Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:42:16.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Time of Day of Application of 2,4-D, Dicamba, Glufosinate, Paraquat, and Saflufenacil on Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Garret B. Montgomery ,
Joyce A. Treadway ,
Julie L. Reeves  and
Lawrence E. Steckel
Garret B. Montgomery*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Research Associate, and Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Joyce A. Treadway
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL 36849
Julie L. Reeves
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Research Associate, and Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Research Associate, and Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail:garbmont@vols.utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study to evaluate the effect of application time of day (TOD) on the efficacy of five burndown herbicides was conducted in Alabama and Tennessee. Treatments of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, paraquat, and saflufenacil were applied at sunrise, midday, or sunset to a native population of horseweed and analyzed separately. Control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed with 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, and saflufenacil was greatest from the midday application. Percentage of living horseweed counts for all of these herbicides followed a similar pattern. Control from paraquat was lowest at the midday timing and greatest from the sunset application with surviving horseweed plant populations reflecting those control ratings. Application TOD significantly affected all of the herbicides in this research. Applications of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, and saflufenacil are more efficacious when applied during the middle portion of the day, while paraquat is more efficacious when applied at sunset for maximum horseweed control.

Keywords

2,4-Ddicambaglufosinateparaquatsaflufenacilhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.Application technologyapplication time of daycultural weed control
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 550 - 556
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

References

Literature Cited

Andersen, RN, Koukkari, WL (1978) Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci 26:393–395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 Google Scholar
Bovey, RW, Haas, RH, Meyer, RE (1972) Daily and seasonal response of huisache and Macartney rose to herbicides. Weed Sci 20:577–580 Google Scholar
Bradely, JF (2000) Economic comparison of weed control systems in conservation tillage systems. Pages 1474–1476 in 2000 Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Austin, TX: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Brian, RC (1967) Darkness and the activity of diquat and paraquat on tomato, broad bean, and sugar beet. Ann Appl Biol 60:77–85 Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences in combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:655–672 Google Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Loughin, TM (2001) Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1998) Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J of Cotton Sci 2:174–185 Google Scholar
Doran, DL, Andersen, RN (1976) Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of the day. Weed Sci 24:567–570 Google Scholar
Fadayomi, O, Warren, GF (1977) Uptake and translocation of nitrofen and oxyfluorfen. Weed Sci 25:111–114 Google Scholar
Friesen, GH, Wall, DA (1991) Effect of application factors on efficacy of fluazifop-P-butyl in flax. Weed Technol 5:504–508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, BC, Young, BC (2002) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci 50:157–161 Google Scholar
Koger, CH, Poston, DH, Hayes, RM, Montgomery, RF (2004) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol 18:820–825 Google Scholar
Kraatz, GW, Andersen, RN (1980) Leaf movements in sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in relation to herbicide response. Weed Sci 28:551–556 Google Scholar
Lee, SD, Oliver, LR (1982) Efficacy of aciflurofen on broadleaf weeds: times and methods for application. Weed Sci 30:520–526 Google Scholar
Martinson, KB, Durgan, BR, Gunsolus, JL, Sothern, RB (2005) Time of day of application effect on glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy. Crop Manage doi: 10.1094/CM-2005-07-0718-02-RS Google Scholar
Martinson, KB, Sothern, RB, Koukkari, WL, Durgan, BR, Gunsolus, JL (2002) Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate. Chronobiol Int 19:405–422 Google Scholar
Miller, R, Martinson, KB, Sothern, RN, Durgan, BR, Gunsolus, JL (2003) Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate. Chronobiol Int 20:299–324 Google Scholar
Miller, SD, Nalewaja, JD, Dobranski, A, Pudelko, J (1978) Temperature effect on barban phytotoxicity. Weed Sci 26:132–134 Google Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Reberg-Horton, CS, Spargo, JT, Wells, MS, Keene, CL, Moyer, JW (2013) Overcoming weed management challenges in cover crop-based organic rotational no-till soybean production in the Eastern United States. Weed Technol 27:193–203 Google Scholar
Mischler, RA, Curran, WS, Duiker, SW, Hyde, JA (2010) Use of a rolled-rye cover crop for weed suppression in no-till soybeans. Weed Technol 24:253–261 Google Scholar
Mohr, K, Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ (2007) Application time of day influences glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol 21:7–13 Google Scholar
Montgomery, GM, Steckel, LE, Reeves, JL (2017) Application time of day effects on burndown herbicides applied to PPO-resistant and –susceptible Palmer amaranth. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society 70 (forthcoming)Google Scholar
Mueller, TC, Massey, JH, Hayes, RM, Main, CL, Stewart, CN Jr (2003) Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J Agric Food Chem 51:680–684 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 Google Scholar
Olson, BLS, Al-Khatib, K, Stahlman, P, Isakson, PJ (2000) Efficacy and metabolism of MON 37500 in Triticum aestivum and weedy grass species as affected by temperature and soil moisture. Weed Sci 48:541–548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DT (1995) Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483–490 Google Scholar
Peterson, DE, Al-Khatib, K (1999) The influence of application time of day on glyphosate efficacy. Proc North Central Weed Sci Soc 54:17–18 Google Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265–275 Google Scholar
Putnam, AR, Ries, SK (1968) Factors influencing the phytotoxicity and movement of paraquat in quackgrass. Weed Sci 16:80–83 Google Scholar
Reddy, KN (2001) Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 15:660–668 Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (2013) DandA.sas: Design and Analysis Macro Collection Version 2.11. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. Publication 17 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG (2003) Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol 17:302–306 Google Scholar
Smith, JM (1965) The Movement of Diquat in Tomatoes. MS thesis. Bangor, Wales: Bangor University, College of WalesGoogle Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Time of day impacts postemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:346–355 Google Scholar
Stopps, GJ, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2013) The effect of time of day on the activity of postemergence soybean herbicides. Weed Technol 27:690–695 Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2015) Crop Production and Agricultural Chemical Usage in Field Crops. http://www.usda.gov/nass. Accessed August 20, 2015Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ (2001) Glphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703–705 Google Scholar
Waltz, AL, Martin, AR, Roeth, FW, Lindquist, JL (2004) Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf varies with application time of day. Weed Technol 18:931–939 Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 Google Scholar
Wiggins, MS, McClure, MA, Hayes, RM, Steckel, LE (2015) Integrating cover crops and POST herbicides for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in corn. Weed Technol 29:412–418 Google Scholar
William, RD, Warren, GF (1975) Suppresion of Cyperus rotundus L. in carrots with night applications of nitrofen or herbicidal oil. Weed Res 15:285–290 Google Scholar
Young, BG (2006) Changes in herbicides use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307 Google Scholar