Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:57:21.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glyphosate resistance in junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and alternative herbicide options for its effective control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2022

Teresa Ndirangu Wangari
Affiliation:
Research Scholar, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SAFS), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld, Australia
Gulshan Mahajan*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, The Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld, Australia Principal Agronomist, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Affiliation:
Professor, The Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SAFS), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld, Australia Adjunct Professor, Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India
*
Author for correspondence: Gulshan Mahajan, The Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) junglerice is a challenging task in eastern Australia. There is limited information on the efficacy and reliability of alternate herbicides for GR populations of junglerice, especially when targeting large plants and when temperatures are high. A series of experiments were conducted to confirm the level of glyphosate resistance in three populations of junglerice and to evaluate the efficacy of alternate herbicides for the control of GR junglerice populations. The LD50 of glyphosate of B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35 populations was found to be 298, 2,260, and 1,715 g ae ha–1, respectively, suggesting that populations B17/34 and B17/35 were highly resistant to glyphosate. Glyphosate efficacy was reduced at high-temperature (35 C day/25 C night) compared with low-temperature conditions (25 C day/15 C night), suggesting that control of susceptible populations may also be reduced if glyphosate is sprayed under hot conditions. Preemergence herbicides dimethenamid-P (1,000 g ai ha–1) and pendimethalin (1,500 g ai ha–1) provided 100% control of GR populations (B17/34 and 17/35). Postemergence herbicides, such as clethodim (60 or 90 g ai ha–1), glufosinate (750 g ai ha–1), haloxyfop (52 or 78 g ai ha–1), and paraquat (400 or 600 g ai ha–1), applied at the four-leaf stage provided 100% control of GR populations. For larger junglerice plants (eight-leaf stage), postemergence applications of paraquat (400 or 600 g ai ha–1) provided greater weed control than clethodim, glufosinate, and haloxyfop. A mixture of either glufosinate or haloxyfop with glyphosate provided poor control of GR junglerice populations compared with application of glufosinate or haloxyfop applied alone. Efficacy of glufosinate and haloxyfop for the control of GR populations decreased when applied in the sequential spray after glyphosate application. This study identified alternative herbicide options for GR junglerice populations that can be used in herbicide rotation programs for sustainable weed management.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Junglerice is a problematic weed in important summer crops of eastern Australia: sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R.Wilczek], corn (Zea mays L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Osten et al. Reference Osten, Walker, Storrie, Widderick, Moylan, Robinson and Galea2007; Pratley et al. Reference Pratley, Broster and Michael2008; Walker et al. Reference Walker, Wu and Bell2010; Shabbir et al. Reference Shabbir, Chauhan and Walsh2019). This weed harms Australian crop production, as it competes with crops for water and soil nutrients (Mahajan et al. Reference Mahajan, Mutti, Walsh and Chauhan2019; Mutti et al Reference Mutti, Mahajan, Prashant and Chauhan2019). Junglerice can produce a considerable number of seeds (12,380 to 20,280 seeds per plant), especially when grown under fallow conditions (Squires et al. Reference Squires, Mahajan, Walsh and Chauhan2021). Furthermore, its emergence in multiple cohorts is a great challenge for season-long weed control (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Walker, Osten, Taylor, Sindel, Sindel and Johnson2004). It is essential to control junglerice during the summer season to reduce crop competition and weed seed replenishment in the soil, as well as to enhance resource use efficiency (Mahajan et al. Reference Mahajan, Kaur, Thompson and Chauhan2020). Llewellyn et al. (Reference Llewellyn, Ronning, Ouzman, Walker, Mayfield and Clarke2016) estimated that junglerice could cost Australian grain growers AU$14.6 million annually when assessed in terms of yield loss and control.

Most of the growers in Australia follow winter cropping–based production systems and give much attention to stored soil moisture from summer season rains for subsequent winter crops (ABARES 2021; Dolling et al. Reference Dolling, Fillery, Ward, Asseng and Robertson2006). Therefore, weed-free conditions in the summer season are critical for conserving soil moisture for subsequent winter crops. The no-till production system is quite popular in eastern Australia, where growers rely heavily on glyphosate for pre-seeding and summer-fallow weed control (Llewellyn et al. Reference Llewellyn, D’Emden and Kuehne2012). However, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant (GR) populations of junglerice in this region has made the control of this weed difficult (Thornby et al. Reference Thornby, Werth and Walker2013; Walker et al. Reference Walker, Widderick, Storrie and Osten2004). A recent study in eastern Australia revealed that the resistance factor of glyphosate in some populations of junglerice ranged from 6- to 15-fold (Mahajan et al. Reference Mahajan, Kaur, Thompson and Chauhan2020). A better understanding of the GR behavior of these populations is critical for sustainable weed control. Previous studies reported that glyphosate resistance levels in junglerice could vary with temperature and that glyphosate’s efficacy can be reduced at high temperatures (Nguyen et al. Reference Nguyen, Malone, Boutsalis, Shirley and Preston2016; Shrestha et al. Reference Shrestha, Budhathoki and Steinhauer2018). However, only two papers have been published, and more information is required on the response of GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) populations of junglerice when sprayed in different temperature conditions.

For sustainable weed control, it is important to evaluate alternative herbicides when cases of herbicide resistance start to appear for specific weeds (Beckie Reference Beckie2006; Peterson et al. Reference Peterson, Collavo, Ovejero, Shivrain and Walsh2018). A wide range of preemergence and postemergence herbicides could reduce the selection pressure caused by the overuse of a single, commonly used herbicide by providing flexibility in herbicide rotation programs for sustainable control. Under fallow situations, the right choices of preemergence herbicide may reduce costs by avoiding the use of multiple knockdown applications when multiple cohorts of junglerice appear (Davidson et al. Reference Davidson, Cook and Chauhan2019). Preemergence herbicides, such as pendimethalin and atrazine, are popular for junglerice control in Australia (Davidson et al. Reference Davidson, Cook and Chauhan2019). However, information on alternate preemergence herbicides, such as dimethenamid-P and prosulfocarb + S-metolachlor for junglerice control, is limited in Australia. Also, there are reports that atrazine does not provide effective control of junglerice in some pockets of Australia (Heap Reference Heap, van Klinken, Osten, Panetta and Scanlan2008).

Alternative postemergence herbicides must be identified for controlling survivors of GR populations. Information is limited on the response of GR junglerice populations of this region to postemergence herbicides, such as clethodim, glufosinate, haloxyfop, and paraquat. The efficacy of postemergence herbicides varies with the growth stage of weeds, and it is important to find the appropriate weed growth stage to achieve maximum herbicide efficacy (Chauhan and Abugho Reference Chauhan and Abugho2012; Singh and Singh Reference Singh and Singh2004).

Stopping seed production of junglerice in one season could reduce the weed pressure in subsequent seasons (Walsh et al. Reference Walsh, Newman and Powles2013). Allowing survivors of GR populations to set seeds may further increase the spread of resistance. Two-pass application (sequential application, known as double-knock in Australia) of herbicide tactics are designed to reduce such survivors by controlling survivors of one treatment (first knock) with a follow-up treatment (second knock), so that minimum seed is set on these survivors (Preston Reference Preston2019). Sequential application of herbicide tactics also reduces the reliance on one herbicide and thereby reduces the risk of herbicide resistance. It is important to find the best double-knock or sequential application of herbicide treatment for GR populations of junglerice so that the survivor seed set is reduced.

Herbicide mixture programs that incorporate different modes of action could prove to be an effective part of a sustainable weed program dealing with resistant weed populations, provided herbicide combinations have a synergistic effect so as to be more effective (Werth et al. Reference Werth, Thornby and Walker2011). It is important to find the best herbicide mixture for sustainable weed control and prolong the usefulness of herbicides.

A series of pot experiments were conducted to answer the following questions:

  1. (i) How does the response of GR junglerice populations differ with various doses of glyphosate?

  2. (ii) How does temperature influence glyphosate efficacy in GR and GS populations?

  3. (iii) What preemergence herbicides options exist for controlling GR populations?

  4. (iv) What postemergence herbicides options exist for effective GR populations control, and what is the appropriate plant stage when the herbicide should be applied?

  5. (v) Which herbicides should be applied in a sequential application or double knock or in herbicide mixtures to effectively control GR junglerice populations?

Materials and Methods

Experiments were conducted at the research facility of the weed science unit at Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia. All experiments were repeated twice during the spring–summer seasons of 2019 and 2020, and herbicide treatment in each experiment has been provided in Table 1. Seeds of three populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) of junglerice were used in different studies. Seeds were collected from eastern Australia in March 2017 and the respective GPS coordinates of B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35 populations, were 27.5000°S, 151.6967°E; 28.5830°S, 150.3689°E; 29.9580°S, 152.1517°E.

Table 1. Outline of herbicide treatments in different  experiments.

Seeds of each population were collected from 40–50 plants spread over an area of >1 ha. Seeds from these populations were multiplied in a common environment in December 2018 at the Gatton research farm. Populations were separated using plastic sheets to avoid any outcrossing. Fresh seeds were collected and stored at room temperature (25 ± 2 C) until used for experimental purposes. In each study (except Experiment 2), pots were kept on benches under natural light and temperature conditions (open area). In each study, plants were kept well-watered and fertilized.

General Protocol

Postemergence herbicides were sprayed at the four-leaf stage of junglerice. Preemergence herbicides were sprayed immediately after sowing. Herbicides were sprayed using a research track sprayer equipped with Teejet XR 110015 flat-fan nozzles (BA Pumps and Sprayer, Queensland, Australia) calibrated to an output spray volume of 108 L ha–1. Plants were allowed to grow for 28 d after treatment (DAT) of herbicide application to determine herbicide efficacy. Plants were assumed dead if they did not have at least one new leaf at 28 DAT. Plant biomass was measured at 28 DAT. Plants were harvested from the base of the plants and dried in an oven at 70 C for all experiments conducted.

Experiment 1. Glyphosate Dose–Response Experiment

In this experiment, seeds of each population were sown in pots (11 cm diam and 10 cm height) filled with potting mix (Centenary Landscape, Qld, Australia). Initially, 12 seeds were sown in each pot at 0.5 cm depth and after establishment, five plants per pot were maintained. The experiment was conducted in a factorial randomized-block design with three replications, where the first factor was population (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35), and the second factor was glyphosate dose [0 (no herbicide), 285, 570, 1,140, 2,280, and 4,560 g ae ha–1]. The recommended dose of glyphosate was 570 g ae ha−1 for junglerice control under fallow conditions in Australia. In the second year there were three replications of each herbicide dose. For mortality and biomass reduction percentage, surviving plants and shoot biomass data of each pot at 28 d after herbicide application were converted into survival percentage or percent shoot biomass reduction compared with the nontreated control:

(Surviving plants or shoot biomass of nontreated pot – Survived plants or shoot biomass of treated pot)/(Surviving plants or shoot biomass of nontreated pot × 100).

Experiment 2. Effects of Temperature on Glyphosate Efficacy

This experiment was conducted in a factorial randomized-block design with three replications, where the first factor was the temperature regime, the second factor was population (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35), and the third factor was glyphosate dose (0, 285, 570, 1,140, 2,280, and 4,560 g ae ha–1).

Two automatic temperature-controlled glasshouse bays were used to keep plants in the experiment at the required temperature regime. One glasshouse bay was maintained at a high-temperature regime, day/night temperature of 35/25 C (12 h/12 h), and the second glasshouse bay was maintained at a low-temperature regime, day/night temperature of 25/15 C (12 h/12 h).

Seeds of each population were sown in pots (11 cm diam and 10 cm height) filled with potting mix (Centenary Landscape, Qld, Australia). Initially, 12 seeds were sown in each pot at 0.5 cm depth and after establishment, five plants per pot were maintained. Plants were grown in the appropriate glasshouse bay and sprayed using a research track sprayer as mentioned in the general protocol. Plants were only removed from the glasshouse bay for glyphosate application and then immediately returned to maintain the desired temperature regime. Mortality percentage and biomass reduction of each pot were assessed by following the similar procedure as described in Experiment 1.

Experiment 3. Performance of Preemergence Herbicides

This experiment was conducted with seven preemergence herbicides (pendimethalin, prosulfocarb, isoxaflutole, imazethapyr, atrazine, dimethenamid-P, and S-metolachlor) at two doses of each herbicide. The experiment was conducted separately for each population. Therefore, there were a total of 15 treatments, including a nontreated control for each population (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) that were tested in a randomized-block design with three replicates. Pots were filled with potting mix, and 12 junglerice seeds were sown in each pot at a depth of 0.5 cm. Preemergence herbicides were sprayed immediately after sowing using a research track sprayer as mentioned in the general protocol. Pots were kept dry until 24 h after spray, and were watered thereafter with a sprinkler system. At 28 DAT, mortality percentage and biomass reduction of each pot were assessed by following the similar procedure as described in Experiment 1.

Experiment 4. Performance of Postemergence Herbicides

This experiment was conducted with four postemergence herbicides (clethodim, glufosinate, haloxyfop, and paraquat) at two doses of each herbicide. The experiment was conducted separately for three populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) in a factorial randomized-block design with three replicates. The first factor was the leaf stage (four-leaf and eight-leaf), and the second factor was the nine herbicide treatments, including the nontreated control. Plants were grown and sprayed in a similar way as mentioned in Experiment 1.

Experiment 5. Performance of Sequential Application of Herbicides and Herbicides Mixtures

This experiment was conducted separately for the two GR populations (B17/34 and B17/35). Eleven herbicide treatments were tested in a randomized complete-block design with three replications. Treatments were composed of four herbicides (glyphosate, paraquat, glufosinate, and haloxyfop) at different applications combinations. Herbicide mixture treatments were applied at the four-leaf stage of plants only. In double-knock or sequential-application herbicide treatments, the first knock was applied at the plant four-leaf stage, and the second knock was applied 10 d after the first application knock.

Statistical Analyses

In Experiments 1 and 2, mortality and biomass reduction (as a percentage compared to the nontreated control), data were regressed over herbicide treatments using a four-parameter log-logistic model in SigmaPlot 14.0 Notebook (Systat Software, San Jose, CA).

(1) $$y = {y_0} + \left[ {a/{\rm{1}} + {{\left( {x/{x_{{\rm{5}}0}}} \right)}^b}} \right]$$

where y = mortality percentage or percentage biomass reduction, y 0 = bottom of curve, a = difference of top and bottom of curve, x 50 = dose required to kill 50% plants or plant growth, b = slope of curve, and x = herbicide dose. The fitness of the selected model was determined using R2 values (best fit).

In Experiments 3, 4, and 5, data were subjected to the ANOVA using the GENSTAT 16th edition (VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK) to test for treatment–by–experimental run interaction. Where the ANOVA found significant treatment effects, means were separated at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s protected LSD test. Data were also validated to meet the assumptions of normality and variance before analyzing.

Results and Discussion

Experiment 1. Glyphosate Dose–Response Experiment

Junglerice populations B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35 survived at glyphosate rates of 285, 4,560, and 2,280 g ha–1, respectively (Table 2, Figure 1). At glyphosate dose 2,280 g ha–1, the survival rates of B17/34 and B17/35 were 100% and 93%, respectively. LD50 values of glyphosate for B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35 populations were found to be 298, 2,260, and 1,715 g ha–1, respectively. Similarly, dose for 50% reduction (GR50) values of glyphosate for B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35 populations were 273, 529, and 597 g ha–1, respectively (Table 2, Figure 1). These results suggest that the B17/7 population is GS, and populations B17/34 and B17/35 are GR. These results confirmed a previous study in which the B17/34 and B17/35 junglerice populations were found to be highly resistant to glyphosate (Mahajan et al. Reference Mahajan, Mutti, Walsh and Chauhan2019). The GR50 value of each population was lower than the LD50 value, because biomass data were taken 28 DAT. The surviving plants did not have enough time to grow.

Table 2. Parameter estimates for glyphosate dose–response curves of three populations of junglerice in Experiment 1. a,b

a There were five plants in each pot before spraying.

b Abbreviations: a, Difference of top and bottom of curve; b, slope of curve; LD50, lethal dose (in g ha–1) for 50% mortality; GR50, dose (in g ha–1) for 50% growth reduction; y 0,: bottom of curve.

c Values in parentheses indicate ± standard error. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

Figure 1. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for (A) plant mortality (%), and (B) biomass reduction (%). The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

The occurrence of GR populations in these regions warrants the necessity of integrated weed management strategies (chemical, cultural, and mechanical tactics) for the management of junglerice. Strategies like stewardship guidelines must be followed to reduce the selection pressure of resistant populations. It is necessary to control these populations at an early stage before they set seeds in fallows as well as cropland situations. In Australia, glyphosate resistance in junglerice was first reported in 2007 (Storrie et al. Reference Storrie, Cook, Boutsalis, Penberthy, Moylan, van Klinken, Osten, Panetta and Scanlan2008). Glyphosate-resistant junglerice populations have also been reported from other parts of the world (Alarcon-Reverte et al. Reference Alarcon-Reverte, Garcia, Urzua and Fischer2013). It was suggested that repeated and intensive use of glyphosate in the no-till production system of eastern Australia has evolved GR populations (Gaines et al. Reference Gaines, Cripps and Powles2012; Storrie et al. Reference Storrie, Cook, Boutsalis, Penberthy, Moylan, van Klinken, Osten, Panetta and Scanlan2008).

Experiment 2. Effects of Temperature on Glyphosate Efficacy

At low-temperature regimes, 60% of plants of the B17/7 population survived at a glyphosate rate of 143 g ha–1; however, at the high-temperature regime, 100% of plants of the B17/7 population survived at this rate of glyphosate (Table 3, Figure 2). For the B17/34 population, at low-temperature regimes, plant mortality was 100% at a glyphosate rate of 1,140 g ha–1; however, at the high-temperature regimes, 55% of plants survived glyphosate application at this rate. Similarly, for the B17/35 population, at low-temperature regimes, plant mortality was 100% at a glyphosate rate of 1,140 g ha–1; however, at the high-temperature regimes, 67% of plants survived glyphosate application at this rate.

Table 3. Parameter estimates for glyphosate dose–response curves of three populations of junglerice in Experiment 2. a

a LD50, lethal dose (g ha–1) for 50% mortality; GR50, dose (g ha–1) for 50% growth reduction; y 0, bottom of curve; a, difference of top and bottom of curve; b, slope of curve.

b Values in parentheses indicate ± standard error. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

Figure 2. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for plant mortality (%) of (A) B17/7, (B) B17/34, and (C) B17/35. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

The LD50 values of the B17/7 population at low- and high-temperature regimes were 145 and 493 g ha–1, respectively (Table 3, Figure 2). Similarly, GR50 values of the B17/7 population at low- and high-temperature regimes were 131 and 116 g ha–1, respectively (biomass reduction, Table 3, Figure 3). For the B17/34 population, LD50 and GR50 values of glyphosate increased from 353 to 1,266 g ha–1 and 242 to 714 g ha–1, respectively, at high-temperature regimes compared with low-temperature regimes. For the B17/35 populations, LD50 and GR50 values of glyphosate increased from 318 to 1,323 g ha–1 and 167 to 931 g ha–1, respectively, at high-temperature regimes compared with low-temperature regimes. The differing LD50 values in Experiments 1 and 2 might be due to different environmental conditions; Experiment 1 was conducted in an open environment, whereas Experiment 2 was conducted in controlled environmental conditions (fixed day/night temperatures; 12 h/12 h).

Figure 3. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for biomass reduction (%) of (A) B17/7, (B) B17/34, and (C) B17/35. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

This study confirmed that glyphosate efficacy for junglerice control increased at low-temperature conditions compared with high-temperature conditions, and the response of junglerice plants to glyphosate varied with populations. It was reported that the poor control of GR weeds at high-temperature conditions might be due to the interaction of temperature and resistance mechanisms (Ganie et al. Reference Ganie, Jugulam and Jhala2017; Nguyen et al. Reference Nguyen, Malone, Boutsalis, Shirley and Preston2016). A recent study on annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus L.) revealed that at low temperatures (19–24 C), GS plants did not survive at a glyphosate rate of 570 g ae ha–1, however, at the high temperatures (28–30 C), 83% of GS plants survived (Chauhan and Jha Reference Chauhan and Jha2020). Similarly, 58% of GR plants of annual sowthistle survived with a glyphosate rate of 2,280 g ae ha–1 when applied during high-temperature regimes, whereas mortality was 100% when applied during low-temperature regimes (Chauhan and Jha Reference Chauhan and Jha2020).

Increased efficacy of glyphosate at low-temperature conditions might be due to greater absorption of glyphosate by junglerice plants at low temperatures. Previous studies revealed that the uptake of glyphosate by junglerice plants was 48% to 66% at 20 C but decreased to 21% to 42% at 30 C (Nguyen et al. Reference Nguyen, Malone, Boutsalis, Shirley and Preston2016). In another study, Tanpipat et al. (Reference Tanpipat, Adkins, Swarbrick and Boersma1997) reported that junglerice seedlings grown at 20 C died earlier with glyphosate application than those grown at 35 C, suggesting faster absorption of glyphosate by plants at low-temperature conditions. These authors suggested that high-temperature conditions increased transpiration in plants that could cause slow absorption and translocation of glyphosate and activity in plants. These studies suggest that the efficacy of glyphosate for junglerice control can be improved if glyphosate was applied during the evening hours when temperature conditions are low for improved absorption (Ou et al. Reference Ou, Stahlman and Jugulam2018). Application of glyphosate in high-temperature conditions may cause poor control of junglerice, increase infestation of resistant populations, and lead to high weed seed production and subsequent reinfestation. In fallow conditions, it is better to control junglerice in the spring season compared with the summer seasons, as the temperature conditions in spring are lower.

This study suggests that growers need to check temperature conditions before glyphosate application. Increased rates of glyphosate during high-temperature conditions may improve the control of junglerice; however, there is a risk of evolution of highly GR populations with the use of high rates. Over-reliance on glyphosate for the control of junglerice in fallow conditions should be reduced, particularly during hot summers (high-temperature conditions), and farmers could opt for alternative postemergence herbicides.

Experiment 3. Performance of Preemergence Herbicides

Dimethenamid-P applied at 810 g ai ha–1 provided 100% control of each population (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35). Pendimethalin and S-metolachlor also inhibited germination of each population (Table 4). Each herbicide treatment resulted in lower biomass than the untreated control (Table 5). Atrazine, imazethapyr, and isoxaflutole treatments suppressed junglerice effectively, although they did not result in the complete eradication of junglerice populations,.

Table 4. Emergence percentage of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after preemergence herbicides application. a

a Statistical analysis was done separately for each population. In each pot, 15 seeds were sown.

Table 5. Aboveground biomass of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after preemergence herbicides application. a

a Statistical analysis was done separately for each population.

This study suggests that dimethenamid, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor are the best herbicides for preemergence control of GR populations of junglerice. A previous study suggested that junglerice has multiple cohorts (Wu et al. Reference Wu, Walker, Osten, Taylor, Sindel, Sindel and Johnson2004); therefore, the use of residual herbicides (dimethenamid-P, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor) against junglerice could provide season-long weed control. However, these herbicides must be evaluated under crop situations for their selectivity to different crops. There is also a need to study plant-back issues while using these herbicides. The activities of these three preemergence herbicides will vary under different soil, moisture, and climatic conditions, but again, these are fairly well known for these herbicides. Therefore, validation of these herbicides for the control of GR populations should be investigated under field conditions.

Experiment 4. Performance of Postemergence Herbicides

The tested herbicides (clethodim, glufosinate, and haloxyfop) provided effective control (when assessed in terms of mortality percent and biomass reduction) of the three populations of junglerice when plants were treated at the four-leaf stage (Tables 6 and 7). When plants were treated at the eight-leaf stage, paraquat and glufosinate at 750 g ha–1 provided excellent (>97%) control of junglerice populations. Clethodim and haloxyfop provided poor control (∼50%) of junglerice when plants were treated at the eight-leaf stage. Glufosinate at 500 g ha–1 resulted in lower mortality of B17/7 when applied at the eight-leaf stage compared with the four-leaf stage. The aboveground biomass of clethodim-treated plants was similar to the untreated control when these herbicides were applied at the eight-leaf stage. This study suggests that the efficacy of clethodim was reduced when the plant size was larger. In summary, when the plant size of the junglerice was small (four-leaf stage), clethodim, glufosinate, paraquat, and haloxyfop provided superior weed control. However, if farmers are unable to spray at an early stage of plants, then paraquat could be highly effective for the control of junglerice populations. These studies need field evaluation for further confirmation of results.

Table 6. Survival percentage of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after postemergence herbicides application (treated at the four- and eight-leaf stage of the plant). a

a LSD values have been provided for the interaction effect of leaf stage and herbicide treatments. Before spray, there were five plants in each pot.

Table 7. Aboveground biomass of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after postemergence herbicides application (treated at the four- and eight-leaf stage of plants). a

a LSD values have been provided for the interaction effect of leaf stage and herbicide treatments. Before spray, there were five plants in each pot.

Reduced efficacy of herbicides against weeds such as signalgrass [Urochloa platyphylla (Munro ex C. Wright) R.D. Webster], goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.], and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.) was observed when clethodim was applied at a later stage of plants (Burke et al. Reference Burke, Wilcut and Porterfield2002). Glufosinate provided poor control of goosegrass when applied to taller (15-cm) plants compared with smaller plants (10-cm height) (Eytcheson and Reynolds Reference Eytcheson and Reynolds2019).

A previous study on tropical weeds revealed that the efficacy of postemergence herbicides against junglerice, Chinese sprangletop [Leptochloa chinenensis (L.) Nees], and southern crabgrass [Digitalia ciliaris (Retz) Koel] increased when applied at the four-leaf stage (87% to 98%) compared with the eight-leaf stage (53% to 64% control) (Chauhan and Abugho Reference Chauhan and Abugho2012). Likewise, delayed application of trifloxysulfuron against Johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) caused poor efficacy and resulted in the poor control of these weeds, as the plants were larger at the time of spray (Singh and Singh Reference Singh and Singh2004).

Experiment 5. Performance of Sequential and Herbicides Mixture

This study was conducted with GR populations B17/34 and B17/35 (Table 8). As expected, glyphosate at 1,140 g ha–1 did not control junglerice effectively and caused only 50% mortality in both populations. Glufosinate at 750 g ha–1 effectively controlled both populations, and the mortality in treated plants was >95% (Table 8). Paraquat and haloxyfop caused 100% mortality in both populations. The efficacy of haloxyfop and glufosinate for the mortality of the B17/35 population was reduced when these herbicides were applied in the sequential spray after glyphosate application. Regarding biomass, each herbicide treatment had lower biomass than the untreated control. Among herbicide treatments, plants treated with glyphosate (1,140 g ha–1) had higher biomass than other herbicide treatments.

Table 8. Survival percentage and aboveground biomass of glyphosate-resistant junglerice populations (B17/34 and B17/35) in relation to mixtures and sequential application of herbicides. a

a Evaluation was done 28 d after treatment. Statistical analysis was done separately for each population.

b Abbreviation: fb, followed by.

These results suggest that paraquat, haloxyfop, and glufosinate are quite effective in controlling the GR populations. Therefore, in the fields or under fallow situations, where GR populations have occurred, these herbicides can be successfully used to control these populations. Poor control of GR populations was observed when these herbicides were mixed or applied in sequential spray, suggesting that the sequential application is not useful and that such application strategies may increase the cost of control. Herbicide mixtures or sequential herbicide applications have been found to be very effective for controlling season-long weed control, difficult weeds, and in certain situations, GR weeds (Davidson et al. Reference Davidson, Cook and Chauhan2019; Widderick et al. Reference Widderick, Bell, Boucher and Walker2013).

In summary, our results demonstrated that junglerice populations B17/34 and B17/35 were highly resistant to glyphosate. GR junglerice populations have been increasing in the no-till production system of eastern Australia in the past few years, especially in fields having a long history of glyphosate use. Therefore, integrated weed management strategies and improved stewardship guidelines are required in those regions to restrict the spread of these populations to other regions of Australia. High-temperature conditions reduced the efficacy of glyphosate. Therefore, for improved control of junglerice populations, it is advisable to spray during the evening hours when temperature conditions are relatively low.

Alternative options must be identified to control GR junglerice populations. This research identified preemergence herbicides, such as dimethenamid-P, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor, that can be used successfully for managing GR populations. The use of preemergence herbicides could provide season-long weed control in crops as well as in fallow situations. Postemergence herbicides, such as clethodim, paraquat, haloxyfop, and glufosinate, could be used successfully in managing GR populations if applied at the right time (four-leaf stage). Larger plants of GR junglerice, especially in fallow situations, can be effectively controlled with paraquat. Alone, application of glufosinate (750 g ai ha–1), haloxyfop (78 g ai ha–1), and paraquat (600 g ai ha–1) provided >98% control of GR populations; therefore, there is no advantage in using these herbicides as a mixture with glyphosate. The sequential application of glufosinate and haloxyfop, when followed by glyphosate application, resulted in worse efficacy of glufosinate and haloxyfop than the sole application of glufosinate and haloxyfop, indicating that the stage of plants played a crucial role for high efficacy of glufosinate and haloxyfop. In sequential spray, glufosinate and haloxyfop were applied at a late stage of growth; this study provided evidence that when these herbicides were applied at a late stage or to larger plants, the efficacy was reduced. Therefore, for the control of GR populations of junglerice, glufosinate and haloxyfop must be applied at the four-leaf stage of the plant.

Overall, our findings identified alternative preemergence (dimethenamid-P, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor) and postemergence (glufosinate, haloxyfop, and paraquat) for control of GR-junglerice populations that can be used in herbicide rotation programs for delaying the problem of herbicide resistance. Judicious use of these herbicides in combination with agronomic practices (tillage, sowing time, row spacing) could reduce the spread of these populations by providing effective control.

As mentioned above, junglerice plants are prolific, and seeds can be easily dispersed through winds and other means; therefore, strategies to reduce the survival from preemergence and postemergence herbicides are critical. No preemergence herbicide could provide complete prevention of weeds from emergence when weeds have multiple flushes/cohorts. Moreover, the efficacy of preemergence herbicides is highly influenced by soil texture, moisture, and climatic conditions. Growers wait for the time of peak emergence of multiple cohorts to avoid repeated sprays and to save costs on herbicides and fuels, and by that time, early cohorts become large in size and have passed the optimum spray stage. Therefore, further studies are needed to evaluate herbicide mixtures or sequential applications of preemergence herbicides (dimethenamid-P, or pendimethalin, or S-metolachlor) with postemergence herbicides, such as paraquat, for the minimum survivors of GR populations. Late applications of effective postemergence herbicides, such as paraquat, in the sequential or double-knock tactic, and herbicides mixtures with effective preemergence herbicides (dimethenamid-P, or pendimethalin, or S-metolachlor), may prove a tool to provide control or prevent seed production of GR junglerice.

Acknowledgments

There was no specific funding for this research and the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

[ABARES] Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (2021) National overview: Australian Crop Report: December. Winter crops. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-outlook/australian-crop-report/overview. Accessed: October 5, 2021Google Scholar
Alarcon-Reverte, R, Garcia, A, Urzua, J, Fischer, AJ (2013) Resistance to glyphosate in junglerice (Echinochloa colona) from California. Weed Sci 61:4854 Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20:793814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Wilcut, JW, Porterfield, D (2002) CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol 16:749754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Abugho, SB (2012) Effect of growth stage on the efficacy of postemergence herbicides on four weed species of direct-seeded rice. The Sci World J 2012:17 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chauhan, BS, Jha, P (2020) Glyphosate resistance in Sonchus oleraceus and alternative herbicide options for its control in southeast Australia. Sustainability 12:8311 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, B, Cook, T, Chauhan, BS (2019) Alternative options to glyphosate for control of large Echinochloa colona and Chloris virgata plants in cropping fallows. Plants 8:245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolling, PJ, Fillery, IRP, Ward, PR, Asseng, S, Robertson, MJ (2006) Consequences of rainfall during summer-autumn fallow on available soil water and subsequent drainage in annual-based cropping systems. Aust J Agric Res 57:281296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eytcheson, AN, Reynolds, DB (2019) Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control as affected by application timing of glufosinate applied alone or mixed with graminicides. Weed Technol 33:272279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, TA, Cripps, A, Powles, SB (2012) Evolved resistance to glyphosate in junglerice (Echinochloa colona) from the Tropical Ord River Region in Australia. Weed Technol 26:480484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganie, ZA, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2017) Temperature influences efficacy, absorption, and translocation of 2,4-D or glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci 65:588602 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2008) International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds––survey results and criteria to add cases. Pages 6870 in van Klinken, RD, Osten, VA, Panetta, FD, Scanlan, JC, eds, Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Weeds Society. http://caws.org.nz/old-site/awc/2008/awc200810681.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2021Google Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Ronning, D, Ouzman, J, Walker, S, Mayfield, A, Clarke, M (2016) Impact of weeds on Australian grain production: the cost of weeds to Australian grain growers and the adoption of weed management and tillage practices. Canberra: Grain Research and Development Corporation. 112 p Google Scholar
Llewellyn, RS, D’Emden, FH, Kuehne, G (2012) Extensive use of no-tillage in grain-growing regions of Australia. Field Crops Res 132:204212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Kaur, V, Thompson, M, Chauhan, BS (2020) Growth behavior and glyphosate resistance level in 10 populations of Echinochloa colona in Australia. PloS One 15:e0221382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221382 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahajan, G, Mutti, NK, Walsh, M, Chauhan, BS (2019) Effect of varied soil moisture regimes on the growth and reproduction of two Australian biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona). Weed Sci 67:552559 Google Scholar
Mutti, NK, Mahajan, G, Prashant, J, Chauhan, BS (2019) The response of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) to mungbean interference. Weed Sci 67:419425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, TH, Malone, JM, Boutsalis, P, Shirley, N, Preston, C (2016) Temperature influences the level of glyphosate resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa colona). Pest Manage Sci 72:10311039 Google Scholar
Osten, VA, Walker, SR, Storrie, A, Widderick, M, Moylan, P, Robinson, GR, Galea, K (2007) Survey of weed flora and management relative to cropping practices in the north-eastern grain region of Australia. Aust J Exp Agr 47:5770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ou, J, Stahlman, PW, Jugulam, M (2018) Reduced absorption of glyphosate and decreased translocation of dicamba contribute to poor control of kochia (Kochia scoparia) at high temperature. Pest Manag Sci 74:11341142 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, MA, Collavo, A, Ovejero, R, Shivrain, V, Walsh, MJ (2018) The challenge of herbicide resistance around the world: a current summary. Pest Manage Sci 74:22462259 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratley, JE, Broster, JC, Michael, P (2008) Echinochloa spp. in Australian rice fields species distribution and resistance status. Aust J Agr Res 59:639645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabbir, A, Chauhan, BS, Walsh, MJ (2019) Biology and management of Echinochloa colona and Echinochloa crus-galli in the northern grain regions of Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 70:917925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A, Budhathoki, S, Steinhauer, K (2018) Temperature effects on glyphosate resistance in California populations of junglerice. Agron J 110:16241626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S, Singh, M (2004) Effect of growth stage on trifloxysulfuron and glyphosate efficacy in twelve weed species of citrus groves. Weed Technol 18:10311036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, C, Mahajan, G, Walsh, M, Chauhan, BS (2021) Effect of planting time and row spacing on growth and seed production of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and feather fingergrass (Chloris virgata) in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol, First View, 16. doi: 10.1017/wet.2021.60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storrie, A, Cook, T, Boutsalis, P, Penberthy, D, Moylan, P (2008) Glyphosate resistance in awnless barnyard grass [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] and its implications for Australian farming systems. Page 74 in van Klinken, RD, Osten, VA, Panetta, FD, Scanlan, JC, eds Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference. Brisbane: Queensland Weeds Society Google Scholar
Tanpipat, S, Adkins, SW, Swarbrick, JT, Boersma, M (1997) Influence of selected environmental factors on glyphosate efficacy when applied to awnless barnyard grass [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link]. Aust J Agr Res 48:695702 Google Scholar
Thornby, D, Werth, J, Walker, S (2013) Managing glyphosate resistance in Australian cotton farming: modelling shows how to delay evolution and maintain long-term population control. Crop Past Sci 64:780790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S, Widderick, M, Storrie, A, Osten, V (2004) Preventing glyphosate resistance in weeds of the northern grain region. Pages 428431 in Proceedings of the14th Australian Weeds Conference. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Council of Australasian Weed Societies. http://www.caws.org.au/awc/2004/awc200414281.pdf. Accessed: September 9, 2021Google Scholar
Walker, S, Wu, H, Bell, K (2010) Emergence and seed persistence of Echinochloa colona, Urochloa panicoides and Hibiscus trionum in the sub-tropical environment of north-eastern Australia. Plant Prot Q 25:127132 Google Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, J, Thornby, D, Walker, S (2011) Assessing weeds at risk of evolving glyphosate resistance in Australian sub-tropical glyphosate-resistant cotton systems. Crop Past Sci 62:10021009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widderick, MJ, Bell, KL, Boucher, LR, Walker, SR (2013) Control by glyphosate and its alternatives of glyphosate-susceptible and glyphosate-resistant Echinochloa colona in the fallow phase of crop rotations in subtropical Australia. Weed Biol Manage 13:8997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, H, Walker, S, Osten, V, Taylor, I, Sindel, B (2004) Emergence and persistence of barnyard grass [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] and its management options in sorghum. Pages 538541 in Sindel, BM, Johnson, SB, eds, Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Council of Australasian Weed Societies Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Outline of herbicide treatments in different  experiments.

Figure 1

Table 2. Parameter estimates for glyphosate dose–response curves of three populations of junglerice in Experiment 1.a,b

Figure 2

Figure 1. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for (A) plant mortality (%), and (B) biomass reduction (%). The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

Figure 3

Table 3. Parameter estimates for glyphosate dose–response curves of three populations of junglerice in Experiment 2.a

Figure 4

Figure 2. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for plant mortality (%) of (A) B17/7, (B) B17/34, and (C) B17/35. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Glyphosate dose–response curve of three populations of junglerice for biomass reduction (%) of (A) B17/7, (B) B17/34, and (C) B17/35. The curve is a four-parametric logistic regression model fitted to data.

Figure 6

Table 4. Emergence percentage of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after preemergence herbicides application.a

Figure 7

Table 5. Aboveground biomass of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after preemergence herbicides application.a

Figure 8

Table 6. Survival percentage of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after postemergence herbicides application (treated at the four- and eight-leaf stage of the plant).a

Figure 9

Table 7. Aboveground biomass of junglerice populations (B17/7, B17/34, and B17/35) at 28 d after postemergence herbicides application (treated at the four- and eight-leaf stage of plants).a

Figure 10

Table 8. Survival percentage and aboveground biomass of glyphosate-resistant junglerice populations (B17/34 and B17/35) in relation to mixtures and sequential application of herbicides.a