Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-rz424 Total loading time: 0.329 Render date: 2021-02-26T21:58:00.168Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Response of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Glyphosate as Affected by Growth Stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher L. Schuster
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Douglas E. Shoup
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy of glyphosate on four common lambsquarters populations collected from Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Ohio. Glyphosate dose-response studies for common lambsquarters treated at 2.5-, 7.5-, and 15-cm heights showed that glyphosate at 1.1 kg ae ha−1 caused more than 80% injury to 2.5-cm plants but less than 55% injury to 7.5- and 15-cm plants. All populations were susceptible to glyphosate at the 2.5-cm height. The glyphosate rate required to cause 50% injury (GR50) was 430, 500, 500, and 560 g ha−1 for the Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Nebraska populations, respectively. Differential response of common lambsquarters populations was evident with 15-cm plants where the GR50 was glyphosate at 1,010, 1,230, 1,650, and 2,770 g ha−1 for the Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Ohio populations, respectively. Reduced injury on 15-cm common lambsquarters plants by glyphosate may be partly attributed to reduced glyphosate accumulation per unit of plant tissues and enhanced calcium content in more-developed plants. All four common lambsquarters populations at the early seedling stage were susceptible to glyphosate, but tolerance increased as the plant developed and the extent of tolerance differed among populations.

Type
Research Article
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.

References

Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Foliar absorption and translocation of herbicides from aqueous solution and treated soil. Weed Sci. 40:281287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackman, G. E., Bruce, R. S., and Holly, K. 1958. Interrelationships between specific differences in spray retention and selective toxicity. J. Exp. Bot. 9:175205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C. M., Ehlke, N. J., Wyse, D. L., and Somers, D. A. 1991. Recurrent selection for glyphosate tolerance in birdsfoot trefoil. Crop Sci. 31:11241129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for development of herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6:621625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, D. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:326331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall Press. 95109.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seed banks of the U.S. Corn Belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636644.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Barrett, M., and Penner, D. 1986. Control of triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and two pigweed species (Amaranthus spp.) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:440443.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. N., Gressel, J., and Mangel, M. 1998. A revolving dose strategy to delay the evolution of both quantitative vs. major monogene resistances to pesticides and drugs. Int. J. Pest. Manag. 44:161180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieseking, J. E., Snider, H. J., and Getz, C. A. 1935. Destruction of organic matter in plant material by the use of nitric and perchloric acid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. 7:185186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, S., Phillips, W. H. II, and Kalnay, P. 1997. Long-term control of perennial broadleaf weeds and triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:436443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, F. 1991. The evolutionary potential of crop pests. Am. Sci. 79:496507.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S. 1989. Control of triazine-resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 3:136142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. J., Hart, C. A., and Jones, C. A. 2000. Plants as source of cations antagonistic to glyphosate activity. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:351358.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 30:113118.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2005. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed December 12, 2006.Google Scholar
Hennigh, D. S., Al-Khatib, K., Stahlman, P. W., and Shoup, D. E. 2005. Prairie cupgrass (Eriochloa contract) and windmillgrass (Chloris verticillata) response to glyphosate and acetyl-CoA carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 53:315322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoss, N. E., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:110117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:1221.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium demography. Weed Sci. 46:6570.Google Scholar
Myers, M. G. and Harvey, R. G. 1993. Triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) control in field corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 7:884889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Influence of diammonium sulfate and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pest. Sci. 38:7784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2003. Agricultural chemical use database. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. D. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327335.Google Scholar
Pandy, H. N., Misra, K. C., and Mukherjee, K. L. 1971. Phosphate uptake and its incorporation in some crop plants and their associated weeds. Ann. Bot. 35:367372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M. W. 1989. A model of the evolution of polygenically controlled fungicide resistance. Plant Pathol. 38:4455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of green foxtail and lambsquarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:14191425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Shropshire, C., Hamill, A. S., Weaver, S. E., and Cavers, P. B. 2004. Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate application timing and rate in glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 18:908916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control in corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541548.Google Scholar
Vengris, J. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215231.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effect of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40:429433.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Teasdale, J. R., and Bunce, J. A. 1999. Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 47:608615.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 14 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Response of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Glyphosate as Affected by Growth Stage
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Response of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Glyphosate as Affected by Growth Stage
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Response of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Glyphosate as Affected by Growth Stage
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *