. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Glyphosate with and without residual herbicides in no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cumming, B. G. 1963. The dependence of germination on photoperiod, light quality and temperature in Chenopodium spp. Can. J. Bot 41:1211–1233.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Jude, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with below-labeled rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–372.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of 2,4-D and dalapon on weed seed production and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogelfors, H. and Boström, U. 1998. Effects of autumn tillage and reduced herbicide doses on the part of the weed seed bank that produce seedlings. Asp. Appl. Biol 51:229–236.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate—A Unique Global Herbicide. ACS Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 653 p.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:354–360.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J. Ecol 78:1079–1093.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambs-quarters (Chenopodium album) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:113–118.Google Scholar
Henson, I. E. 1970. The effects of light, potassium nitrate and temperature on the germination of Chenopodium album . L. Weed Res 10:27–39.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of isoxaflutole for pre-emergence weed control in corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 12:670–676.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
Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res 13:179–191.Google Scholar
Lich, M. J., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:12–21.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
Pandy, H. N., Misra, K. C., and Mukherjee, K. L. 1971. Phosphate uptake and its incorporation in some crop plants and their associated weeds. Ann. Bot. N.S 35:367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, J. R., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1995. Common lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence herbicides and cultivation. Weed Technol. 9:728–735.Google Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of green foxtail and lamb's-quarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci 60:1419–1425.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Knezevic, S. Z., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Biologically effective dose and selectivity for SAN 1269H for weed control in corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 13:283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., and Shrestha, A. 1999. Weed seed return as influenced by the critical weed-free period in corn (Zea mays L). Can. J. Plant Sci 79:165–167.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Tharp, E. B., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 13:542–547.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in double-crop no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:703–713.Google Scholar
Vengris, J. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J 47:213–215.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. Impact of lamb's-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybean in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:821–828.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:122–128.Google Scholar
Williams, J. L. and Harper, J. L. 1965. Seed polymorphism and germination. I. The influence of nitrates and low temperatures on the germination of Chenopodium album . Weed Res 5:141–150.Google Scholar