Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:22:48.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with Dicamba Applied Preplant and Postemergence in Dicamba-Resistant Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Holly P. Byker ,
Nader Soltani ,
Darren E. Robinson ,
François J. Tardif ,
Mark B. Lawton  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Holly P. Byker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, N0P 2C0
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, N0P 2C0
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, N0P 2C0
François J. Tardif
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1
Mark B. Lawton
Affiliation:
Monsanto Canada Inc., Guelph, ON, N1G 0B4
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide-resistant crops, such as glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean, allow for broad-spectrum, flexible weed control with minimal crop injury; however, the development of GR weeds, such as horseweed, has forced reliance on alternative herbicides for control of these weeds. While preplant (PP) herbicides provide excellent control of GR-horseweed, there are currently no POST herbicide control options within soybean. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dicamba for the control of GR-horseweed when applied PP, POST, and sequentially in dicamba-resistant soybean. Dicamba applied PP at 600 g a.e. ha−1 provided 90 to 100% control of GR-horseweed 8 wk after application (WAA) across three field trials conducted in Ontario in 2011 and 2012. Similarly, sequential applications provided 91 to 100% control. This technology provides a much-needed POST option of dicamba to be applied as a rescue treatment to control weed escapes caused by late emergence or poor initial control following a PP herbicide application.

Los cultivos resistentes a herbicidas, tales como la soya resistente a glyphosate (GR), hacen posible un control de malezas de amplio espectro y flexible, con un daño mínimo al cultivo. Sin embargo, el desarrollo de malezas GR, como el caso de Conyza canadensis, ha llevado a la dependencia de herbicidas alternativos para el control de estas malezas. Mientras que los herbicidas pre-siembra (PP) brindan un control excelente de C. canadensis GR, actualmente no hay opciones de control con herbicidas POST en soya. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la eficacia de dicamba para el control de C. canadensis GR cuando se aplicó PP, POST, y secuencialmente en soya resistente a dicamba. Dicamba aplicado PP a 600 g a.e. ha−1 brindó 90 a 100% de control de C. canadensis GR 8 semanas después de la aplicación (WAA) en tres estudios de campo realizados en Ontario en 2011 y 2012. Similarmente, aplicaciones secuenciales brindaron 91 a 100% de control. Esta tecnología brinda una muy necesitada opción de control POST al aplicar dicamba como tratamiento de rescate para controlar escapes de malezas causados debido a emergencia tardía o a un control inicial limitado después de una aplicación de un herbicida PP.

Keywords

DicambaglyphosatehorseweedConyza canadensis (L). CronqsoybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrGlyphosate resistancemultiple herbicide-resistant cropspreplant (PP) herbicidesPOST herbicides
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 492 - 496
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

Barnes, J., Johnson, B., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean. Online. Crop Management. DOI:.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2011. Herbicide-resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate. Pest. Manag. Sci. 67:1037–1048.Google Scholar
Behrens, M. R., N., Mutlu, S., Chakraborty, R., Dumitru, W. Z., Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, B. J., Herman, P. L., Clemente, T. E., and Weeks, D. P. 2007. Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science. 316:1185–1188.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max.) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–647.Google Scholar
Cerdeira, A. L. and Duke, S. O. 2006. The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 35:1633–1658.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Bauman, T. T., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. Influence of weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horseweed population dynamics and crop yield. Weed Sci. 55:508–516.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Bauman, T. T., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2009a. Influence of weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) population dynamics and crop yield—years III and IV. Weed Sci. 57:417–426.Google Scholar
Davis, V.M., Kruger, G. R., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2009b. Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations resistant to glyphosate, ALS-inhibiting, and multiple (glyphosate + ALS-inhibiting) herbicides. Weed Sci. 57:494–504.Google Scholar
Eubank, T. W., Poston, D. H., Nandula, V. K., Koger, C.H., Shaw, D. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 2008. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol. 22:16–21.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. D. and Keeling, J. W. 2007. Weed control and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to preplant applications of dicamba, 2,4–D, and diflufenzopyr plus dicamba. Weed Technol. 21:506–510.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L.A. 1990. Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2013. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed on January 23, 2013. Accessed on January 23, 2013.Google Scholar
Keeling, J.W., Henniger, C. G., Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 3:399–401.Google Scholar
Kruger, G.R., Davis, V. M., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2010. Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations after exposure to postemergence 2,4–D. Weed Sci. 58:413–419.Google Scholar
Loux, M., Stachler, J., Johnson, B., Nice, G., Davis, V., and Nordby, D. 2006. Biology and management of horseweed. Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crop Series. http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-9-W.pdf. Accessed on January 8, 2013.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., and Hayes, R. M. 2006. Biotic and abiotic factors influence horseweed emergence. Weed Sci. 54:1101–1105.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in full-season no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:814–818.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Neve, P. 2007. Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution and management: 50 years after Harper. Weed Res. 47:365–369.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
Scott, R., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23–26.Google Scholar
Tardif, F. and Smith, P. 2003. Alternative Herbicides for the Control of Canada Fleabane in Soybeans. Crop Advances: Field Crop Reports (Interim Report). http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/V1Soy7.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2012.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M.J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Vink, J.P., Soltani, N., Robinson, D. E., Tardif, F. J., Lawton, M. B., and Sikkema, P. H. 2012. Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida ) control in dicamba-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol. 26:422–428.Google Scholar