Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:26:00.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced Fitness of Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Surviving Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Hartzler  and
Bruce A. Battles
Robert G. Hartzler*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Bruce A. Battles
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted at three locations in Iowa to determine the effectiveness of glyphosate for velvetleaf control in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Velvetleaf survival ranged from 46 to 81% when treated with 420 g ae/ha glyphosate, whereas survival ranged from 13 to 37% at the 840 g/ha rate. At two locations, velvetleaf survival was greater when treated at the 12- to 17-cm height compared with application to either 8- to 10- or 20- to 30-cm-tall plants. Growth of plants surviving glyphosate application was greatly reduced, with the high glyphosate rate reducing velvetleaf aboveground biomass by over 90% compared to untreated plants. A linear relationship between biomass and capsule number was observed for both control plants and plants surviving glyphosate, both having slopes of approximately one. Velvetleaf surviving glyphosate treatment should have minimal impact on soybean yield due to reduced growth; however, surviving plants may replenish the seed bank, leading to future management problems.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. # GLYMAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTHReproductive fitness
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , 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

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
Bello, I. A., Owen, M.D.K., and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 1995. Effect of shade on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol. 9: 452–455.Google Scholar
Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 34: 256–259.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47: 81–89.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Carpenter, J. E. 2000. Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 103 p.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10: 957–962.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43: 226–232.Google Scholar
Lueshen, W. E., Anderson, R. N., Hoverstad, T. R., and Kanne, B. K. 1993. Seventeen years of cropping systems and tillage affect velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed longevity. Weed Sci. 41: 82–86.Google Scholar
Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. Jr. 1987. Neighborhood interference among velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, and pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus . OIKOS 48: 217–224.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. Volume 2, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil-applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn. Weed Technol. 12: 47–52.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38: 407–416.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol. 14: 261–267.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) seed production and viability as influenced by late-season postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 45: 497–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 478–483.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28: 347–352.Google Scholar