Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T04:43:41.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Asiatic Dayflower (Commelina communis) to Glyphosate and Alternatives in Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Santiago M. Ulloa  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Santiago M. Ulloa
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, 2104 Agronomy Hall, Ames, IA 50011
Micheal D. K. Owen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska Lincoln, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mdowen@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Asiatic dayflower has recently become a troublesome weed in eastern Iowa. This weed demonstrates an extended emergence period and there is anecdotal evidence of glyphosate tolerance. Thus, Asiatic dayflower is difficult to manage in glyphosate-resistant (GR) corn and soybean. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the response of Asiatic dayflower to glyphosate applied at different rates and growth stages. Field research was conducted in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate different herbicides for Asiatic dayflower control in soybean. PRE herbicides were applied at planting and POST herbicides were applied 21 and 42 d after planting (DAP). In addition, shikimate accumulation in response to glyphosate was compared among Asiatic dayflower and GR and non-GR corn and soybean. Under greenhouse conditions, a single application of glyphosate (0.84 kg ae ha−1) did not control Asiatic dayflower. Only the highest rate evaluated, 13.44 kg ae ha−1 (16X), was lethal to Asiatic dayflower. Even when applied at an early growth stage (two leaves) and using high rates (3.36 kg ae ha−1), glyphosate controlled Asiatic dayflower just 28%. In the field, metribuzin and KIH-485 controlled Asiatic dayflower 80 and 73%, respectively. Early POST applications (21 DAP) of cloransulam or lactofen controlled Asiatic dayflower 80 and 67%, respectively. A single glyphosate application of 0.86 kg ae ha−1 controlled Asiatic dayflower approximately 50%. Glyphosate-treated Asiatic dayflower and non-GR corn and soybeans accumulated shikimate after application. GR corn and soybeans did not accumulate shikimate in response to glyphosate. Twenty-one days after treatment, all the non-GR soybean and corn plants died; however, Asiatic dayflower plants survived.

Keywords

CloransulamglyphosateKIH-485, 3-[(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluormethylpyrazol-4-yl) methylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazolelactofenmetribuzinAsiatic dayflowerCommelina communis L.cornZea mays L.soybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrGlyphosate toleranceshikimate accumulationshikimic acidglyphosate resistant crops
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 74 - 80
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bentley, R. 1990. The shikimate pathway: a metabolic tree with many branches. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 25:307–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cromartie, T. H. and , Polge, inventors; Syngenta, assignee N. D. 2002. 11 Method of detecting shikimic acid. U.S. patent 6,482,654. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6482654.html. Accessed: May 01, 2008.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., York, A. C., and Webster, T. M. 2004. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:432–436.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1988. Glyphosate. Pages 1–70. in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. New York Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. A. 2002. Glyphosate tolerant Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) control in no-till soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:183.Google Scholar
Gout, E., Bligny, R., Genix, P., Tissut, M., and Douce, R. 1992. Effect of glyphosate on plant cell metabolism. (31)P and (13)C NMR studies. Biochimie. 74:875–882.Google Scholar
Harring, T., Streibig, J. C., and Husted, S. 1998. Accumulation of shikimic acid: a technique for screening glyphosate efficacy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46:4406–4412.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://weedscience.com. Accessed: May 1, 2008.Google Scholar
Henry, B. W., Koger, C. H., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Accumulation of Shikimate in Corn and Soybean Exposed to Various Rates of Glyphosate. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2005/shikimate/. Accessed: May 6, 2008.Google Scholar
Henry, B. W., Shaner, D. L., and West, M. S. 2007. Shikimate accumulation in sunflower, wheat, and proso millet after glyphosate application. Weed Sci. 55:1–5.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate- resistant horseweed in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, K. N. 2005. Role of absorption and translocation in the mechanism of glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 53:84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhns, L. J. and Harpster, T. L. 2005. Response of Dayflower to Pre and Post-Emergence Herbicides. http://hortweb.cas.psu.edu/extension/ohortex/ann03_report.htm. Accessed: May 1, 2008.Google Scholar
Kutbay, H. G. and Uckan, F. 1998. Phenotypic plasticity in Turkish Commelina communis L. (Comelinacea) populations. J. Bot. 22:199–204.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, D. R. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Manabe, K., Deguchi, H., Miki, M., Yabuki, H., and Itoh, M. 1990. Chemical control of weeds in orchards: comparison of postemergence herbicides in activity and their practical application. Tech. Bull. Fac. Agric. Kagawa Univ. Jpn. 42:123–130.Google Scholar
Mishra, J. S., Singh, V. P., and Yaduraju, N. T. 2002. Interference of common dayflower (Commelina communis L.) in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 34:295–296.Google Scholar
Monquero, P. A., Chistoffoleti, P. J., Matas, J. A., and Heredia, A. 2004. Leaf surface characterization and epicuticular wax composition in Commelina benghalensis, Ipomoea grandifolia and Amaranthus hybridus . Planta Daninha. 22:203–210.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. L. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate sensitive and glyphosate resistant horseweed (Conyza Canadensis L.) J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Nadler-Hassar, T., Goldshmidt, A., Rubin, B., and Wolf, S. 2004. Glyphosate inhibits the translocation of green fluorescent protein and sucrose from a transgenic tobacco host to Cuscuta campestris Yunk. Planta. 219:790–796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, M. D. K. 2008. Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:377–387.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, N. I., Lee, I. Y., Kwon, O. S., Park, J. E., Kim, S. E., and Chun, J. C. 2004. Tolerant mode of dayflower (Commelina communis L.) to glyphosate. Korean J. Weed Sci. 24:230–236.Google Scholar
Paulson, K. M. 2005. Herbicide Resistant Crops May Promote Herbicide Tolerance in Weeds. http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/aug0501.htm. Accessed: May 1, 2008.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. F. P. 2002. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. S., and Flanders, J. T. 2005. Tropical Spiderwort Identification and Control in Georgia Field Crops. http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/pdf/C884.pdf. Accessed: September 25, 2007.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P. 2001. Past and future of predictions in plant invasions: a field test by time. Divers. Distrib. 7:145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, B. A. 2004. Rounding up the costs and benefits of herbicide use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101:13974–13975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siehl, D. L. 1997. Inhibitors of EPSP synthase, glutamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. Pages 37–67. in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam, Netherlands IOS.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P., Pal, U. R., and Luka, K. 1989. Allelopathic effect of three serious weeds of Nigerian savanna on germination and seedling vigor of soybean and maize. J. Agron Crop Sci. 162:236–240.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L. 2002. A regional perspective on glyphosate resistance management. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:213.Google Scholar
SPSS Inc 2002. SigmaPlot® 8.0 Programming Guide. Chicago, IL SPSS.Google Scholar
Takabayashi, M. and Nakayama, K. 1978. Longevity of buried weed seeds in the soil. Weed Res. 23:32–36.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Pline-Srnić, W. A., Viator, R. P., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Effects of glyphosate application timing and rate on sicklepod (Senna obstufolia) fecundity. Weed Technol. 19:55–61.Google Scholar
Tuffi-Santos, L. D., Meira, R. M. S. A., and Santos, I. C. 2004. Effect of glyphosate on the morpho-anatomy of leaves and stems of C. diffusa and C. benghalensis . Planta Daninha. 22:101–107.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Burton, M. G., Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., Grey, T. L., and York, A. C. 2006. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) control and emergency patterns in preemergence herbicide systems. J. Cotton Sci. 10:68–75.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, M. D. K. 2005. Differential response of Amarantus tuberculatus (Moq ex DC) JD Sauer to glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:936–950.Google Scholar