There is great value in quantifying and reporting weed seed production as a component of herbicide efficacy evaluations for two reasons. First, visual weed control ratings and associated measurements such as weed density and biomass are not sufficient indicators of fecundity. Second, knowledge of fecundity associated with herbicide treatments can guide the development of effective management programs that impact long-term weed population dynamics and reduce the risk of herbicide resistance.

The comparative susceptibility of weedy okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench.] and three commercial okra cultivars (′Dwarf Green Long Pod′, ‘Clemson Spineless', and ‘White Velvet′) to six preemergence herbicides was evaluated in the greenhouse. Okra can be controlled in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] fields with appropriate preemergence herbicide use. Metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5 (4H)-one] completely controlled okra at 0.2 to 0.8 kg/ha. Fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] at 0.9 to 1.8 kg/ha and cyanazine {2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-s-triazin-2-yl] amino]-2-methylpropionitrile} at 1.2 to 2.4 kg/ha controlled okra, but at the 0.6 kg/ha rate cyanazine did not control wild okra and fluometuron at 0.45 kg/ha did not completely control any cultivar. Norflurazon [4-chloro-5-(methylamino)-2-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)-3 (2H)-pyridazinone] bleached the cotyledons and young leaves of okra, but gave 50% or less control even at 2.4 kg/ha. Both the weedy and commercial okras were completely resistant to trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro -N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] but higher rates of these herbicides affected okra growth.

The agrestal field violet, a pervasive weed in Europe, has been identified in reduced-tillage cereal fields in Alberta. The efficacy of herbicides in direct-seeded spring wheat was assessed on natural field violet infestations in Alberta in 2002 and 2003. Only fluroxypyr + 2,4-D, applied postemergence, provided control of field violet in 2002 when rainfall was limiting. Over both years, this herbicide combination reduced biomass by 59 to 69% and plant density by 83 to 91%, relative to nontreated plots. The herbicides metsulfuron, sulfosulfuron, and thifensulfuron + tribenuron only suppressed weed growth under drought conditions in 2002 but controlled the weed in 2003 when rainfall was greater, reducing plant density by 82 to 92% and rendering remaining plants sterile. Suppression was also observed with MCPA + mecoprop + dicamba in 2002 and 2003 and with metribuzin only in 2003. Effective control of field violet was conferred by a pre–crop emergence application of glyphosate at 445 g ae/ha in 2003, the only year that this treatment was evaluated. Activity of herbicides on three- to four-leaf seedlings was also evaluated in a greenhouse dose– response assay. All herbicides had greater efficacy in the greenhouse, and those that provided control in situ reduced field violet dry weight by 85% at less than the recommended rate used in field experiments. Management of field violet is possible with herbicides registered for use on spring wheat in Alberta. However, the weed does not appear to cause significant crop production losses; hence, herbicide selection should be based on knowledge of all weed species present within the field.

Field violet is a winter or summer annual plant that is a serious weed of canola crops in Europe. It is a weed of increasing concern within reduced tillage fields in central Alberta, where its response to registered herbicides has not been evaluated. Two commercial fields within the Aspen Parkland ecoregion of Alberta were used to evaluate the efficacy of postemergence (POST) herbicides against field violet in conventional, imidazolinone-resistant (IMI-resistant) and glufosinate-resistant canola cultivars, as well as to evaluate the plant's response to various timings and rates of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant canola. Control of field violet was lower in field experiments conducted in 2002 compared with 2003, probably because of abnormally low rainfall in 2002. The POST herbicides evaluated provided inadequate control of field violet in conventional canola. Glufosinate control at 500 g ai/ha was unacceptable unless the crop canopy closed shortly after application. In IMI-resistant canola, thifensulfuron did not significantly reduce plant density and biomass under the extremely dry conditions experienced in 2002, but in 2003, it conferred respective reductions of 79 and 86% relative to nontreated controls. Imazamox plus imazethapyr did not affect plant growth. Field violet was controlled by pre- and postcrop emergence glyphosate at 445 g ae/ha. Postharvest application of glyphosate provided good control throughout the following growing season when spring emergence was minimal. Herbicide activity was also evaluated on two- to four-leaf seedlings in a greenhouse experiment. Dose– response curves reflected the activity observed in field experiments. Strategies for effective field violet control with herbicides are dependent on cultivar selection and the management system, but are improved by timing application to young, actively growing plants.