Monitoring herbicide-resistant weeds makes it possible to study the evolution and spread of resistance, which provides important information for their management. The objective of this study was to map fleabane accessions in the states of Paraná (PR) and Mato Grosso do Sul (MS), Brazil, to identify herbicide-resistant accessions and their response to soybean preplant chemical burndown management strategies. Fleabane seeds were collected in agricultural areas in PR and MS in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Initial screening was performed for glyphosate, chlorimuron, paraquat, 2,4-D, saflufenacil, and glufosinate efficacy. Subsequently, dose-response experiments were conducted. Field experiments were carried out in three locations, where accessions of multiple herbicide–resistant Sumatran fleabane were identified. Herbicides were used in single or sequential applications at three plant heights (<5 cm, 5 to 10 cm, and >10 cm). After preliminary screening, accessions were classified as putative resistant (<80% control for all four replicates), segregated (<80% control for one to three replicates), or susceptible (>80% control for all four replicates). There was no evidence of resistance to glufosinate or saflufenacil in any of the 461 accessions, while 65 demonstrated possible resistance or segregation to glyphosate only, 235 to glyphosate + chlorimuron, 79 to glyphosate + chlorimuron + paraquat, 59 to glyphosate + chlorimuron + 2,4-D, and 23 with four-way resistance (glyphosate, chlorimuron, paraquat, and 2,4-D). Of these 23 accessions, seven were analyzed using dose-response curves (F2 generation), all from PR, confirming four-way resistance to glyphosate, chlorimuron, paraquat, and 2,4-D. To control resistant Sumatran fleabane, an application should prioritize smaller plants. Despite resistance to 2,4-D, double mixtures containing this herbicide were among the most effective treatments in plants <5 cm in height. If a sequential application is needed for plants >5 cm in height, we recommend glyphosate + synthetic auxin followed by glufosinate or glyphosate + saflufenacil.

Foliar herbicide applications to waterhemp can result in inadequate control, leading to subsequent regrowth that often necessitates a second herbicide application to prevent crop interference and seed production. The most effective herbicides and application timings are unknown in situations where waterhemp has regrown from previous injury, such as failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen. The objective of this research was to determine the optimum combination of herbicide and time from the first failed herbicide application to a sequential herbicide application for control of waterhemp regrowth. Reduced rates of either glufosinate or fomesafen were applied to 30-cm waterhemp plants to mimic failure of the initial herbicide application in separate bare-ground experiments. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, or dicamba were applied 3, 7, or 11 d after the initial application. Glufosinate and fomesafen as respray treatments resulted in 90% to 100% control of waterhemp regardless of application timing following a failed glufosinate application. After a failed application of fomesafen, applying glufosinate or 2,4-D resulted in 87% to 99% control of waterhemp. Waterhemp control with fomesafen and lactofen was 13% to 21% greater, respectively, when those treatments followed glufosinate compared with fomesafen as the initial herbicides. On the basis of these results, glufosinate and fomesafen should be used for respray situations after inadequate control from glufosinate; and 2,4-D or glufosinate should be used for respray situations following inadequate control from fomesafen where crop tolerance and herbicide product labels allow. Although glufosinate followed by glufosinate was very effective for controlling waterhemp regrowth, caution should be exercised to avoid sequential application of herbicide with the same site of action.

A field study was conducted in 2015 and 2016 at the H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station near Crowley, Louisiana, to evaluate the interactions of quizalofop and a mixture of propanil plus thiobencarb applied sequentially or mixed to control weedy rice and barnyardgrass. Visual weed control evaluations occurred at 14, 28, and 42 d after treatment (DAT). Quizalofop was applied at 120 g ai ha−1 at 7, 3, and 1 d before and after propanil plus thiobencarb were each applied at 3,360 g ai ha−1. In addition, quizalofop was applied alone and in a mixture with propanil plus thiobencarb at day 0. Control of red rice ‘CL-111’ and ‘CLXL-745’ was greater than 91% when quizalofop was applied alone at day 0, similar to control for quizalofop applied 7, 3, and 1 d prior to propanil plus thiobencarb at all evaluation dates. Control of the same weeds treated with quizalofop plus propanil plus thiobencarb applied in a mixture at day 0 was 70% to 76% at each evaluation date, similar to quizalofop applied 1 or 3 d after propanil plus thiobencarb. A similar trend in control of barnyardgrass by 88% to 97% occurred when quizalofop was applied alone and by 48% to 53% at 14, 28, and 42 DAT when the mixture was used. ‘PVL01’ rough rice yield was 4,060 kg ha−1 when treated with quizalofop alone; however, yield was reduced to 3,180 kg ha−1 when it was treated with quizalofop mixed with propanil plus thiobencarb at day 0, similar to PVL01 rice treated with quizalofop 1 or 3 d following the propanil plus thiobencarb application.

Quackgrass is a serious weed problem in the northern United States and southern Canada. Field experiments were conducted in 1990 and 1991 to examine the effect of herbicide rate, application timing, quackgrass growth stage, and cultivation on quackgrass control with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in corn. Nicosulfuron (35 g ai/ha) and primisulfuron (40 g ai/ha) each provided 84% or greater control of two-leaf plants and 93% or greater control of four-leaf quackgrass plants. Sequential applications of both nicosulfuron and primisulfuron provided greater season-long control than single applications of the same rate on two-leaf but not four-leaf quackgrass. Cultivation 10 d after nicosulfuron or primisulfuron application often increased early-season control, but by corn harvest few differences were observed. Postemergence (POST) applications of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron provided at least 88% control, compared with 66 to 86% from an early preplant application of glyphosate. Corn yields were similar regardless of the quackgrass control program.

Largeleaf lantana is a perennial shrub that commonly infests pastures, roadsides, and natural areas. Many experiments have been conducted to manage this weed, but few successful herbicides have been found. Little information is available for the effectiveness of fluroxypyr, aminopyralid, or aminocyclopyrachlor on largeleaf lantana. Experiments were conducted in central Florida on dense, natural infestations of largeleaf lantana. Aminopyralid (0.12 kg ha−1), fluroxypyr (0.56 kg ha−1), and aminocyclopyrachlor (0.2 kg ha−1) were either applied in the fall (approximately 2 mo before frost) or in the fall followed by a spring application. Aminopyralid was ineffective on largeleaf lantana, and neither one nor two applications resulted in > 20% control 1 yr after treatment (YAT). Fluroxypyr applied once in the fall resulted in 12% control at 1 YAT, but two applications resulted in 80% control after 1 yr. The combination of fluroxypyr + aminopyralid, applied twice, resulted in approximately 90% control 1 YAT. A single application of fluroxypyr + aminopyralid failed to provide greater than 20% control. Conversely, aminocyclopyrachlor applied once in the fall provided 98% control of largeleaf at 1 YAT. Where aminocyclopyrachlor was applied twice, largeleaf lantana control was 100%. From these data, largeleaf lantana can be effectively controlled by two applications of fluroxypyr, two applications of fluroxypyr + aminopyralid, or a single application of aminocyclopyrachlor. Individual plant treatments were also investigated using herbicides applied as basal or cut surface applications. At 1 YAT, only triclopyr + aminopyralid provided > 90% control as a basal application. The other herbicide combinations appeared to be effective earlier, but significant regrowth had occurred by 1 YAT. Cut surface applications were similar with triclopyr + aminopyralid and triclopyr + fluroxypyr providing effective control. Neither triclopyr alone nor imazapyr provided effective control for 1 YAT with basal or cut surface applications.

Fresh market spinach has limited herbicides available and weed management in this crop is dependent on hand-weeding. Phenmedipham is a POST herbicide registered for use on spinach grown for processing or for seed, but not fresh market spinach. This study evaluates the potential use of phenmedipham alone and in combination with cycloate for weed control in fresh spinach production. Greenhouse and field studies were conducted in 2013 using two spinach varieties known to have low and high tolerance to phenmedipham. The greenhouse studies showed that phenmedipham at 270 and 550 g ai ha−1 was safe to spinach when applied at the four-leaf stage for the low- and high-tolerance varieties, respectively. Phenmedipham was evaluated alone (550 g ha−1) and applied to the four-leaf stage in two varieties. Subsequently, a second experiment evaluated cycloate (1,700 g ha−1) followed by (fb) phenmedipham at several rates (90, 180, and 270 g ha−1). Phenmedipham alone (550 g ha−1) did not result in crop injury when applied to four-leaf spinach; however, the weed control was not better than cycloate alone. When applied as a sequential treatment following cycloate, all phenmedipham rates were safe to spinach and significantly improved weed control compared to cycloate alone. Cycloate fb phenmedipham at 270 g ha−1 provided 87% weed control relative to cycloate alone. This level of weed control was similar to the cycloate plus hand-weeding treatment, which provided 98% control. Results here show that cycloate fb phenmedipham improves weed control compared to cycloate alone, and has the potential to reduce hand-weeding costs in the fresh spinach production.

Smutgrass, a native of tropical Asia, is a perennial weed that affects many improved perennial grass pastures in Florida and throughout the southeastern United States. The two varieties of smutgrass predominant in Florida are small smutgrass and giant smutgrass. Three field experiments were conducted from 2008 to 2012 to evaluate the effect of integrated long-term management strategies using both cultural and herbicide inputs for giant smutgrass control in bahiagrass pastures. Burning did not have a significant impact on long-term control. In 2011, no differences were observed when hexazinone was integrated with tillage or hexazinone was combined with supplemental nitrogen compared with sequential or single applications of hexazinone. However, cultural treatments that preceded hexazinone application compared with those that received two sequential applications of hexazinone had lower smutgrass control 36 mo after treatment. Data indicate that a sequential application of hexazinone may be better than implementing tillage. Sequential hexazinone applications, when applied at 0.56 kg ai ha−1 or greater, resulted in similar or increased control as compared with single applications. Collectively, these data suggest that sequential applications of hexazinone may be most effective for smutgrass management, and cultural techniques, including tillage, should be followed by hexazinone application the following year.

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate possible interactions of clethodim with imazapic applied as mixtures or sequentially for control of broadleaf signalgrass, fall panicum, goosegrass, and large crabgrass. Imazapic at 70 g ai/ha alone controlled grass weeds inconsistently, whereas clethodim at 140 g ai/ha alone controlled the same weeds at least 99%. Imazapic did not affect broadleaf signalgrass control by clethodim. Reduced control of fall panicum, goosegrass, and large crabgrass was observed when clethodim and imazapic were applied in mixture. Antagonism of clethodim occurred when clethodim was applied 1 d before or up to 3 d after application of imazapic (fall panicum and large crabgrass). Antagonism of goosegrass control was noted when imazapic was applied 3 d before or up to 7 d after application of clethodim. In other experiments, large crabgrass and Texas panicum control by clethodim (70 and 140 g/ha) applied alone or with imazapic (70 g/ ha) or bentazon (1.1 kg ai/ha) plus 2,4-DB (0.28 kg ai/ha) either with or without ammonium sulfate (2.8 kg/ha) was evaluated. Texas panicum control by clethodim was reduced by imazapic regardless of the ammonium sulfate rate. However, large crabgrass control by imazapic was not affected in these experiments. Control of both grasses by clethodim was reduced substantially by bentazon plus 2,4-DB, although in some instances ammonium sulfate improved control when in mixture. Ammonium sulfate improved control by clethodim in some instances irrespective of the broadleaf–sedge herbicide treatments.

Because of a previously reported antagonism of clethodim activity by other herbicides, greenhouse experiments were conducted to determine goosegrass control with clethodim and glufosinate postemergence alone, in tank mixtures, and as sequential treatments. Herbicide treatments consisted of glufosinate at 0, 290, or 410 g ai/ha and clethodim at 0, 105, or 140 g ai/ha, each applied alone, in all possible combinations of the above application rates, or sequentially. Glufosinate at either rate alone controlled goosegrass at the two- to four-leaf growth stage <44%, and control was less for goosegrass at the one- to two- and four- to six-tiller growth stages. Clethodim controlled two- to four-leaf and one- to two-tiller goosegrass 91 and 99% at application rates of 105 and 140 g/ha, respectively, and controlled four- to six-tiller goosegrass 68 and 83% at application rates of 105 and 140 g ai/ha, respectively. All tank mixtures of glufosinate with clethodim reduced goosegrass control at least 52 percentage points when compared to the control with clethodim alone. Glufosinate at 290 or 410 g/ha when applied sequentially 7 or 14 d prior to clethodim reduced goosegrass control at least 50 percentage points compared to the control obtained with clethodim applied alone. Clethodim at rates of 105 or 140 g/ha when applied 7 or 14 d prior to glufosinate controlled goosegrass equivalent to the control obtained with each respective rate of clethodim applied alone at the two- to four-leaf and one- to two-tiller growth stage. Clethodim should be applied to goosegrass no larger than at the one- to two-tiller growth stage at least 7 d prior to glufosinate application or 14 d after a glufosinate application for effective goosegrass control.