Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T13:40:58.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential response of winter- and summer-emerging accessions of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaudin) to postemergence herbicides in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2022

Bhagirath S. Chauhan*
Affiliation:
Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation and Professor, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
Michael Walsh
Affiliation:
Director Weed Research, Sydney Institute of Agriculture, University of Sydney, Brownlow Hill, New South Wales, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Bhagirath S. Chauhan, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia. Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rigid ryegrass is a problematic weed species in winter crops and winter fallow; however, recently, this weed species has been observed in summer crops and fallow. These observations warrant the evaluation of different postemergence herbicides for its control. Outdoor pot studies were conducted during the spring and summer of 2021 to 2022 to determine the performance of POST herbicides on two summer-emerging (S3 and S6) and two winter-emerging (W3 and W8) accessions of rigid ryegrass. Across all accessions, butroxydim, clethodim, paraquat, and paraquat + amitrole at the field rate provided complete control of rigid ryegrass. Both summer-emerging accessions were found to be resistant to the field rates of glufosinate (750 g ai ha−1), glyphosate (454 g ae ha−1), haloxyfop (52 g ai ha−1), and pinoxaden (30 g ai ha−1). The S6 accession had the highest dose required for a 50% reduction in biomass for these herbicides (glufosinate 1,120 g ai ha−1, glyphosate 1,210 g ae ha−1, haloxyfop 140 g ai ha−1, and pinoxaden 55 g ai ha−1). This summer-emerging accession (S6) was also resistant to iodosulfuron. All four accessions were found susceptible to imazamox + imazapyr (a commercial mixture) and mesosulfuron. The study provides the first evidence of poor control of summer-emerging accessions of rigid ryegrass with different herbicides. Multiple-herbicide-resistant summer-emerging rigid ryegrass accessions would be a challenge to the production of summer crops (e.g., cotton and sorghum) as well as winter crops that rely on weed-free summer fallows for soil moisture retention; therefore these accessions warrant diversified management strategies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Table 1. Herbicide treatments, their sites of action, doses, and adjuvants used in Experiment 1.a,b

Figure 1

Table 2. Herbicide doses used for four accessions of rigid ryegrass in Experiment 2.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Effect of herbicide treatments on survival and biomass of four accessions of rigid ryegrass when sprayed during summer months (Experiment 1).a,b

Figure 3

Table 4. Estimated herbicide doses required for a 50% reduction in accession survival (LD50) and plant biomass production (GR50) of rigid ryegrass accessions (Experiment 2).a

Figure 4

Figure 1. Effect of glufosinate dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.

Figure 5

Figure 2. Effect of glyphosate dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Effect of haloxyfop dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.

Figure 7

Figure 4. Effect of the commercial mixture of imazamox (33 g L−1) + imazapyr (15 g L−1) dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate (36 g ai ha−1 of the commercial mixture; 24.75 g ai ha−1 of imazamox + 11.25 g ai ha−1 of imazapyr) of the herbicide.

Figure 8

Figure 5. Effect of iodosulfuron dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Effect of mesosulfuron dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.

Figure 10

Figure 7. Effect of pinoxaden dose on survival (A) and biomass (percent of nontreated control) (B) of four accessions (S3, S6, W3, and W8) of rigid ryegrass. Plants were sprayed at the 4- to 5-leaf stage of each accession. The vertical dashed line represents the 1X rate of the herbicide.