Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:07:19.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Spring and Fall Burndown Application Timings on Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in No-Till Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lucas N. Owen ,
Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Cliford H. Koger ,
Christopher L. Main  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Lucas N. Owen
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Cliford H. Koger
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Education Center, Mississippi State University, 82 Stoneville Road, P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38776
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN 37920
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lsteckel@utk.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate fall applications of herbicides to control glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed before planting cotton. Fall treatments were compared with spring treatments for control of GR horseweed and effect on seed cotton yield. Fall and spring treatments with and without residual herbicides were also compared. No differences were observed for control of GR horseweed or seed cotton yield between fall and spring application timings. However, a difference was observed between fall applications with and without a residual herbicide. Fall applications that contained residual herbicides provided 86% control of GR horseweed and yielded 2,360 kg/ha of seed cotton. Fall applications that did not contain a residual herbicide only provided 70% control of GR horseweed and yielded 2,010 kg/ha of seed cotton. No benefit was observed from spring applications that contained a residual herbicide. This research indicates that glyphosate-resistant horseweed can be controlled with fall- or spring-applied burndown herbicides, and fall applications should include a residual herbicide for best results.

Keywords

Dicambadiuronflumioxazinfomesafentrifloxysulfuronglufosinateglyphosateparaquatprometrynhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq ERICACotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘PhytoGen 485 WRF’Burndown
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 335 - 339
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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate–ammonium. Weed Res 33:139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Envoke® herbicide produce label: Section 2ee. Syngenta Crop Protection. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 1132A-L2C 1106. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta. 1.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza canadensis . Weed Technol 2:269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 45:98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and DeFelice, M. S. 1991. Timing of chlorimuron and imazaquin application for weed control in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 39:232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:655–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasty, R. F., Sprague, C. L., and Hager, A. G. 2004. Weed control with fall and early preplant herbicide applications in no-till soybean. Weed Technol 18:887–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2008. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: February 27, 2008.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant (Conyza canadensis) horseweed in Mississippi. Weed Technol 18:820–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Young, B. G., and Mathews, J. L. 2003. Winter annual weed control with fall applied corn (Zea mays) herbicides. Weed Technol 17:516–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoczki, E., Laskay, G., Gaal, I., and Szigeti, Z. 1992. Mode of action of paraquat in leaves of paraquat-resistant Conyza canadensis . Plant Cell Environ 15:531–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem 52:879–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, C. L., Steckel, L. E., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2006. Biotic and abiotic factors influence horseweed emergence. Weed Sci 54:1101–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monnig, N. and Bradley, K. W. 2007. Influence of fall and early spring herbicide applications on winter and summer annual weed populations in no-till soybean. Weed Technol 21:724–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moomaw, R. S. and Martin, A. R. 1985. Herbicide evaluations for no-till soybean (Glycine max) production in corn (Zea mays) residue. Weed Sci 33:679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem 51:680–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandula, V. K., Eubank, T. W., Koger, C. H., and Reddy, K. N. 2006. Factors affecting germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 54:898–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regehr, D. L. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The population dynamics of Erigeron canadensis, a successful winter annual. J. Ecol 67:923–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sensemen, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 335.Google Scholar
Smisek, A., Doucet, C., Jones, M., and Weaver, S. 1998. Paraquat resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex County, Ontario. Weed Sci 46:200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Culpepper, S. 2006. Impact and management of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the southern region. Pages 46. in. Proceedings of the Fifth National IPM Symposium. Washington, DC: Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Brown, B., Main, C., Hayes, R. M., Mueller, T. C., Rhodes, G. N., Sims, B. D., McClure, A. M., and Ellis, A. 2008. Weed Control Manual for Tennessee Field Crops, Forage Crops, Pastures, Farm Ponds and Harvest Aids. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, Publication No. PB1580. 199.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 20:1047–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. M. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, A., Sauer, H., and Rhule, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis, I: inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Naturforsch 42:263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar