Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:00:21.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Response to Glyphosate on the Field Edge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Nurse ,
Kerry E. Bosveld  and
Susan E. Weaver
Robert E. Nurse*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, 2585 County Road. 20, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Kerry E. Bosveld
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, 2585 County Road. 20, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, 2585 County Road. 20, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nurser@agr.gc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of weeds growing around field edges to limit seed production is an important component of preventative weed management. POST herbicide rates that are effective on weeds growing within a dense corn or soybean canopy may not be high enough to control weeds at the edge of a field. A study was conducted from 2004 through 2006 to compare velvetleaf growth and fecundity at the edge of the field as opposed to within the crop in response to a range of glyphosate rates. Treatments included position (plot center or edge), time of emergence (VE or V4 crop growth stage) and glyphosate rate (0 to 900 g ae ha−1). Without herbicide application, velvetleaf plants grown on the edge flowered earlier, had thicker stems, and produced more seed capsules than plants grown in the center of the plots. At glyphosate application rates of 200 to 900 g ha−1, the percentage of plants surviving and reproducing was higher on the edge than within the crop. Edge plants treated with 900 g ha−1 of glyphosate produced more seeds than center plants that received no herbicide. Dose–response curves were used to estimate the glyphosate rate that would reduce seed production of surviving plants to 80% of the untreated plants. Plants emerging at the VE stage were estimated to require 300 g ha−1 within the corn or soybean canopy and 668 g ha−1 on the crop edge, whereas plants emerging at the V4 stage would require 0 g ha−1 within the canopy and 280 g ha−1 on the crop edge.

Keywords

Glyphosatevelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays Lsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrDose–responseseed productionfield margincompensatory growth
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 464 - 468
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Stougaard, R. N. 2006. Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: a review. Weed Biol. Manag. 6:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, D. and Jordan, N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Sci. 49:509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, C. 2006. Comparison of the vegetation and seedbanks of soybean fields, adjacent boundaries, and hedgerows in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, C., Jobin, B., Bélanger, L., and Choinère, L. 2001. Comparing weed composition in natural and planted hedgerows and in herbaceous field margins adjacent to crop fields. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2001. Reduced fitness of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) surviving glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabry, C. M. and Wayne, P. W. 1997. Defoliation of the annual herb Abutilon theophrasti: mechanisms underlying reproductive compensation. Oecologia. 111:225–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mager, H. J., Young, B. G., and Preece, J. E. 2006. Characterization of compensatory weed growth. Weed Sci. 54:274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Callaway, M. B. 1995. Effects of tillage and mulch on weed seed production and seed banks in corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, C. A. and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Growth response of velvetleaf to three postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 50:364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 2007. Weed fecundity: current status and future needs. Crop Prot. 26:182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, R. E. and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Corn competition alters the germinability of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 53:479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, R. E., DiTommaso, A., and Ramirez, R. A. 2004. Planting date effects on the germinability and seedling vigour of Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae) seeds. Phytoprotection. 85:161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nzarko, O. M., Van Acker, R. C., and Entz, M. H. 2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: a review. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy architecture of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 37:187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabenberger, O., Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999. Statistical tests for hormesis and effective dosages in herbicide dose response. Agron. J. 91:713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, L. M., Luschei, E. C., and Fanning, M. A. 2007. Field margin weed-species diversity in relation to landscape attributes and adjacent land use. Weed Sci. 55:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. and Downs, M. 2005. Weed fecundity in relation to distance from the crop edge. Pages 171–183. in Thomas, A. G. Field Boundary Habitats: Implications for Weed, Insect and Disease Management: Topics in Canadian Weed Science, Volume 1. Sainte-Anne-de Bellevue, Québec Canadian Weed Science Society–Société canadienne de malherbologie.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., Tao, B., Messersmith, C. G., and Nalewaja, J. D. 2007. Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) is affected by stress. Weed Sci. 55:240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar