Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-5vn5w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T10:34:33.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Control Using Glyphosate-, Paraquat-, and Glufosinate-Based Herbicide Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas W. Eubank ,
Daniel H. Poston ,
Vijay K. Nandula ,
Clifford H. Koger ,
David R. Shaw  and
Daniel B. Reynolds
Thomas W. Eubank*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Daniel H. Poston
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Vijay K. Nandula
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Clifford H. Koger
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: teubank@drec.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2005 and 2006 to determine the most effective chemical options within three individual herbicide-based burndown programs, glyphosate, paraquat and glufosinate, for controlling glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Mississippi. Burndown treatments were applied April 5, 2005 and March 15, 2006 to horseweed plants 15 to 30 cm in height. Glyphosate at 0.86 kg ae/ha alone provided 60 to 65% horseweed control 4 wk after treatment (WAT). Control 4 WAT ranged from 73 to 74% when the glyphosate rate was increased to 1.25 kg/ha. Glyphosate at 0.86 kg/ha applied in combination with 2,4-D at 0.84 kg ae/ha or dicamba at 0.28 ae/ha maximized control of horseweed (≥ 90%) 4 WAT and soybean yield. Horseweed control 4 WAT with paraquat alone at 0.84 kg ai/ha ranged from 55 to 63% and control did not improve by increasing the rate to 0.98 kg/ha. Addition of 2,4-D or dicamba to paraquat maximized horseweed control both years (78 to 89%), whereas soybean yield was maximized with addition of dicamba or metribuzin at 0.42 kg ai/ha. Glufosinate applied alone at 0.47 kg ai/ha resulted in at least 88% control of horseweed and maximized soybean yield. Results indicate that effective management of glyphosate-resistant horseweed can be obtained in glyphosate-resistant soybean in glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based preplant weed control programs.

Keywords

Carfentrazonechlorimuron2,4-Ddicambaflumioxazinglufosinateglyphosatelinuronmetribuzinoxyfluorfenparaquatthifensulfurontribenuronhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAsoybean, Glycine max. (L.) Merr. DK 4763RR, AG 4801RRBurndownglyphosate resistanceherbicide efficacyherbicide mixturesplant densityweed resistanceyield reduction

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 16 - 21
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Barnes, J., Johnson, B., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean. Online. Crop Management DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR. Web page: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/brief/2004/late/ Accessed: August 23, 2007.Google Scholar
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses, and prospects. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:299–308.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Bekech, M. M. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agron. Trends Agric. Sci. 1:67–71.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza canadensis . Weed Technol. 2:269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–647.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98–101.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science Society of America: Web Page: http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: March 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distributions New York: J. Wiley. 1129.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol. 8:129–133.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 3:399–401.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in full-season no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:814–818.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Norris, J. L., Shaw, D. R., and Snipes, C. E. 2001. Weed control from herbicide combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:552–558.Google Scholar
Saphangthong, T. and Witt, W. W. 2006. Germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.) under field conditions. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:23–25.Google Scholar
Scott, R., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23–26.Google Scholar
Smisek, A., Doucet, C., Jones, M., and Weaver, S. 1998. Paraquat resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex County, Ontario. Weed Sci. 46:200–204.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46:652–660.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11:484–488.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., McClelland, M. R., Barrentine, J. L., Smith, K. L., and Kelley, M. B. 2004. Managing glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Arkansas cotton. Research Series 530. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trainer, G. D., Loux, M. M., Harrison, S. K., and Regnier, E. 2005. Response of horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 19:231–236.Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2004. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7503C) EPA-733-R-04-001. Environmental Protection Agency: Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides. Accessed: March 5, 2007.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in double-crop no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: Role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 229.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. and Banks, P. A. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541–547.Google Scholar
Weaver, S., Downs, M., and Neufeld, B. 2004. Response of paraquat-resistant and -susceptible horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to diquat, linuron, and oxyfluorfen. Weed Sci. 52:549–553.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F., Salisbury, C. D., and Bean, B. W. 1995. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum), jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), and horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in fallow. Weed Technol. 9:249–254.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. S. and Worsham, A. D. 1988. Combinations of nonselective herbicides for difficult to control weeds in no-till corn, Zea mays, and soybeans, Glycine max . Weed Sci. 36:648–652.Google Scholar