A new formulation of pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil has been developed. Combining these two herbicides extends the application window to early postemergence. Pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil (suspension concentrate), and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil (microcapsule suspension) were applied to corn preemergence and evaluated for corn injury, corn yield, and visible weed control; in addition, the interaction (antagonistic, additive, or synergistic) was ascertained for each parameter. Six field trials were conducted at three locations in southwestern Ontario in 2022 and 2023. Pyroxasulfone was applied at 90, 120, and 150 g ai ha−1; saflufenacil was applied at 56, 75, and 95 g ai ha−1; and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil was applied at 146, 195, 245 g ai ha−1, equal to the combined rates of pyroxasulfone and saflufenacil. All pyroxasulfone, encapsulated saflufenacil, and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil treatments caused no corn injury. Weed control varied based on application rate and weed species. Reduced weed interference with pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil at 195 and 245 g ai ha−1 resulted in corn yield that was similar to the weed-free control and the industry standard of S-metolachlor/atrazine/mesotrione/bicyclopyrone. The interaction between pyroxasulfone and encapsulated saflufenacil for weed control was additive.

Objectives/Goals: The goal of the RC2 Systems Marketing Analysis for Research Translation (SMART) special innovation program is to develop and test a structured approach for working with research teams and communities to accelerate the translation of clinical and community innovations to address health inequities by integrating social marketing with community-based system dynamics. Methods/Study Population: The SMART program is a consultancy service for CTS teams focused on selecting and tailoring implementation strategies for advancing equity. We use social marketing for understanding the alignment of practice innovation feature sets with community priorities for advancing health equity; and community-based system dynamics to understand and refine the dynamics of scaling up and sustaining the implementation of innovations with sufficient reach to address regional health inequities. The program is implemented as community-engaged group model-building workshops with research teams, with follow-up marketing analyses and computer simulation of implementation strategies of innovations and development of implementation roadmaps. We use developmental program evaluation to revise the SMART program. Results/Anticipated Results: Anticipated results from piloting the SMART innovation program with four research teams include (1) design matrices pre and post-workshop for each innovation; (2) system dynamics simulation models and analyses of implementation and scale-up of innovations; (3) analysis of the SMART program for highest impact, with priors for estimating subsequent SMART program performance; and (4) a revised SMART program based on results from the developmental program evaluation. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This work highlights the feasibility and benefits of combining methods that have been cited in implementation science for understanding the complexity of implementation to accelerate the translation of innovations into clinical and community settings for advancing health equity.

Following the application of MCPA/MCPB at 1.7 kg ae ha−1 at a field site near Dresden, ON, Canada, poor control (<50% visible control) of green pigweed (Amaranthus powellii S. Watson) was observed. Amaranthus powellii is a common weed in Ontario crop production, and its evolution of resistance to synthetic auxin herbicides (SAHs) could pose a risk to crop yields. The suspected resistant A. powellii population (R) was used in dose–response and field experiments to determine resistance to SAHs. The objective of these studies was to determine whether this population of A. powellii is resistant to MCPA and cross-resistant to other SAHs. The GR50 (herbicide dose that causes a 50% reduction in plant aboveground biomass) values were determined by fitting plant dry weight data, obtained following application with seven SAHs, to a four-parameter log-logistic equation and were compared between the suspected-resistant (R) population and a known susceptible (S) population of A. powellii. The field trial was conducted in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021 in corn (Zea mays L.) and consisted of 11 postemergence SAH treatments. The GR50 values differed between the R and S populations following application with MCPA, aminocyclopyrachlor, dichlorprop-p, and mecoprop, resulting in resistance factors of 4.4, 3.0, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively. In the field study, dicamba and MCPA ester controlled A. powellii 84% and 30%, respectively, at 8 wk after treatment application (WAA). The control of Amaranthus powellii with all SAHs applied POST in corn was poor (<90% visible control) at 8 WAA. Both studies confirmed resistance to SAHs in this population of A. powellii, which will create limitations for farmers aiming to control this weed.

Waterhemp has evolved resistance to Group 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27 herbicides in Ontario, Canada, making control of this challenging weed even more difficult. Acetochlor is a Group 15, chloroacetanilide herbicide that has activity on many small-seeded annual grasses and some small-seeded annual broadleaf weeds, including waterhemp. The objective of this study was to ascertain if acetochlor mixtures with broadleaf herbicides (dicamba, metribuzin, diflufenican, sulfentrazone, or flumioxazin), applied preemergence (PRE), increase multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp control in soybean. Five trials were conducted over 2 yr (2021 and 2022). The acetochlor mixtures caused ≤7% soybean injury, except acetochlor + flumioxazin, which caused 19% soybean injury. Acetochlor applied PRE controlled MHR waterhemp 89% at 4 wk after application (WAA). Dicamba, metribuzin, diflufenican, sulfentrazone, or flumioxazin controlled MHR waterhemp 59%, 67%, 58%, 64%, and 86%, respectively, at 4 WAA. Acetochlor applied in a mixture with dicamba, metribuzin, diflufenican, sulfentrazone, or flumioxazin provided good to excellent control of MHR waterhemp; control ranged from 91% to 98% but was similar to acetochlor applied alone. Acetochlor alone reduced MHR waterhemp density and biomass 98% and 93%; acetochlor + flumioxazin reduced waterhemp density and biomass by an additional 2% and 7%, respectively. This research concludes that acetochlor applied in a mixture with flumioxazin was the most efficacious mixture evaluated for MHR waterhemp control.

Waterhemp is a summer annual, broadleaf weed with high fecundity, short seed longevity in the soil, and wide genetic diversity. Populations have evolved resistance to five herbicide modes of action (Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27), which are present across southern Ontario; this has increased the challenge of controlling this competitive weed species in corn, the most important grain crop produced worldwide and the highest-value agronomic crop in Ontario. Acetochlor is a Group 15 soil-applied residual herbicide that has activity on many grass and broadleaf weeds but has yet to be registered in Canada. The objective of this study was to ascertain whether mixtures of acetochlor with flumetsulam, dicamba, atrazine, isoxaflutole/diflufenican, or mesotrione + atrazine applied preemergence would increase the control of multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp in corn. Five field trials were conducted between 2022 and 2023. No corn injury was observed. Acetochlor applied alone controlled MHR waterhemp 97% 12 wk after application (WAA). All herbicide mixtures controlled MHR waterhemp similarly at ≥98% 12 WAA; there were no differences among herbicide mixtures. Flumetsulam, dicamba, and atrazine provided lower MHR waterhemp control than all other herbicide treatments and did not reduce density or biomass. Acetochlor reduced waterhemp density 98%, while the acetochlor mixtures reduced density similarly at 99% to 100%. This study concludes that the acetochlor mixtures evaluated provide excellent waterhemp control; however, control was not greater than acetochlor alone. Herbicide mixtures should be used as a best management practice to mitigate the evolution of herbicide resistance.

Waterhemp has evolved resistance to seven herbicide modes of action in the United States and to five in Canada, which limits weed control options for producers. The objective of this research was to quantify the level and duration of residual control of multiple herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp with five Group 15 herbicides (acetochlor, dimethenamid-p, flufenacet, pyroxasulfone, and S-metolachlor) applied preemergence in a non-crop area. Four field trials were conducted over a 2-yr period (2021, 2022) in southwestern Ontario, Canada. By 4 wk after application (WAA) 91% of waterhemp had emerged in the nontreated control area. The numerical control of waterhemp with all Group 15 herbicides, with the exception of pyroxasulfone, was greatest at 4 WAA, then control declined. Flufenacet provided the lowest waterhemp control; dimethenamid-p and S-metolachlor provided intermediate control, and acetochlor and pyroxasulfone provided the highest control. Waterhemp control with pyroxasulfone peaked at 6 WAA with 99% and declined to 77% at 12 WAA. Flufenacet (low and high rates) was predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 50% for 42 to 44 d after application (DAA). Dimethenamid-p, S-metolachlor, and acetochlor (both formulations and three rates) were predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 80% for 36, 43, and 33 to 51 DAA, respectively; in contrast, pyroxasulfone was predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 80% for 82 DAA. This study concludes that of the Group 15 herbicides evaluated, flufenacet provides the lowest and shortest residual control of waterhemp, and pyroxasulfone provides the highest and longest residual control of waterhemp.

The development of glufosinate-resistant soybean cultivars has created opportunities for use of glufosinate applied postemergence for weed control. Four field experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to ascertain the effect of glufosinate rate and the addition of ammonium sulfate on annual weed control in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D–resistant soybean. An increased glufosinate rate of 500 from 300 g ai ha−1 improved control of common ragweed, common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and foxtail species and resulted in decreased density and dry biomass of common lambsquarters and foxtail species. The addition of ammonium sulfate to glufosinate increased control of common lambsquarters, 2 and 8 wk after application (WAA), and of foxtail species, 2, 4, and 8 WAA, but did not improve control of common ragweed and redroot pigweed. Increasing the dose of glufosinate from 300 to 500 g ai ha−1 improves control of common ragweed, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and foxtail species; however, the benefit of the addition of ammonium sulfate to glufosinate is weed species-specific.

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes of horseweed were first confirmed in southern Ontario in 2010 and have spread across southern Ontario. A total of four field experiments were conducted between 2021 and 2022 to determine GR horseweed control with one- and two-pass herbicide programs in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant (GG2R) soybean. 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, halauxifen-methyl, and saflufenacil applied preplant (PP) controlled GR horseweed by 59%, 72%, and 78% 8 wk after postemergence (POST) application (WAA-POST); there was no improvement of GR horseweed control when 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA was added to saflufenacil; in contrast, there was improved GR horseweed control when saflufenacil was added to 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA. Glufosinate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST controlled glyphosate-resistant horseweed by 71% and 86%, respectively, 8 WAA-POST. Two-pass herbicide programs of a PP followed by POST application provided greater GR horseweed control than a PP or POST herbicide applied alone. Glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST following 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA or halauxifen-methyl applied PP improved GR horseweed control by 29% to 38% and 24%, respectively at 8 WAA-POST. The application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST following saflufenacil applied PP improved control by 20% 8 WAA-POST; there was no improvement of GR horseweed control when glufosinate was applied POST following saflufenacil applied PP or when either POST herbicide was applied following saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP. When used in a two-pass program, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST provided 2% to 3% greater control of GR horseweed than glufosinate.

Waterhemp control in Ontario has increased in complexity due to the evolution of biotypes that are resistant to five herbicide modes of action (Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27 as categorized by the Weed Science Society of America). Four field trials were carried out over a 2-yr period in 2021 and 2022 to assess the control of multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp biotypes in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant (GG2R) soybean using one- and two-pass herbicide programs. S-metolachlor/metribuzin, pyroxasulfone/sulfentrazone, pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin, and pyroxasulfone + metribuzin applied preemergence (PRE) controlled MHR waterhemp similarly by 46%, 63%, 60%, and 69%, respectively, at 8 wk after postemergence (POST) application (WAA-B). A one-pass application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST provided greater control of MHR waterhemp than glufosinate. Two-pass herbicide programs of a PRE herbicide followed by (fb) a POST-applied herbicide resulted in greater MHR waterhemp control compared to a single PRE or POST herbicide application. PRE herbicides fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST controlled MHR waterhemp by 74% to 91% and by 84% to 96%, respectively, at 8 WAA-B. Two-pass herbicide applications of an effective PRE residual herbicide fb 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST in GG2R soybean can effectively manage waterhemp that is resistant to herbicides in Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27.

It has been argued that individuals behave according to a threshold level of concern decision rule when considering protection against risk: if the perceived probability of the risk is below a threshold level, then the likelihood of the risk is treated as zero and protection is deemed unnecessary. Little is known about the determinants of this threshold nor about whether individual thresholds are related to risk specific emotions like worry and regret. We study threshold probabilities and factors that influence these in the context of flood insurance decision making. Based on data collected from 1,041 Dutch homeowners, we find that on average the threshold level of concern for flood insurance demand is negatively related to the expected regret an individual might feel about not purchasing flood insurance if a flood occurs, as well as to worry about flooding.

Many studies have documented the interaction between 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting and photosystem II (PSII)-inhibiting herbicides. Most have focused on the interaction between mesotrione and atrazine, with only a few studies characterizing the nature of the interaction between tolpyralate and atrazine. Therefore, five field experiments were conducted in Ontario, Canada, over a 3-yr period (2019 to 2021) to characterize the interaction between three rates of tolpyralate (15, 30, and 45 g ai ha−1) and three rates of atrazine (140, 280, and 560 g ai ha−1) for the control of seven annual weed species in corn (Zea mays L.). Tolpyralate at 30 or 45 g ha−1 applied with atrazine at 280 or 560 g ha−1 controlled velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) >90% at 8 wk after application (WAA). Tolpyralate and atrazine were synergistic at each rate combination for the control of A. theophrasti at 8 WAA. In contrast, A. retroflexus and S. arvensis control at 8 WAA was additive with each rate combination. At 8 WAA, C. album control was generally additive, but one rate combination was synergistic. Ambrosia artemisiifolia control at 8 WAA was synergistic with five rate combinations and additive with the other four. Barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.] control at 8 WAA was additive with seven of the rate combinations and synergistic with two. Setaria spp. control at 8 WAA was synergistic with one more rate combination compared with E. crus-galli, but the two weed species shared the same synergistic rate combinations. This study concludes that extrapolation or broad classifications of the interaction between tolpyralate and atrazine would be inappropriate, as the interaction can vary due to herbicide rate, weed species, and the response parameter analyzed.

Tolpyralate is an herbicide that is usually mixed with atrazine for broad-spectrum weed control in corn. Previous research has provided information on the effective dose (ED) of tolpyralate applied alone and in a 1:33.3 mixture with atrazine; however, tolpyralate is commercially applied at a dose of 30 to 40 g ai ha−1 with a minimum of 560 g ai ha−1 of atrazine. Therefore, five field trials were conducted over 3 yr (2019 to 2021) to determine the ED of atrazine to complement 30 g ai ha−1 of tolpyralate to achieve 80%, 90%, and 95% control of seven weed species 2, 4, and 8 wk after application (WAA). Tolpyralate was applied alone and in a mixture with atrazine doses ranging from 50 to 2,000 g ai ha−1. At 8 WAA, the ED of atrazine for 95% control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and wild mustard was below the minimum label dose of atrazine on the commercial tolpyralate label, ranging from 430 to 520 g ai ha−1, which supports the use of the minimum label dose of atrazine. In contrast, redroot pigweed required 1,231 g ai ha−1 of atrazine to complement tolpyralate for 95% control 8 WAA. At 8 WAA, barnyardgrass and a mixture of green foxtail and giant foxtail (Setaria spp.) were not controlled by 80%, 90%, or 95% with tolpyralate applied alone or co-applied with any dose of atrazine evaluated in this study. The results of this study conclude that tolpyralate + atrazine is highly efficacious on several weed species at atrazine doses of 40 to 130 g ai ha−1 below the label dose of 560 g ai ha−1, but the use of the higher dose of tolpyralate or another herbicide may be required to improve control of redroot pigweed and grass weed species.