Potential effectiveness of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems depends upon seed shatter of the target weed species at crop maturity, enabling its collection and processing at crop harvest. However, seed retention likely is influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed-shatter phenology in 13 economically important broadleaf weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after physiological maturity at multiple sites spread across 14 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. Greater proportions of seeds were retained by weeds in southern latitudes and shatter rate increased at northern latitudes. Amaranthus spp. seed shatter was low (0% to 2%), whereas shatter varied widely in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) (2% to 90%) over the weeks following soybean physiological maturity. Overall, the broadleaf species studied shattered less than 10% of their seeds by soybean harvest. Our results suggest that some of the broadleaf species with greater seed retention rates in the weeks following soybean physiological maturity may be good candidates for HWSC.

Seed shatter is an important weediness trait on which the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) depends. The level of seed shatter in a species is likely influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed shatter of eight economically important grass weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after maturity at multiple sites spread across 11 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. From soybean maturity to 4 wk after maturity, cumulative percent seed shatter was lowest in the southern U.S. regions and increased moving north through the states. At soybean maturity, the percent of seed shatter ranged from 1% to 70%. That range had shifted to 5% to 100% (mean: 42%) by 25 d after soybean maturity. There were considerable differences in seed-shatter onset and rate of progression between sites and years in some species that could impact their susceptibility to HWSC. Our results suggest that many summer annual grass species are likely not ideal candidates for HWSC, although HWSC could substantially reduce their seed output during certain years.

Research was conducted from 2011 to 2015 to determine the effect of herbicide strategy on efficacy and evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds in a continuous glyphosate- and dicamba-resistant (GDr) soybean system. The nine herbicide strategies included sequential applications of glyphosate only, glyphosate plus dicamba with or without acetochlor, PRE application of residual herbicides with POST glyphosate or non-glyphosate herbicides, and their biennial rotation with one another. Giant foxtail and horseweed were the least problematic during all growing seasons. An increase in horseweed was observed by the end of the experiment especially in the plots where POST glyphosate was not used with PRE application of residual herbicides. Giant ragweed evolved resistance to glyphosate over a 4-yr period of selection with strategies that predominantly included PRE and POST glyphosate. Herbicide use strategies that included glyphosate-only and PRE application of residual herbicides fb POST glyphosate annually or in a biennial rotation were ineffective in controlling giant ragweed and glyphosate-resistant (GR) common waterhemp. Over the years, application of PRE herbicide mixtures before POST glyphosate application improved weed control and soybean yields compared with the glyphosate-only strategy. During all growing seasons, the greatest yield and reduction in total weed density before harvest was provided by herbicide use strategies that included glyphosate plus dicamba annually or in a biennial rotation regardless of the inclusion of acetochlor POST. Dicamba proved to be a valuable addition to improve the control of GR weeds. GDr soybean will provide growers with a new option for managing resistant weeds, but it needs to be used with caution, as multiple resistance in weeds, including waterhemp and giant ragweed, is already widespread.

Growers from three counties in Virginia have recently experienced difficulty controlling shattercane in corn with acetolactate synthase (ALS)–inhibiting herbicides. Seed was collected from these locations and from a susceptible biotype and tested for resistance to imazethapyr, imazapyr, and nicosulfuron in greenhouse trials. Seedlings from these locations were also treated with glufosinate and glyphosate. Greenhouse experiments indicated that one of the four shattercane biotypes was resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Effective control of the resistant biotype was possible with glufosinate or glyphosate. Field experiments were conducted in 2003 and 2004 to determine the most effective herbicide program utilizing herbicide-tolerant/-resistant corn hybrids for the control of shattercane. Early postemergence (EP) and late postemergence (LP) applications of imazethapyr plus imazapyr or EP nicosulfuron did not control shattercane, and yield from the imidazolinone-tolerant (IT) hybrid was equivalent between these treatments and was equivalent to yield from the weedy control (WC). At 23 wk after planting (WAP), EP applications of glyphosate controlled shattercane 71 and 75% compared to only 21 and 66% with EP applications of glufosinate in 2003 and 2004, respectively. In both years, LP applications of glufosinate or glyphosate controlled shattercane better than did EP applications of glufosinate or glyphosate. Treatment timing with respect to corn yield within either the glufosinate-resistant (LL) or glyphosate-resistant (RR) corn hybrid was critical. EP treatments of glufosinate or glyphosate resulted in yields that were equivalent to yield from the weed-free control (WFC) of each hybrid. LP treatments of glufosinate or glyphosate, however, resulted in yields that were equivalent to only 90 and 91% of yield from the WFC of each hybrid, respectively.

Experiments were conducted in 2004 and 2005 in Virginia to evaluate KIH-485 for shattercane control. KIH-485 was applied to glyphosate-resistant corn at three rates (166, 209, and 250 g ai/ha) and two timings (preemergence [PRE] and postemergence [POST]) and compared to standard rates of S-metolachlor, acetochlor, and pendimethalin. PRE treatments were applied alone, while POST treatments were combined with 1,121 g ai/ha of glyphosate. A single POST application of glyphosate, a nontreated weedy control (WC), and a weed-free control (WFC) were also evaluated. In 2004, at 1 mo after planting (MAP), shattercane was controlled 73, 86, and 93% with the three PRE treatments of KIH-485 compared to only 50, 49, and 48% control with S-metolachlor, acetochlor, and pendimethalin, respectively. Similar levels of shattercane control were also observed with these treatments at 1 MAP in 2005. In both years at 4 MAP, KIH-485 combined with glyphosate applied POST controlled shattercane 96% or greater. However, when glyphosate was combined with S-metolachlor, acetochlor, or pendimethalin, shattercane control was less than 88% in either year. Corn yields with POST applications of KIH-485 plus glyphosate were equivalent to yield from the WFC and greater than yield from any PRE treatment. Early-season shattercane control was promising with KIH-485; however, season-long control only occurred when KIH-485 was applied POST in combination with glyphosate.

Recent shifts in herbicide use patterns can be attributed to rapid, large-scale adoption of glyphosate-resistant soybean and cotton. A dramatic increase in glyphosate use is the most obvious change associated with the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops. Consequently, the diversity of herbicides used for weed management in these crops has declined, particularly in soybean. To date, the availability of glyphosate-resistant corn has limited the use of glyphosate in corn. While exploiting the benefits of glyphosate-resistant crops, many growers have abandoned the principles of sound weed and herbicide-resistance management. Instead of incorporating glyphosate into a resistance management strategy utilizing multiple herbicide sites of action, many growers rely exclusively upon glyphosate for weed control. Although it is difficult to establish a clear relationship between the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops and changes in other crop production practices, the increase in no-till and strip-till production of cotton and soybean between 1995 and 2002 may have been facilitated by glyphosate-resistant crops.