Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Annual weed management in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean using a two-pass weed control strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Andrea Smith
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Nader Soltani
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, ON, Canada
Allan J. Kaastra
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomic Development Representative, Bayer Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada
David C. Hooker
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Transgenic crops are being developed with herbicide resistance traits to expand innovative weed management solutions for crop producers. Soybean with traits that confer resistance to the hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase herbicide isoxaflutole is under development and will provide a novel herbicide mode of action for weed management in soybean. Ten field experiments were conducted over 2 years (2017 and 2018) on five soil textures with isoxaflutole-resistant soybean to evaluate annual weed control using one- and two-pass herbicide programs. The one-pass weed control programs included isoxaflutole plus metribuzin, applied PRE, at a low rate (52.5 + 210 g ai ha−1), medium rate (79 + 316 g ai ha−1), and high rate (105 + 420 g ai ha−1); and glyphosate applied early postemergence (EPOST) or late postemergence (LPOST). The two-pass weed control programs included isoxaflutole plus metribuzin, applied PRE, followed by glyphosate applied LPOST, and glyphosate applied EPOST followed by LPOST. At 4 weeks after the LPOST application, control of common lambsquarters, pigweed species, common ragweed, and velvetleaf was variable at 25% to 69%, 49% to 86%, and 71% to 95% at the low, medium, and high rates of isoxaflutole plus metribuzin, respectively. Isoxaflutole plus metribuzin at the low, medium, and high rates controlled grass species evaluated (i.e., barnyardgrass, foxtail, crabgrass, and witchgrass) 85% to 97%, 75% to 99%, and 86% to 100%, respectively. All two-pass weed management programs provided 98% to 100% control of all species. Weed control improved as the rate of isoxaflutole plus metribuzin increased. Two-pass programs provided excellent, full-season annual grass and broadleaf weed control in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anonymous (2017) Converge® Flexx herbicide label. Pest Control Products Act. Reg. No. 22071. Calgary, Canada: Bayer CropScience Canada Inc.Google Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, Lavallee, B J, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:11851188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butts, TR, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Sandell, LD, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Loux, MM, Bradley, KW, Conley, SP, Stotenberg, DE, Arriaga, FJ, Davis, VM (2016) Management of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean in the Midwest and mid-south. Weed Technol 30:355365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomas, AJ, Kells, JJ (2004) Triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn with preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 18:551554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditschun, S, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardiff, FJ, Kaastra, AC, Sikkema, PH (2016) Control of glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) with isoxaflutole and metribuzin tank mix. Can J Plant Sci 96:7280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Klotz-Ingram, C, Jans, S (2002) Farm-level effects of adopting herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the U.S.A. J Agr Appl Econ 34:149163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J, Segel, LA (1990) Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol 4:186198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT (2015) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 29:716729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, S, Bhowmik, PC, Xing, B (2001) Physical and chemical properties of soil influence the sorption of the diketonitrile metabolite of RPA 201772. Weed Sci 49:423430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2016) Publication 75: Guide to weed control. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub75/pub75toc.htm. Accessed: March 16, 2019Google Scholar
Pallett, KE, Little, JP, Sheekey, M, Veerasekaran, P (1998) The mode of action of isoxaflutole: physiological effects, metabolism and selectivity. Pestic Biochem Phys 62:113124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schryver, MG, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Tranel, PJ, Sikkema, PH (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in three new herbicide-resistant soybean varieties in Ontario. Weed Technol 31:828837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, JL, Weber, M, Allen, J, Bradley, KW (2015) Evaluation of weed management programs and response of FG72 soybean to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol 29:653664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2016) Biologically effective dose of glyphosate as influenced by weed size in corn. Can J Plant Sci 96:455460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Perspectives on potential soybean yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 31:148154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soukup, J, Jursik, M, Hamouz, P, Holec, J, Krupka, J (2004) Influence of soil pH, rainfall, dosage, and application timing of herbicide Merlin 750 WG (isoxaflutole on phytotoxicity level in maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil Environ 50:8894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Johnson, WG (2017) Variable tolerance among palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotypes to glyphosate, 2, 4-D amine, and premix formulation of glyphosate plus 2, 4-D choline (Enlist Duo) herbicide. Weed Sci 65:787797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Bond, JA (2012) Evaluation of thiencarbazone-methyl and isoxaflutole-based herbicide programs in corn. Weed Technol 26:3742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, CL, Soltani, N, Nurse, RE, Hamil, AS, Sikkema, PH (2012) Precipitation influences pre- and post- emergence herbicide efficacy in corn. Am J Plant Sci 3:11931204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, BE, Kells, JJ (2002) Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:274281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (1991) Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol 5:674679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (2001) Impact of lamb’s-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybean in Ontario. Can J Plant Sci 81:821828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesbrook, ML, Johnson, WG, Hart, SE, Bradley, PR, Wax, LM (2001) Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 15:122128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, BG (2006) Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

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: 6
Total number of PDF views: 90 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 29th April 2019 - 25th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-54xgk Total loading time: 0.243 Render date: 2021-01-25T12:00:40.372Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

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.

Annual weed management in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean using a two-pass weed control strategy
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.

Annual weed management in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean using a two-pass weed control strategy
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.

Annual weed management in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean using a two-pass weed control strategy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *