Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:02:34.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective Kill of Trifluralin-Susceptible and -Resistant Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hugh J. Beckie  and
Ian N. Morrison
Hugh J. Beckie
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 2N2
Ian N. Morrison
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of susceptible (S) and resistant (R) green foxtail biotypes to increasing dosages of trifluralin, applied PPI in rapeseed and preemergence incorporated (PEI) in wheat, was investigated in field experiments in 1989 and 1990. Differences in response between the biotypes to PPI- and PEI-trifluralin were 7- and 12-fold, respectively, based on density and shoot biomass determinations 4 wk after emergence. Nine- and 14-times higher dosages of PPI- and PEI-trifluralin, respectively, were required to reduce R-seed production by 50% than to reduce S-seed production by the same amount. At the recommended trifluralin dosage in rapeseed (1.4 kg ha−1), the density of S-plants 4 wk after emergence was reduced by 84% compared with untreated plots, whereas the density of R-plants was reduced by only 4%. The effective kill (seed yield reduction) was 99% and 42%, respectively. At the recommended dosage in wheat (0.9 kg ha−1), the density of S-plants 4 wk after emergence was reduced by over 99% compared with less than 36% for R-plants. The effective kill was 97% and 14%, respectively. Based on determination of effective kill, the selection pressure of trifluralin on green foxtail is greater when the chemical is applied PPI in rapeseed than when applied PEI in wheat, even though initial density reductions are less in the former than the latter.

Keywords

Trifluralin, 2, 6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-benzenaminegreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIrapeseed, Brassica napus L. ‘Westar’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Katepwa’Herbicide resistanceBrassica napusTriticum aestivumSETVI
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 15 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the 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

1. Beckie, H. J. 1992. Response of trifluralin-resistant green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.] to herbicides. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, p. 28–79.Google Scholar
2. Beckie, H. J., Friesen, L. F., Nawolsky, K. M., and Morrison, I. N. 1990. A rapid bioassay to detect trifluralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Technol. 4:505–508.Google Scholar
3. Blackshaw, R. E., Stobbe, E. H., and Sturko, A.R.W. 1981. Effect of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 29:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chow, P.N.P. 1976. Dinitroaniline herbicides for grassy weed control in rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 6:705–713.Google Scholar
5. Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Freund, R. J. and Littell, R. C. 1986. SAS system for regression. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, p. 133–141.Google Scholar
7. Gomez, A. K. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Chi-square test. p. 458–477 in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto.Google Scholar
8. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. p. 325–347 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R2 . Am. Stat. 39:279–285.Google Scholar
11. Morrison, I. N., Beckie, H. J., and Nawolsky, K. M. 1990. The occurrence of trifluralin resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in western Canada. in Cussans, G. and Casely, J. C., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Abstr. 11th Long Ashton Int. Symp., Bristol, U.K. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Morrison, I. N., Todd, B. G., and Nawolsky, K. M. 1989. Confirmation of trilfuralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in Manitoba. Weed Technol. 3:544–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Peterson, D. E. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 6: 291–296.Google Scholar
14. Rahman, A. and Ashford, R. 1970. Selective action of trilfuralin for control of green foxtail in wheat. Weed Sci. 18:754–759.Google Scholar
15. Rahman, A. and Ashford, R. 1972. Control of green foxtail in wheat with trifluralin. Weed Sci. 20:23–27.Google Scholar
16. Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modelling. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
17. Smith, A. E. 1972. Persistence of trilfuralin in small field plots as analyzed by a rapid gas chromatographic method. J. Agric. Food Chem. 20:829–831.Google Scholar
18. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. 1985. Dew's Alberta weed survey 1973–1977. Weed Survey Ser. Publ. No. 85–3. Agriculture Canada, Regina.Google Scholar
19. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. 1987. Weed survey of Saskatchewan cereal and oilseed crops 1986. Weed Survey Ser. Publ. No. 87-1. Agriculture Canada, Regina.Google Scholar
20. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. 1988. Weed survey of Manitoba cereal and oilseed crops 1986. Weed Survey Ser. Publ. No. 88-1. Agriculture Canada, Regina.Google Scholar