Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:30:42.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risks and Reliability of Using Herbicides at Below-Labeled Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jianhua Zhang ,
Susan E. Weaver  and
Allan S. Hamill
Jianhua Zhang*
Affiliation:
Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: zhang117@tc.umn.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the efficacy and risk of controlling weeds at reduced herbicide rates under various environmental and biotic conditions, through analysis of published data on the use of below-labeled rates of herbicides. A database was established by extracting information from previously published papers on weed control at below-labeled rates of herbicides in crop production systems over large geographical and temporal scales. The database was then analyzed to evaluate the efficacy and risk of using herbicides at various reduced rates under different management systems. Using below-labeled herbicide rates in conjunction with interrow cultivation is an effective way of reducing herbicide input in agricultural systems while maintaining satisfactory weed control. There are greater opportunities for herbicide reduction using preemergence (PRE) than preplant incorporated (PPI) or postemergence (POST) herbicides, in coarse-textured than in fine-textured soils, and in corn than in soybean or wheat. The success of reducing herbicide rates does not depend on whether the herbicides are applied in conventional or conservation tillage systems or whether they are used with or without adjuvants. The above conclusions are based on studies conducted in experimental fields where weed pressures may be subjectively chosen to be high. Greater potential for herbicide reduction may exist at locations or in cropping systems were weed pressure is low.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrwheat, Triticum aestivum LDatabaseherbicidesreduced ratesweed control efficacyPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 106 - 115
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.

References

Literature Cited

Audus, L. J. 1976. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. 2nd ed, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. pp. 356–359.Google Scholar
Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J., Appenzeller, A., et al. 1993. The spatial structure of the physical environment. Oecologia. 96: 114–121.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1988. Factors influencing fluorochloridone in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 207–214.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in Central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management technologies to reduce herbicide input in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. B., and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5: 76–81.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with below-label rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37: 365–374.Google Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddux, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 834–840.Google Scholar
Doll, J., Doersch, R., Proost, R., and Kivlin, P. 1992. Reduced herbicide rates: Aspects to consider. Publication A3563. University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension Publications, Madison, WI. pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Prato, T. 1992. Efficacy and economics of herbicides for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in no-till spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 40: 233–240.Google Scholar
Eadie, A. G., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J. E., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Banded herbicide applications and cultivation in a modified no-till corn (Zea mays) system. Weed Technol. 6: 535–542.Google Scholar
Gebhart, M. R. 1981. Preemergence herbicides and cultivations for soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29: 165–168.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S., Bauman, T. T. Jr., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Schreiber, M. M. 1980. Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 28: 729–734.Google Scholar
Hall, C., Edgington, V., and Switzer, C. M. 1992. Effects of chlorsulfuron or 2,4-D upon diclofopmethyl efficacy in oat (Avena sativa). Weed Sci. 30: 672–676.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995a. Herbicide reduction in metribuzin based weed control programs in corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75: 927–933.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995b. Quackgrass control with glyphosate and SC-0224 in corn and soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75: 293–299.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Surgeoner, G. A., and Roberts, W. P. 1994. Herbicide reduction in North America: In Canada, an opportunity for motivation and growth in weed management. Weed Technol. 8: 366–371.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Reducing herbicide use for weed control in soybean (Glycine max) growth in two soil types in southwestern Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75: 283–292.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1992. Influence of adjuvants on efficacy, absorption, and pray retention of primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6: 592–598.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37: 239–249.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Dilbeck, J. S., DeFelice, M. S., and Kendig, J. A. 1998. Weed control with reduced rates of chlorimuron plus metribuzin and imazethapyr in no-till narrow-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 32–36.Google Scholar
Klingman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on Imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40: 227–232.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1992. The use of adjuvants. In Hodgson, R. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Champaign: IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. pp. 10–25.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Matysiak, R., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Petroleum oil and emulsifier affect the phytotoxicity of imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6: 81–84.Google Scholar
Martin, M. A., Schreiber, M. M., Riepe, J. R., and Bahr, J. R. 1991. The economics of alternative systems, crop rotations, and herbicide use on three representative east-central corn belt farms. Weed Sci. 39: 299–307.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans. Weed Technol. 4: 14–19.Google Scholar
Muyonga, K. C., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1996. Weed control with reduced rates of four soil applied soybean herbicides. Weed Sci. 44: 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bonw, W. J. 1997. Effects of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 720–724.Google Scholar
Salisbury, C. D., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. 1991. Ammonium sulphate enhancement of glyphosate and SC-0224 control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol. 5: 18–21.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Yield responses of spring cereals to reduced herbicide doses. Weed Res. 32: 493–499.Google Scholar
Shipley, B. and Peters, R. 1990. The allometry of seed weight and seedling relative growth rate. Funct. Ecol. 4: 523–529.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 541–545.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7: 286–297.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rational and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.Google Scholar
Thonke, K. E. 1991. Political and practical approaches in Scandinavia to reduce herbicide inputs. Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds. 9A-1: 1183–1190.Google Scholar
Tilling, L., Kuo, J., and Fox, E. 1992. SigmaPlot scientific graphing software. User's Manual. Jandel Scientific Software. pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41: 194–200.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar penetration of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4: 215–231.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Hamill, A. S., and Weaver, S. E. 1995. Antagonism and synergism between herbicides: trends from previous studies. Weed Technol. 9: 86–90.Google Scholar