2 results
Response of Asiatic Dayflower (Commelina communis) to Glyphosate and Alternatives in Soybean
- Santiago M. Ulloa, Micheal D. K. Owen
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 57 / Issue 1 / February 2009
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 74-80
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Asiatic dayflower has recently become a troublesome weed in eastern Iowa. This weed demonstrates an extended emergence period and there is anecdotal evidence of glyphosate tolerance. Thus, Asiatic dayflower is difficult to manage in glyphosate-resistant (GR) corn and soybean. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the response of Asiatic dayflower to glyphosate applied at different rates and growth stages. Field research was conducted in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate different herbicides for Asiatic dayflower control in soybean. PRE herbicides were applied at planting and POST herbicides were applied 21 and 42 d after planting (DAP). In addition, shikimate accumulation in response to glyphosate was compared among Asiatic dayflower and GR and non-GR corn and soybean. Under greenhouse conditions, a single application of glyphosate (0.84 kg ae ha−1) did not control Asiatic dayflower. Only the highest rate evaluated, 13.44 kg ae ha−1 (16X), was lethal to Asiatic dayflower. Even when applied at an early growth stage (two leaves) and using high rates (3.36 kg ae ha−1), glyphosate controlled Asiatic dayflower just 28%. In the field, metribuzin and KIH-485 controlled Asiatic dayflower 80 and 73%, respectively. Early POST applications (21 DAP) of cloransulam or lactofen controlled Asiatic dayflower 80 and 67%, respectively. A single glyphosate application of 0.86 kg ae ha−1 controlled Asiatic dayflower approximately 50%. Glyphosate-treated Asiatic dayflower and non-GR corn and soybeans accumulated shikimate after application. GR corn and soybeans did not accumulate shikimate in response to glyphosate. Twenty-one days after treatment, all the non-GR soybean and corn plants died; however, Asiatic dayflower plants survived.
Growth Stage-Influenced Differential Response of Foxtail and Pigweed Species to Broadcast Flaming
- Santiago M. Ulloa, Avishek Datta, Stevan Z. Knezevic
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 24 / Issue 3 / September 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 319-325
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Propane flaming could be an effective alternative tool for weed control in organic cropping systems. However, response of major weeds to broadcast flaming must be determined to optimize its proper use. Therefore, field experiments were conducted at the Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, Concord, NE in 2007 and 2008 using six propane doses and four weed species, including green foxtail, yellow foxtail, redroot pigweed, and common waterhemp. Our objective was to describe dose–response curves for weed control with propane. Propane flaming response was evaluated at three different growth stages for each weed species. The propane doses were 0, 12, 31, 50, 68, and 87 kg ha−1. Flaming treatments were applied utilizing a custom-built flamer mounted on a four-wheeler (all-terrain vehicle) moving at a constant speed of 6.4 km h−1. The response of the weed species to propane flaming was evaluated in terms of visual ratings of weed control and dry matter recorded at 14 d after treatment. Weed species response to propane doses were described by log-logistic models relating propane dose to visual ratings or plant dry matter. Overall, response of the weed species to propane flaming varied among species, growth stages, and propane dose. In general, foxtail species were more tolerant than pigweed species. For example, about 85 and 86 kg ha−1 were the calculated doses needed for 90% dry matter reduction in five-leaf green foxtail and four-leaf yellow foxtail compared with significantly lower doses of 68 and 46 kg ha−1 of propane for five-leaf redroot pigweed and common waterhemp, respectively. About 90% dry matter reduction in pigweed species was achieved with propane dose ranging from 40 to 80 kg ha−1, depending on the growth stage when flaming was conducted. A similar dose of 40 to 60 kg ha−1 provided 80% reduction in dry matter for both foxtail species when flaming was done at their vegetative growth stage. However, none of the doses we tested could provide 90% dry matter reduction in foxtail species at flowering stage. It is important to note that foxtail species started regrowing 2 to 3 wk after flaming. Broadcast flaming has potential for control or suppression of weeds in organic farming.