Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:11:28.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian S. Manley ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Brian S. Manley
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420-2827
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420-2827
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In studies conducted from 1991 through 1994, researchers investigated the effects of several crop rotations and herbicide programs on crop yield and populations of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Amaranthus spp., and jimsonweed at two sites. Crop rotations included continuous corn, continuous soybean, corn–soybean, and corn–tomato–soybean, and herbicide programs were the split-plots and included continuous use of acetolactate synthase (ALS)–inhibitor herbicides, continuous use of non–ALS-inhibitor herbicides, annual rotations between ALS- and non–ALS-inhibitor herbicides, combinations of ALS- and non–ALS-inhibitor herbicides in the same year, and no herbicide. Weed control and weed populations generally were affected by an interaction between crop rotations and herbicide programs. After 4 yr, common lambsquarters control was lowest, and populations were highest where fomesafen was used alone for four consecutive years or in rotation with other herbicides. Although common ragweed populations were low at site 2, control at both sites was generally lowest from treatments that included only ALS-inhibitor herbicides. Common ragweed populations were highest at site 1 in 1992 and 1993 following continuous applications of ALS-inhibitor herbicides. Jimsonweed populations were also low at site 2, but control at site 1 in tomato was low. Jimsonweed control from fomesafen and the combination of butylate plus atrazine in soybean and corn, respectively, was variable. Amaranthus spp. populations decreased as the study progressed, and in 1993, control was over 90% from all treatments, except in the case of the treatment combining butylate plus atrazine. Corn and soybean yields varied with year and site, and yields of these crops and tomato were related to rainfall and weed control.

Keywords

Atrazinebutylatefomesafencommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELcorn, Zea mays L. ‘ICI 8532IT’ in 1991, 1992, and 1993 and ‘Pioneer 3245IR’ in 1994jimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. DATSTredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘W20-STS’ in 1991, ‘STS-9122’ in 1992, ‘Asgrow 3200 STS’ in 1993, and ‘Asgrow 4045 STS’ in 1994tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L. ‘Floradade’Herbicide rotationsweed shiftsALS-inhibitor herbicidesfenoxapropfluazifop-Pimidazolinone herbicidesimazaquinimazethapyrmetribuzinnicosulfuronrimsulfuronsulfonylurea herbicidestrifluralinAMACHAMAREAMBELCHEALDATST
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 106 - 122
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Weed management programs in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 10:354–358.Google Scholar
Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1997. Rimsulfuron and metribuzin efficacy in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum). Weed Technol. 11:324–328.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. “DPX-E9636” Experimental herbicide for potatoes. Technical Bulletin. Wilmington, DE: E. I. duPont de Nemours Agricultural Product Department.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994a. AC 299,263: experimental herbicide. Technical Bulletin. Princeton, NJ: American Cyanamid Co., Agricultural Product Division Crop Protection Chemistry Department.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994b. Chloransulam-methyl: experimental broadleaf herbicide for soybeans. Technical Data Bulletin. Indianapolis, IN: Dow-Elanco.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994c. Prosulfuron: herbicide for broadleaf weed control. Technical Bulletin. Greensboro, NC: Ciba-Geigy Corp., Ciba Plant Protection.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994d. Pursuit®. Supplemental labeling. Wayne, NJ: American Cyanamid Co., Agricultural Products Division Crop Protection Chemistry Department.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. Crop Protection Reference. 11th ed. New York: C & P Press.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Rotation effects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 8:728–732.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–194.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Hawkins, G. W. 1979. Guide to computer programmed soil test recommendations in Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Services Publication no. 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Consecutive annual applications of alachlor and metolachlor to continuous no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 30:340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1993. Mechanisms for resistance of weeds to herbicides. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 3:1509–1511.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. Pages 325–347 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–79 In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Dowler, C. C., Jellum, M. D., and Cecil, S. R. 1974. Effects of herbicide-crop rotations on nutsedge, annual weeds, and crops. Weed Sci. 22:172–176.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1998. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Available at URL http://weedscience.com/paper/resist97.htm.Accessed December 1, 1998.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1999. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Available at URL http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed December 1, 1999.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1992. History of identification of herbicide-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 6:615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141–149.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. and Coble, H. D. 1986. Crop rotation and herbicide effects on the population dynamics of two annual grasses. Weed Sci. 34:452–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1993. Weed control and yield are equal in conventional, reduced, and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max) after 11 years. Weed Technol. 7:443–451.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1995. Imidazolinone resistant smooth pigweed. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:31.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. Pages 1–25 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newhouse, K. E., Shaner, D. L., Wang, T., and Fincher, R. 1990. Genetic modification of crop responses to imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 474–481 In Green, H. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals: From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. Los Angeles: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Pollard, F. and Cussans, G. W. 1981. The influence of tillage on the weed flora in a succession of winter cereal crops on a sandy loam soil. Weed Res. 21:185–190.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Maxwell, B. D. 1990. Future outlook for herbicide-resistant research. Weed Technol. 4:208–214.Google Scholar
Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., Smith, W. F., and Primiani, M. M. 1992. Sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in common chickweed, perennial ryegrass, and Russian thistle. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 42:110–118.Google Scholar
Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Pages 83–139 In Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J. A. M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. E., Barrett, M., and Witt, W. W. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:9.Google Scholar
Sebastian, S. A. and Chaleff, R. S. 1987. Soybean mutants with increased tolerance for sulfonylurea herbicides. Crop Sci. 27:948–952.Google Scholar
Sebastian, S. A., Fader, G. M., Ulrich, J. F., Forney, D. R., and Chaleff, R. S. 1989. Semidominant soybean mutation for resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides. Crop Sci. 29:1403–1408.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
Warnes, D. D. and Anderson, R. N. 1984. Decline of wild mustard (Brassica kaber) seeds in soil under various cultural and chemical practices. Weed Sci. 32:214–217.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Mascianica, M. P., Hines, T. E., and Walden, R. F. 1986. Influence of tillage and herbicides on weed control in a wheat (Triticum aestivum)-soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Sci. 34:590–594.Google Scholar