Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T12:51:28.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of flax (Linum usitatissimum) to fluthiacet-methyl, pyroxasulfone, and topramezone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2019

Moria E. Kurtenbach Open the ORCID record for Moria E. Kurtenbach [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric N. Johnson ,
Robert H. Gulden  and
Christian J. Willenborg
Moria E. Kurtenbach*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Robert H. Gulden
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Christian J. Willenborg
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Moria E. Kurtenbach, Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, 51 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8 (Email: moria.kurtenbach@usask.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flax yield can be severely reduced by weeds. The combination of limited herbicide options and the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds across the prairies has resulted in a need for more weed control options for flax producers. The objective of this research was to evaluate the tolerance of flax to topramezone, pyroxasulfone, flumioxazin, and fluthiacet-methyl applied alone as well as in a mix with currently registered herbicides. These herbicides were applied alone and in mixtures at the 1X and 2X rates and compared with three industry standards and one nontreated control. This experiment was conducted at Carman, MB, and Saskatoon, SK, as a randomized complete block with four replications. Data were collected for crop population, crop height, yield, and thousand-seed weight. Ratings for crop damage (phytotoxicity) were also taken at three separate time intervals: 7 to 14, 21 to 28, and 56+ d after treatment. Crop tolerance to these herbicides varied between site-years. This was largely attributed to differences in spring moisture conditions and the differences in soil characteristics between sites. Herbicide injury was transient. Hence, no herbicide or combination of herbicides significantly impacted crop yield consistently. Flumioxazin was the least promising herbicide evaluated, as it caused severe crop damage (>90%) when conditions were conducive. Overall, flax had excellent tolerance to fluthiacet-methyl, pyroxasulfone, and topramezone. Flax had excellent crop safety to the combination of pyroxasulfone + sulfentrazone. However, mixing fluthiacet-methyl and topramezone with MCPA and bromoxynil, respectively, increased crop damage and would not be recommended.

Keywords

Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBromoxynilflumioxazinfluthiacet-methylMCPApyroxasulfonesulfentrazonetopramezoneflax, Linum usitatissimum L4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitorscrop tolerancephytotoxicityprotoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitorsvery-long-chain fatty-acid inhibitors
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 509 - 517
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (2018) Canada: Outlook for Principal Field Crops, 2018–01–25. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/crops/reports-and-statistics-data-for-canadian-principal-field-crops/canada-outlook-for-principal-field-crops-2018-01-25/?id=1516980819832#a3. Accessed: April 4, 2018Google Scholar
Alister, C, Rojas, S, Gómez, P, Kogan, M (2008) Dissipation and movement of flumioxazin in soil at four field sites in Chile. Pest Manag Sci 64:579–583 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anonymous (2012) Pyroxasulfone 85 WG product label. United Agri Products. http://www.uap.ca/products/documents/Focus_PyroxasulfonePMRA_labelcopy.pdf. Accessed: February 17, 2017Google Scholar
Bajwa, AA, Walsh, M, Chauhan, BS (2017) Weed management using crop competition in Australia. Crop Prot 95:8–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Lozinski, C, Shirriff, S, Brenzil, CA (2013) Herbicide-resistant weeds in the Canadian prairies: 2007–2011. Weed Technol 27:171–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belfry, KD, McNaughton, KE, Sikkema, PH (2015) Weed control in soybean using pyroxasulfone and sulfrentrazone. Can J Plant Sci 95:1199–1204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booker, HM, Rowland, GG, Rashid, KY (2014) CDC Glas oilseed flax. Can J Plant Sci 94:451–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowley, SR (2015) A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Statistics in Biology. Generalized Linear Mixed Model Edition. Kincardine, ON: Plants et al. 298 pGoogle Scholar
Canadian Weed Science Society (2018) Description of 0-100 Rating Scale for Herbicide Efficacy and Crop Phytotoxicity. http://weedscience.ca/cwss-visual-ratings-scale. Accessed: January 29, 2018Google Scholar
Diederichsen, A, Richards, K (2003) Cultivated flax and the genus Linum L. Taxonomy and germplasm conservation. in Muir, MD, Westcott, ND, eds. Flax: the Genus Linum. London: Taylor and Francis. Pp. 22–54 Google Scholar
Flax Council of Canada (2016) Growing Flax—Production Management & Diagnostic Guide. 5th ed. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission. 64 pGoogle Scholar
Freigang, J, Laber, B, Lange, G, Schulz, A (2008) The biochemistry of pyrasulfotole. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 61:15–27 Google Scholar
Friesen, GH (1986) Effect of weed interference on yield and quality of flax seed oil. Can J Plant Sci 66:1037–1040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganie, ZA, Straman, G, Jhala, MJ (2015) Response of selected glyphosate-resistant broadleaved weeds to premix of fluthiacet-methyl and mesotrione (SolsticeTM) applied at two growth stages. Can J Plant Sci 95:861–869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitsopoulos, TK, Melidis, V, Evgenidis, G (2010) Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to post-emergence applications of topramezone. Crop Prot 29:1091–1093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Saskatchewan (2016) Guide to Crop Protection: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 651 pGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K, Ehrhardt, T (2007) On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: a new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag Sci 63:429–439 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulting, AG, Dauer, JT, Hinds-Cook, B, Curtis, D, Koepke-Hill, RM, Mallory-Smith, C (2012) Management of Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne spp. multiflorum) in western Oregon with preemergence applications of pyroxasulfone in winter wheat. Weed Technol 26:230–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jursík, M, Soukup, J, Holec, J, Andr, J, Hamouzová, K (2015) Efficacy and selectivity of pre-emergent sunflower herbicides under different soil moisture condition. Plant Prot Sci 51:214–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, SR, Garcia, JO (2008) Annual broadleaf control with KIH-485 in glyphosate-resistant furrow-irrigated corn. Weed Technol 22:420–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, JY, Thomas, AG, Hall, LM, Brenzil, CA, Andres, T, Brown, KR, Van Acker, RC(2005) Prairie Weed Surveys of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops 1970s to the 2000s. Weed Survey Series 05–1. Saskatoon: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Center. 406 pGoogle Scholar
Liu, SH, Hsiao, AI, Quick, WA, Wolf, TM, Hume, JA (1995) Effect of MCPA and fenoxaprop on phytotoxicity, retention, foliar uptake and translocation of imazamethabenz in wild oat. Crop Prot 14:275–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, JW, Johnson, WG, Smeda, RJ (1999) Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:233–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH, Robinson, DE (2011) Weed control and sweet maize (Zea mays L.) yield as affected by pyroxasulfone dose. Crop Prot 30:789–793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, BLS, Zollinger, RK, Thompson, CR, Peterson, DE, Jenks, B, Moechnig, M, Stahlman, PW (2011) Pyroxasulfone with and without sulfentrazone in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Technol 25:217–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’sullivan, PA, Friesen, HA, Vanden Born, WH (1977) Influence of herbicides for broad leaved weeds and adjuvants with dichlorfop methyl on wild oat control. Can J Plant Sci 57:117–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Pline, WA, Cranmer, JR, Danehower, D (2004) Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed. Weed Sci 52:1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qureshi, FA, Vanden Born, WA (1979) Split applications and tank mix combinations of diclofop-methyl and MCPA for weed control in barley. Can J Plant Sci 59:87–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, SS, Stahlman, PW, Geier, PW, Bean, BW, Dozier, T (2014) Grain sorghum response and Palmer amaranth control with postemergence application of fluthiacet-methyl. Int J Pest Manag 60:147–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Knezevic, SZ, Aulakh, JS, Lindquist, JL, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2015) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 29:82–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastian, DJ, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P, Shaner, DL, Butters, G (2017) Influence of soil properties and soil moisture on the efficacy of indaziflam and flumioxazin on Kochia scoparia L. Pest Manag Sci 73:444–451 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senseman, SA, ed (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 458 pGoogle Scholar
Shimizu, T, Hashimoto, N, Nakayama, I, Nakao, T, Mizutani, H, Unai, T, Yamaguchi, M, Abe, H (1995) A novel isourazole herbicide, fluthiacet-methyl, is a potent inhibitor of protoporphyrinogen oxidase after isomerization of glutathione S-transferase. Plant Cell Phys 36:625–632 Google Scholar
Sikkema, PH, Brown, L, Shropshire, C, Soltani, N (2007) Responses of three types of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to spring-applied post-emergence herbicides. Crop Prot 26:715–720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada (2018) Table 001–0017. Estimated Areas, Yield, Production, Average Farm Price and Total Farm Value of Principal Field Crops, in Metric and Imperial Units Annual. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=10017. Accessed: April 4, 2018Google Scholar
Stevenson, FC, Wright, AT (1996) Seeding rate and row spacing affect flax yield and weed interface. Can J Plant Sci 76:537–544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2010) Environment and soil conditions influence pre- and postemergence herbicide efficacy in soybean. Weed Technol 24:234–243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanetani, Y, Ikeda, M, Kaku, K, Shimizu, T, Matsumoto, H (2013) Role of metabolism in the selectivity of a herbicide, pyroxasulfone, between wheat and rigid ryegrass seedlings. J Pest Sci 38:152–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Bollero, G (2002) Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:502–511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Johnson, EN, Beckie, HJ, Sapsford, KL, Raatz, LL (2014) Efficacy of fall- and spring-applied pyroxasulfone for herbicide-resistant weeds in field pea. Weed Technol 28:351–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weed Science Society of America (2017) 2015 Baseline Survey for 26 Different Crop, Non-crop, Aquatic, and Natural Areas. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-Weed-Survey_Baseline.xlsx. Accessed: February 1, 2018Google Scholar
Zollinger, R (2016) National Weed Survey. Fargo: North Dakota State University. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/cpr/weeds/national-weed-survey-08-18-16. Accessed: February 16, 2017Google Scholar