In recent years, the use of cover crops has increased in U.S. crop production systems. An important aspect of successful cover crop establishment is the preceding crop and herbicide program, because some herbicides have the potential to persist in the soil for several months. Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of cover crops to common residual herbicides used in soybean production. The same field experiment was conducted in 2016 in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and repeated in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and Missouri in 2017 to evaluate the potential of residual soybean herbicides to carryover and reduce cover crop establishment. Herbicides applied during the soybean growing season included acetochlor; acetochlor plus fomesafen; chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron; fomesafen; fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor; imazethapyr; pyroxasulfone; S-metolachlor; S-metolachlor plus fomesafen; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor. Across all herbicide treatments, the sensitivity of cover crops to herbicide residues in the fall, from greatest to least, was forage radish = turnip > annual ryegrass = winter oat = triticale > cereal rye = Austrian winter pea = hairy vetch = wheat > crimson clover. Fomesafen (applied 21 and 42 days after planting [(DAP]); chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron and pyroxasulfone applied 42 DAP; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor caused the highest visual ground cover reduction to cover crop species at the fall rating. Study results indicate cover crops are most at risk when following herbicide applications in soybean containing certain active ingredients such as fomesafen, but overall there is a fairly low risk of cover crop injury from residual soybean herbicides applied in the previous soybean crop.

Imidazolinone-resistant (IR) winter wheat allows selective control of jointed goatgrass with the herbicide imazamox. However, the spontaneous hybridization between jointed goatgrass and IR winter wheat threatens the value of the IR technology. The objectives of this study were to determine if F1 hybrids collected in a commercial production field under IR winter wheat–fallow rotation in Oregon and their first-backcross progeny (BC1) carried the Imi1 gene and were resistant to imazamox, and to analyze the parentage of F1 and BC1 plants. The average seed set of the F1 spikes was 3.3%, and the average germination of BC1 seed was 52%. All F1 and BC1 plants tested carried Imi1. Jointed goatgrass plant mortality was 100% when treated with imazamox at 0.053 kg ai ha−1, compared to 0% for IR winter wheat and BC1 progeny. All F1 plants had jointed goatgrass as the maternal parent; whereas, most BC1 plants (85.7%) were produced with IR winter wheat as the paternal backcross parent. Although the backcrossing of F1 hybrids with jointed goatgrass is very low, it demonstrates the potential for introgression of Imi1 from IR winter wheat into jointed goatgrass under natural field conditions.

Dryland rotations are changing in the semiarid Great Plains because of no-till systems. Producers now rotate summer annual crops such as corn with winter wheat and fallow, which can disrupt weed population growth because of diverse life cycles among crops. This study estimated changes in weed populations as affected by rotation design, with the goal of suggesting crop sequences that lower weed community density. We used an empirical life-cycle simulation based on demographics of jointed goatgrass and green foxtail to compare various rotations consisting of winter wheat, corn, proso millet, and fallow across a 12-yr period. The simulation indicated that designing rotations to include a 2-yr interval when seed production of either jointed goatgrass or green foxtail is prevented will drastically reduce weed populations. Arranging four different crops in sequences of two cool-season crops, followed by two warm-season crops was the most beneficial for weed management. Fallow, if used, serves in either life-cycle category. However, if the same crop is grown 2 yr in a row, such as winter wheat, the benefit of rotation design on weed density is reduced considerably. Impact of rotation design on weed density was enhanced by improving crop competitiveness with cultural practices. Rotations with balanced life-cycle intervals not only reduce weed density but enable producers to use alternative weed management strategies, improve effectiveness of herbicides used, and minimize herbicide resistance.

Field and pot studies were conducted in Central New York to determine the potential weed-management benefits of a buckwheat cover crop grown before winter wheat. Specific objectives were to determine buckwheat residue effects on (1) emergence and growth of winter annual weeds; (2) wheat establishment and yield; and (3) emergence of summer annual weeds in the spring following overwinter seed burial. In a field study, buckwheat was sown at two timings (July or August), mowed, and either incorporated or left on the soil surface. Winter wheat was drilled into buckwheat residue in September and weed and crop growth were monitored. In a complementary pot study, four winter annual weeds were sown in soil removed from buckwheat and bare-soil plots at 0 or 15 d after incorporation and monitored for emergence and early growth. To assess buckwheat residue effects on spring emergence from overwintering seeds, seeds of three weed species were buried in buckwheat residue and bare-soil plots in the fall, exhumed in April, and evaluated for emergence. To investigate the mechanism for possible effects of buckwheat residue on overwintering seeds, two levels each of seed treatment (none or fungicide) and fertilization (none or 170 kg ha−1) were applied before burial. Buckwheat residue had no negative effect on wheat yields but suppressed emergence (22 to 72%) and growth (0 to 95%) of winter annual weeds, although effects were often small and inconsistent. Buckwheat residue had no effect on the emergence of buried weed seeds in spring. However, fungicide treatment enhanced the emergence of Powell amaranth seeds by 12.5 to 25.5% and of barnyardgrass seeds by 0 to 12%. Our results suggest that buckwheat residue can contribute to weed management in wheat cropping systems, but that further studies investigating the mechanistic basis for the inconsistent selective effects of buckwheat residue on weeds are needed before buckwheat use can be optimized.