Genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant crops have been widely adopted by farmers in the United States and other countries around the world, and these crops have caused significant changes in herbicide use patterns. GE crops have been blamed for increased problems with herbicide-resistant weeds (colloquially called by the misnomer “superweeds”); however, there has been no rigorous analysis of herbicide use or herbicide-resistant weed evolution to quantify the impact of GE crops on herbicide resistance. Here, I analyze data from the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds and the USDA and demonstrate that adoption of GE corn varieties did not reduce herbicide diversity, and therefore likely did not increase selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weeds in that crop. Adoption of GE herbicide-resistant varieties substantially reduced herbicide diversity in cotton and soybean. Increased glyphosate use in cotton and soybean largely displaced herbicides that are more likely to select for herbicide-resistant weeds, which at least partially mitigated the impact of reduced herbicide diversity. The overall rate of newly confirmed herbicide-resistant weed species to all herbicide sites of action (SOAs) has slowed in the United States since 2005. Although the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds has increased since 1998, the evolution of new glyphosate-resistant weed species as a function of area sprayed has remained relatively low compared with several other commonly used herbicide SOAs.

Herbicide-resistant crops (HRCs) have been used extensively during the past five decades, because crop tolerance is necessary for a selective herbicide. In the past, chemical company personnel screened a large number of organic compounds against a limited number of major crop and weed species to discover HRCs. Now a single herbicide can be evaluated for crop selectivity against a great number of biotypes of a single crop in tissue culture, or sometimes gene transfer can be used to produce tolerant genotypes. Thus, one can now choose an environmentally “benign” herbicide and search for or develop resistant crop cultivars. The advantages of these new HRCs are: (a) solutions may be more easily found for difficult weed management problems, (b) growers are more apt to use integrated weed management when they have effective backup weed control procedures if cultural or mechanical methods fail, (c) increased weed management options for growers of minor crops, (d) economic advantages to growers, and (e) increased use of more environmentally “benign” herbicides. Concerns about HRCs include: (a) these weed management procedures do not eliminate herbicides, (b) some believe biotechnology should not further herbicide use, (c) HRCs may become weeds, (d) this approach may facilitate less ecological diversity, (e) HRCs may increase herbicide use, (f) it could result in more herbicide carryover by facilitating the use of environmentally “harsh” herbicides, (g) HRCs may be less competitive to weeds, and (h) dependence on HRCs may decrease the weed control practices that a farmer uses. One needs to consider both the benefits and risks of HRCs to properly evaluate this technology.

Field experiments were conducted in North Carolina from 1994 through 1998 to evaluate the effects of five weed management strategies and four corn (Zea mays)–peanut (Arachis hypogaea) rotation sequences on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population development. Effects of these weed management programs on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and peanut production in following years were also investigated. Herbicide programs included a nontreated control, a carbamothioate preplant incorporated (PPI) combination treatment utilizing vernolate in peanut and butylate in corn, an early postemergence (EPOST) acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor combination treatment utilizing imazapic in peanut and halosulfuron in corn, and EPOST treatments of imazapic and imazethapyr in both peanut and imidazolinone-resistant corn. Crop rotation sequences for the 3 yr included continuous corn (CCC), corn–peanut–corn (CPC), peanut–corn–peanut (PCP), and continuous peanut (PPP). The imazapic and ALS inhibitor combination treatments both provided excellent shoot and tuber control. After 3 yr, imazapic and the ALS inhibitor combination treatment reduced shoot and tuber population densities to less than 10% of the nontreated control. Imazethapyr provided variable but better control than the carbamothioate treatment with tuber densities (measured from 0 to 15 cm soil depth) and shoot densities increasing from 733 to 2,901 tubers/m3 of soil and 16 to 43 shoots/m2, respectively, after 3 yr. Tuber densities increased in the nontreated control from 626 to 9,145 tubers/m3 of soil and from 962 to 5,466 tubers/m3 of soil in the carbamothioate treatment during this same period. Also, shoot densities increased in the nontreated control from 22 to 159 shoots/m2 and from 8 to 92 shoots/m2 in the carbamothioate treatment. There was a 31% peanut yield reduction from 1994 to 1996 when peanut was continuously planted or rotated to corn for only 1 yr. Herbicide carryover effects were not observed in cotton during 1997.

An experiment was conducted at four locations in North Carolina during 1994 and 1995 to evaluate weed control, cotton yield, fiber quality, and net returns in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton. The experiment focused on using bromoxynil or pyrithiobac sodium applied early POST over-the-top as alternatives to fluometuron plus MSMA applied early POST directed. Fluometuron plus MSMA was more effective than bromoxynil or pyrithiobac sodium on tall morningglory, large crabgrass, goosegrass, and broadleaf signalgrass. Bromoxynil and fluometuron plus MSMA were similarly effective on common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and eclipta and more effective than pyrithiobac sodium. Pyrithiobac sodium and fluometuron plus MSMA were similarly effective on smooth pigweed and Palmer amaranth and more effective than bromoxynil. Prickly sida control by bromoxynil and pyrithiobac sodium was equal to or greater than control by fluometuron plus MSMA. All early POST herbicides controlled pitted morningglory similarly. Regardless of the early POST herbicides used, fluometuron applied PRE and cyanazine plus MSMA applied late POST directed increased control of most weeds and increased cotton yield and net returns. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac sodium effectively substituted for fluometuron plus MSMA only in systems that included fluometuron applied PRE and cyanazine plus MSMA applied late POST directed. Effects of herbicide systems on cotton fiber quality were minor.

Farmers need information on herbicide technology and crop performance to assess the profitability of new herbicide-resistant crop technologies. First-generation imazethapyr-resistant corn hybrids evaluated at the University of Wisconsin yielded less than other commercial hybrids. To determine if this resistance trait affected yield or agronomic traits, 10 near-isogenic pairs of imazethapyr-resistant and -susceptible corn hybrids were compared. Whether treated with imazethapyr or not, imazethapyr-resistant hybrids yielded the same when averaged across hybrids, although yield varied among a few individual hybrids within single experiments. Seven of the imazethaypr-resistant hybrids yielded the same, two yield more, and one yielded less than their susceptible near-isogenic counterpart during eight site-years. Grain moisture was not affected, but imazethapyr-resistant hybrids had fewer broken stalks than did susceptible hybrids. The imazethapyr resistance trait does not appear to affect yield potential, but the backcrossing procedure may have caused early resistant hybrids to lag behind in yield compared to other new hybrids.

The effect of bromoxynil on large crabgrass control by clethodim, sethoxydim, fluazifop-P, fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P, and quizalofop-P was evaluated in 1996 and 1997 in bromoxynil-tolerant cotton and in fallow areas. Bromoxynil at 560 g ai/ha reduced large crabgrass control 4 weeks after treatment (WAT) when mixed with labeled rates of fluazifop-P, fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P, or quizalofop-P. Control 9 WAT was reduced when bromoxynil was mixed with any of the graminicides. Antagonism with the mixtures was greatest with quizalofop-P, intermediate with fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P and fluazifop-P, and least with clethodim and sethoxydim. Increasing the graminicide rate 50% in mixtures with bromoxynil alleviated antagonism only for clethodim. No antagonism was noted 9 WAT when bromoxynil was applied 3 d before or 3 d after application of clethodim or sethoxydim or when bromoxynil was applied 3 d after fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P. Antagonism was observed when bromoxynil was applied 3 d before fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P or when applied 3 d before or 3 d after fluazifop-P and quizalofop-P. Regardless of bromoxynil application, greatest yields were obtained from cotton treated with clethodim or sethoxydim. Bromoxynil applied 3 d before or 3 d after clethodim, sethoxydim, or fluazifop-P plus fenoxaprop-P did not reduce yield. Yield was reduced when bromoxynil was applied 3 d before or 3 d after application of fluazifop-P or quizalofop-P and when bromoxynil was mixed with any graminicide.

Field trials were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine the influence of glufosinate and glyphosate application rates, application timings, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn yield. Glufosinate-ammonium rates ranged from 0.18 to 0.41 kg ai/ha, while rates for the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate ranged from 0.21 to 0.84 kg ae/ha. Increasing rates of glufosinate and glyphosate often improved weed control. Control of many of the weed species was improved by delaying herbicide application timing. Weed control was most consistent from late postemergence (LPOST) applications of glufosinate at 0.41 kg ai/ha or glyphosate at 0.84 kg ae/ha. Corn yields were reduced due to incomplete weed control when the lowest rate of glufosinate was applied. Weed control from early postemergence (EPOST) glufosinate and glyphosate applications followed by cultivation was similar to weed control from LPOST glufosinate and glyphosate applications without cultivation. Interrow cultivation following glufosinate or glyphosate application did not affect corn yield.

Imidazolinone herbicides injure currently available commercial field corn cultivars; however, cultivars resistant to these herbicides have been developed. Sicklepod, Texas panicum, and annual morningglory control using AC 263,222 (36 and 72 g ai/ha), imazethapyr (36 and 72 g ai/ha), or nicosulfuron (35 g ai/ha) applied POST at 2,4, and 6 wk after planting were evaluated in imidazolinone-tolerant corn. Studies were conducted at Attapulgus and Plains, Georgia from 1992 through 1993. Nicosulfuron and AC 263,222 at 72 g/ha controlled Texas panicum at least 87% when applied 2 wk after planting. Imazethapyr did not consistently control Texas panicum or sicklepod, regardless of application rate. AC 263,222 at both rates and nicosulfuron controlled sicklepod at least 86% when applied 2 wk after planting; however, later application or application under dry conditions generally resulted in reduced control. All herbicides controlled the entireleaf and pitted morningglory complex at least 84% when applied 2 wk after planting. Imidazolinone-tolerant corn was tolerant to all herbicides, regardless of rate and timing, and generally yielded greater when weeds were controlled early in the season.

A field trial was conducted for 3 yr (2005 through 2007) near Scottsbluff, NE, to examine weed control, crop safety, forage production, and economics of glyphosate-tolerant and conventional alfalfa establishment systems. Glyphosate applied to alfalfa at the unifoliate growth stage provided 67% weed control and was similar to imazamox applied at the two-trifoliate leaf stage. Delaying glyphosate application until alfalfa had reached the two-trifoliate growth stage improved weed control to 83%, and weed control was similar to imazamox plus 2,4-DB and imazethapyr plus 2,4-DB. Imazamox and imazethapyr caused minor crop injury, and the addition of bromoxynil or 2,4-DB to both herbicides further decreased crop safety. Weeds were most competitive with the first forage harvest and reduced relative feed value, crude protein, and value (dollars per t) of forage compared to forage that had been treated with herbicides. The total forage yield for the season consisted of three forage harvests and was greatest when no herbicides were applied. The total forage yield of plots treated with glyphosate at the two-trifoliate growth stage was greater than that of plots treated with imazamox or imazethapyr in combination with bromoxynil. When glyphosate was applied at the two-trifoliate growth stage, seasonal forage yield was similar to forage treated with imazamox, imazethapyr, or both herbicides in combination with 2,4-DB. When herbicide was applied to alfalfa at the two-trifoliate growth stage, the net return from using glyphosate with a glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa variety or utilizing imazamox with a conventional alfalfa variety were similar at $742 and $743/ha, respectively.

The level of past industry participation in registering herbicide minor crop uses has been a function of active ingredient discovery output and the combination of incentives and barriers that drive minor use registration decisions. Over the past 10 yr there have been several external factors negatively impacting the rate of new herbicide introductions by industry. These include industry consolidation, a decrease in the global value of the conventional herbicide market, adoption of Herbicide-Resistant Crop (HRC) technology, a substantial increase in required regulatory activity primarily through reregistration programs, and increased costs of discovery research and product development. The increased cost of conducting business in an increasingly competitive market has undoubtedly influenced herbicide registrants to adopt different discovery strategies. Economics dictate registration efforts only towards crops that will create a significant, positive return on investment. In most cases, development of new herbicides for minor crops is not economically viable due to low or negative return on investment and disproportionate liability risk. Therefore, to motivate increased participation, companies need incentives and mechanisms to mitigate risk and registration barriers. Increased data protection and the Interregional Project 4 (IR-4) program, a cooperative government program with the goal of developing data to support regulatory clearances of pest control products for specialty crops, are current government programs in place that provide incentives and defray cost. Other incentives should be explored to make minor crops more attractive targets. However, product registration, liability risk, and dedicating the necessary resources to adequately research crop selectivity are still major economic barriers. Creative solutions that ensure companies are not unreasonably exposed to yield loss claims would remove a primary reason why companies are reluctant to register herbicides for minor crops.

Field experiments were conducted near Scottsbluff, NE, in 2001 and 2002 to compare economic aspects of glyphosate applied to different glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivars with that of conventional herbicide programs applied to near-equivalent, non–glyphosate-resistant conventional cultivars. Glyphosate applied two or three times at 2-wk intervals, beginning when weeds were 10 cm tall, provided excellent weed control, yield, and net economic return regardless of the glyphosate-resistant sugar beet cultivar. All conventional herbicide treatments resulted in similar net economic returns. Although the conventional sugar beet cultivars ‘HM 1640’ and ‘Beta 4546’ responded similarly to herbicide treatments with respect to sucrose content, ‘Beta 4546RR’ produced roots with 1% more sucrose than ‘HM 1640RR’. When averaged over herbicide treatments, a producer planting Beta 4546RR could afford to pay US $185/ha more for glyphosate-resistant technology as could a producer planting HM 1640RR. When averaged over cultivars and herbicide treatments, it is estimated that a producer could afford to pay an additional US $385/ha for glyphosate-resistant technology without decreasing net return.

Field trials were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to determine the effect of delayed burndown timings on weed control and yield of no-tillage glyphosate-resistant corn planted into soybean residue and into a wheat cover crop. Burndown treatments containing glyphosate were applied to both trials when the corn was planted (PRE), when the corn began to emerge (SPIKE), or when the corn had three visible leaves (3-LEAF). As burndown timing was delayed, velvetleaf control increased in corn planted into soybean residue. Glyphosate applied at 0.84 kg ae/ha at the SPIKE or 3-LEAF timing followed by a sequential application of glyphosate at 0.84 kg/ha controlled velvetleaf 91% and corn yields were similar to the weed-free plots. Corn yields among the burndown treatments were directly related to velvetleaf control. In the wheat cover crop trial, wheat treated at the PRE timing was completely controlled and corn yields were similar to the weed-free plots. As burndown timings were delayed, corn emergence and yields were severely reduced. Glyphosate applied at 0.84 kg/ha to 25-cm-wide strips over the corn row at planting and followed with delayed burndown timings increased corn emergence and yield.

Over a decade ago, the Weed Science Society of America sponsored a symposium on the then emerging technology of herbicide-tolerant crops (HTCs). The symposium and subsequent proceedings addressed potential benefits and concerns about that new technology to control weeds. Technological, biological, and ethical questions were addressed that were likely to emerge from the widespread adoption of HTCs. It was suggested at that time that if such questions were answered, HTC development would proceed on a more solid foundation, whereas continued uncertainty and criticism would probably result if the questions were not answered. We now review developments in HTC technology. Questions and concerns posed one decade ago are still pertinent, but current knowledge is still insufficient to address them. Adoption of HTC has risen dramatically since their commercial introduction, but there is still no evidence of associated production cost reductions or enhanced yields

Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in bromoxynil-resistant Stoneville BXN 47 cotton. Herbicide systems that included clomazone preemergence (PRE) controlled broadleaf signalgrass, common lambsquarters, common ragweed, goosegrass, large crabgrass, and prickly sida greater than 88%. Inconsistent Palmer amaranth control was observed with the addition of fomesafen PRE to clomazone PRE and pendimethalin preplant-incorporated (PPI) herbicide systems. Addition of bromoxynil early postemergence (EPOST) to clomazone and pendimethalin systems increased ivyleaf morningglory control to greater than 84% and provided higher yields than did the same systems without bromoxynil. Bromoxynil EPOST followed by (fb) cyanazine + MSMA late postemergence directed (LAYBY) improved weed control in clomazone and pendimethalin systems. Clomazone PRE and pendimethalin PPI with or without fomesafen PRE fb bromoxynil EPOST fb LAYBY herbicides controlled weeds and yielded equivalent to the standard herbicide system of pendimethalin PPI fb fluometuron PRE fb bromoxynil EPOST fb LAYBY.

The significance of glyphosate and the appearance of glyphosate-resistant weeds have raised concerns about glyphosate sustainability. Resistance-prevention strategies, however, should first consider the mechanisms for resistance. For example, target-site resistance can provide virtual immunity, ensuring that every herbicide application successfully selects for resistance. However, metabolism and exclusion mechanisms provide lower magnitudes of resistance and are dependent on dosage. This discussion proposes that the relative risk of weed resistance is most highly correlated to mode of action (MOA), due to the respective principal mechanism for resistance. The development of data correlating agronomic practices with weed resistance vs. herbicide/MOA choices will be critical to the design of effective prevention strategies. Because resistance to glyphosate in weeds is typically of a low magnitude, using a high-dose strategy should minimize the potential for the selection of resistance and thus help to make the use of glyphosate sustainable. Maximizing weed control is the key to successful agronomic practice with limited weed resistance.

Considerable discussion has occurred among the weed science community regarding the potential benefits and limitations of integrated approaches to crop and pest management. This discussion also needs to occur in our weed science classrooms, where students from a wide range of academic disciplines are trained in the fundamentals of weed ecology and management. Although the inherent complexity of integrated crop and pest management can make this adaptation to our weed science courses challenging, the use of experiential learning techniques provides an effective means to promote understanding and retention of these concepts. This paper outlines several classroom activities based on the experiential learning approaches that have been implemented by the authors. The activities focus on (1) weed identification and natural history, (2) weed population processes, and (3) integrated management systems. For each activity, we offer our rationale for the exercise, an example of its implementation in the classroom setting, potential pitfalls, and student feedback regarding their perceptions of the activity's educational value. With this paper, we hope to provide examples that may be useful to other weed science educators wishing to incorporate more experiential learning activities into their courses and to initiate a dialogue between educators that can help our community improve and enliven weed science education.

Weed management strategies are needed to control weeds in corn that emerge after postemergence (POST) application of glyphosate or glufosinate. Field trials were conducted from 1996 to 1999 to determine if residual herbicides could be used with glyphosate or glufosinate to provide season-long weed control in glyphosate-resistant or glufosinate-resistant corn. Preemergence (PRE) applications of several residual herbicides followed by POST applications of glyphosate or glufosinate were compared with POST tank mixtures of glyphosate or glufosinate with residual herbicides. All residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate, when compared with glyphosate alone, increased control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters by an average of 20% and resulted in a 4 to 19% increase in control of giant foxtail. Each residual herbicide tank mixture with glufosinate, when compared with glufosinate alone, increased control of common ragweed and giant foxtail. In most instances, weed control was similar for total POST and for PRE followed by POST systems. Velvetleaf control was reduced by 12% when glyphosate was tank mixed with a half rate of atrazine compared with a full rate of atrazine. Common lambsquarters control was reduced by 13% when glyphosate was tank mixed with a half vs. a full rate of acetochlor. Glufosinate tank mixed with half rates of acetochlor + atrazine, flumetsulam, or pendimethalin reduced control of velvetleaf compared with the full rate of these products. Corn yields were not affected by residual herbicide application timings or rates of residual herbicides.

Studies were conducted in 2005 and 2006 at three Iowa locations to determine the effect of soybean seeding rate and glyphosate application timing on weed management and grain yields in glyphosate-resistant soybean. End-of-season weed populations were affected by soybean seeding rate at only one location, with higher weed densities present in the lowest seeding rate when glyphosate was applied at the V2 soybean growth stage. Although weed populations were not consistently affected by soybean population, weed biomass present at soybean harvest was inversely related to soybean population. At the location with the highest weed populations, no single glyphosate application provided yields equivalent to the weed-free control. At the other locations, glyphosate application timing did not affect soybean yield. Lower soybean yields occurred with 240,000 seed/ha compared with 420,000 seed/ha at all locations and with 300,000 seed/ha at two locations.

Management of corn (Zea mays) row spacings and populations has been used for many years to increase corn productivity. In 1998 and 1999, nonirrigated corn was grown in 38-, 56-, and 76-cm row spacings at populations averaging 59,300, 72,900, and 83,900 plants/ha in Michigan. Glufosinate at 0.29 kg/ha was applied to common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) averaging 5 cm in height in each plot. Corn population and row spacing did not influence weed emergence following application of glufosinate. Common lambsquarters biomass and seed production were reduced when grown under canopies of corn planted in populations exceeding 72,900 plants/ha. Common lambsquarters biomass was reduced as corn row spacings were reduced from 76 to 38 cm. Early-season interception of photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) by corn canopies increased as row spacings decreased, but differences were not apparent later in the season. Interception of PAR was similar throughout the season when corn populations exceeded 72,900 plants/ha. Corn yields were not affected by row spacing, but they were increased with corn populations of 72,900 plants/ha or higher.