Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:31:23.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus) Response and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
Paul L. Raymer  and
David C. Bridges
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
Paul L. Raymer
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, University of Georgia, Georgia Experiment Station, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tgrey@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate weed control in herbicide-resistant canola in Georgia. The resistant canola cultivars and respective herbicides were ‘Pioneer 45A76’ and imazamox, ‘Hyola 357RR’ and glyphosate, and ‘2573 Invigor’ and glufosinate. Weed seed of Italian ryegrass and wild radish were sown simultaneously in October with canola and control of these species was evaluated along with other naturally occurring weeds. Herbicide treatments for the respective herbicide-resistant canola cultivar were imazamox at 0.035 and 0.071 kg ai/ha, glyphosate at 0.84 and 1.64 kg ae/ha, and glufosinate at 0.5 and 1.0 kg ai/ha. Herbicides were applied at one– two-leaf (LF) and three–four-LF canola stages. There was no significant injury to any canola cultivar as a result of herbicide rate or timing of application. By midseason (February), imazamox effectively controlled wild radish, henbit, and shepherd's-purse at both rates and at both timings. When applied to three–four-LF canola, the higher rates of glyphosate and glufosinate were required to provide 75% or greater control of Italian ryegrass, wild garlic, and henbit. Glufosinate did not adequately control wild radish at either rate or application timing. Greenhouse experiments provided similar results.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosateimazamoxhenbit, Lamium amplexicaule L. #3 LAMAMItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. # LOLMUwild garlic, Allium vineale L. # ALLVIwild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum L. # RAPRAshepherd's-purse Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medicus., # CAPBPand canola, Brassica napus L. # BRSNS, ‘Pioneer 45A76’, ‘Hyola 357RR’, and ‘2573 Invigor’Canola injurycanola yieldsusceptibility to herbicidesherbicide resistanceherbicide toleranceLF, leaf stage of growthDAP, days after plantingIRC, imidazolinone-resistant canola
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 551 - 557
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

Bech, R. A. 2001. Response to Monsanto Petition 98–216–01p for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Glyphosate-Tolerant Canola Line RT73. http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/product_information_USDAcanola.html?OpenPage#II.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 16:267–273.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1998. Differential tolerance of wild radish and canola to herbicides. in Buntin, G. D., ed. Assessment of Crop Protectants for Use in Canola. Athens, GA: University of Georgia College of Agriculture & Environmental Science Research Bulletin Number 435. 55 p.Google Scholar
Clemmer, K. C., York, A. C., and Browne, C. 2004. Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflourm) control in imidazolinone-resistant wheat. Weed Technol. 18:481–489.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, J. L., McVetty, P. B., Freyssinet, G., and Freyssinet, M. 2001. Comparison of the performance of bormoxynil-resistant and suceptible near-isogenic populations of oilseed rape. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:367–372.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: Wiley. Pp. 108–115.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., Kirkland, K. J., Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. 2000. Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:647–654.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:433–440.Google Scholar
Hoogenboom, G. 2004. Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network. http://www.griffin.uga.edu./aemn/.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1980. Postemergence winter weed control in bermudagrass turf. Weed Sci. 28:385–932.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Warren, L. S. Jr., Miller, D. K., Smith, M. C., Reynolds, D. B., Crawford, S. H., and Griffin, J. L. 2001. Italian ryegrass control with preplant herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 5:268–274.Google Scholar
Kumar, A., Rakow, G., and Downey, R. K. 1998. Genetic characterization of glufosinate-ammonium tolerant summer rape lines. Crop Sci. 38:1489–1494.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, A. R. and Preston, C. 2005. Low temperature reduces glufosinate activity and translocation in wild radish. Weed Sci. 53:10–16.Google Scholar
McMullan, P. M., Daun, J. K., and DeClercq, D. R. 1994. Effect of wild mustard competition on yield and quality of triazine-tolerant and triazine-susceptible canola. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:369–374.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. R. 1996. Efficacy of non-selective herbicides for winter annual weed control in bermudagrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:78–79.Google Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 16:388–395.Google Scholar
Parker, G. B., Mitchell, A. H., Hart, J. L., Padgette, S. R., Fedele, J. J., Barry, G. F., Didier, D. K., Re, D. B., Eicholtz, D. A., Kishore, G. M., and Delannay, X. 1991. Development of canola genetically modified to tolerate Roundup herbicide. in Agronomy Abstracts. Madison, WI: ASA. P. 199.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT* User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 pp.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. B., Herrgesell, M. J., Arnolodo, M., Sippell, D. W., and Wong, R. S. C. 1989. Microspore mutagenesis and selection: canola plants with field tolerance to the imidazolinones. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78:525–530.Google Scholar
Tan, S., Evans, R. R., Dahmer, M. L., Singh, B. K., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future. Pest. Manage. Sci. 61:246–257.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO). 2003. US, Canada and Argentina Request Panel to Examine EU Moratorium on Biotech Products. http://www.wto.org.Google Scholar