Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:35:12.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Annual Weed Species to Glufosinate and Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Brent E. Tharp ,
Oliver Schabenberger  and
James J. Kells
Brent E. Tharp
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan Stale University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Oliver Schabenberger
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan Stale University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan Stale University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent introduction of glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant crops provides growers with new options for weed management. Information is needed to compare the effectiveness of glufosinate and glyphosate on annual weeds. Greenhouse trials were conducted to determine the response of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to glufosinate and glyphosate. The response of velvetleaf and common lambsquarters was investigated at multiple stages of growth. Glufosinate and glyphosate were applied to each weed species at logarithmically incremented rates. The glufosinate and glyphosate rates that provided a 50% reduction in aboveground weed biomass, commonly referred to as GR50 values, were compared using nonlinear regression techniques. Barnyardgrass, common ragweed, fall panicum, giant foxtail, and large crabgrass responded similarly to glufosinate and glyphosate. Common lambsquarters 4 to 8 cm in height was more sensitive to glufosinate than glyphosate. In contrast, 15- to 20-cm tall-velvetleaf was more sensitive to glyphosate than glufosinate.

Keywords

Glufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli L. Beauv. # ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop. # DIGSAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHDose responseGR50ABUTHAMBELCHEALDIGSAECHCGPANDISETFAGR50, rate causing 50% growth reduction
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 542 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993a. The Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993b. The influence of soil moisture, simulated rainfall and time of application on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. HOE-39866 use in chemical fallow systems. Weed Technol. 3:420–428.Google Scholar
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1989. An equation to describe dose responses where There is stimulation of growth at low doses. Weed Res. 29:93–96.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1997. Physiological basis for nicosulfuron and primisulfuron selectivity in live plant species. Weed Sci. 45:22–30.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0224, SC-0545, and HOE-00661. Weed Sci. 32:841–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Bandeen, J. D., and McKersie, B. D. 1983. Temperature effects on glyphosate absorption, translocation, and distribution in quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 31:461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Guttieri, M. J., and Fletcher, F. N. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with postemergence directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. 1996. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 44:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control with non-selective herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. E., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lærke, P. E. and Streibig, J. C. 1995. Foliar absorption of some glyphosate formulations and their efficacy on plants. Pestic. Sci. 44:107–116.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Weed control with non-selective herbicides in soybean (Glycine max) stale seedbed culture. Weed Technol. 8:159–164.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:12–21.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.Google Scholar
Mersey, B. G., Hall, J. C., Anderson, D. M., and Swanton, C. J. 1990. Factors affecting the herbicidal activity of glufosinate-ammonium: absorption, translocation, and metabolism in barley and green foxtail. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 37:90–98.Google Scholar
Sandral, G. A., Dear, B. S., Pratley, J. E., and Cullis, B. R. 1997. Herbicide dose rate response curves in subterranean clover determined by a bioassay. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 37:67–74.Google 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. In press.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. E. and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum). Weed Sci. 28:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Control of five broadleaf weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:291–296.Google Scholar
Seber, G.A.F. and Wild, C. J. 1989. Nonlinear Regression. New York: Wiley and Sons. 768 p.Google 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
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. W. 1997. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997a. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1997b. Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci. 45:378–381.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. 1980. Models for curve-fitting herbicide dose response data. Acta Agric. Scand. 30:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1997. Weed management strategies in glufosinate resistant and glyphosate resistant corn. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 52:64.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531–536.Google Scholar