Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-22T17:33:45.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of 2,4-D, dicamba and halauxifen-methyl alone or in combination with glyphosate for preplant weed control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2020

M. Carter Askew
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Eastern Shore AREC, Painter, VA, USA
Charles W. Cahoon Jr.*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Michael L. Flessner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
David B. Langston Jr.
Affiliation:
Professor and Director of Tidewater AREC, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Tidewater AREC, Suffolk, VA, USA
J. Harrison Ferebee IV
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Eastern Shore AREC, Painter, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Charles W. Cahoon Jr., Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC27695. (Email: cwcahoon@ncsu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to determine foliar efficacy of halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D, or dicamba applied alone and in combination with glyphosate at preplant burndown timing. Experiments were conducted near Painter, VA; Rocky Mount, NC; Jackson, NC; and Gates, NC. Control of horseweed, henbit, purple deadnettle, cutleaf evening primrose, curly dock, purple cudweed, and common chickweed were evaluated. Halauxifen-methyl applied at 5 g ae ha−1 controlled small and large horseweed 89% and 79%, respectively, and was similar to control by dicamba applied at 280 g ae ha−1. Both rates of 2,4-D—533 g ae ha−1(low rate [LR]) or 1,066 g ae ha−1 (high rate [HR])—were less effective than halauxifen-methyl and dicamba for controlling horseweed. Halauxifen-methyl was the only auxin herbicide to control henbit (90%) and purple deadnettle (99%). Cutleaf evening primrose was controlled 74% to 85%, 51%, and 4% by 2,4-D, dicamba, and halauxifen-methyl, respectively. Dicamba and 2,4-D controlled curly dock 59% to 70% and were more effective than halauxifen-methyl (5%). Auxin herbicides applied alone controlled purple cudweed and common chickweed 21% or less. With the exception of cutleaf evening primrose (35%) and curly dock (37%), glyphosate alone provided 95% or greater control of all weeds evaluated. These experiments demonstrate halauxifen-methyl effectively (≥79%) controls horseweed, henbit, and purple deadnettle, whereas common chickweed, curly dock, cutleaf evening primrose, and purple cudweed control by the herbicide is inadequate (≤7%).

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Horseweed is a broadleaf weed that can act as winter or summer annual (Weaver Reference Weaver2001). Horseweed can produce up to 200,000 seeds plant−1 (Bhowmik and Bekech Reference Bhowmik and Bekech1993) and is problematic in reduced- or no-tillage systems (Uva et al. Reference Uva, Neal and DiTomaso1997). Competition from horseweed has been reported to reduce soybean (Glycine max L.) yield up to 83% and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) lint yield by as much as 46% (Bruce and Kells Reference Bruce and Kells1990; Steckel and Gwathmey Reference Steckel and Gwathmey2009). Traditionally, glyphosate applied preplant burndown has been used to control horseweed prior to crop planting (Bruce and Kells Reference Bruce and Kells1990). However, glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed was first confirmed in Delaware in 2000 and has since spread to many other states (Eubank et al. Reference Eubank, Poston, Nandula, Koger, Shaw and Reynolds2008; Heap Reference Heap2018; Koger et al. Reference Koger, Poston, Hayes and Montgomery2004; Main et al. Reference Main, Mueller, Hayes and Wilkerson2004; Steckel and Gwathmey Reference Steckel and Gwathmey2009; VanGessel Reference VanGessel2001). Along with glyphosate, horseweed biotypes have also evolved resistance to paraquat (Smisek et al. Reference Smisek, Doucet, Jones and Weaver1998; VanGessel et al. Reference VanGessel, Scott and Johnson2006) and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides (Heap Reference Heap2018; Zheng et al. Reference Zheng, Kruger, Singh, Davis, Tranel, Weller and Johnson2011). Furthermore, biotypes of the weed have developed multiple resistance to glyphosate and paraquat (Eubank et al. Reference Eubank, Nandula, Poston and Shaw2012) as well as glyphosate and ALS inhibitors (Heap Reference Heap2018; Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller, Stachler, Loux and Johnson2009; Trainer et al. Reference Trainer, Loux, Harrison and Regnier2005).

Current recommendations for managing horseweed include an auxin herbicide in combination with glyphosate, applied as a burndown prior to crop planting. This mixture offers broad-spectrum weed control as well as control of glyphosate- and ALS-resistant horseweed; these herbicides are particularly effective if applied while horseweed is small (Bruce and Kells Reference Bruce and Kells1990; Byker Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013; Eubank et al. Reference Eubank, Poston, Nandula, Koger, Shaw and Reynolds2008; Loux et al. Reference Loux, Stachler, Johnson, Nice, Davis and Nordby2006). Bruce and Kells (Reference Bruce and Kells1990) reported 97% to 100% control of horseweed with 2,4-D when applied at 0.56 kg ae ha−1 and 100% at 1.12 kg ae ha−1. Dicamba, another auxin herbicide, effectively controlled glyphosate- and ALS-resistant horseweed (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013; Eubank et al. Reference Eubank, Poston, Nandula, Koger, Shaw and Reynolds2008; Loux et al. Reference Loux, Stachler, Johnson, Nice, Davis and Nordby2006). Byker et al. (Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013) observed similar levels of GR-horseweed control after applications of dicamba plus glyphosate compared with 2,4-D applied in combination with glyphosate. Horseweed control by auxin herbicides is influenced by size of the weed (Budd et al. Reference Budd, Soltani, Robinson, Hooker, Mill and Sikkema2017; Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2010; McCauley and Young Reference McCauley and Young2016; Zimmer et al. Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a; Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b). Kruger et al. (Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2010) reported dicamba alone controlled horseweed 30 cm or less in height 97% to 99% and was similar to control by 2,4-D alone; dicamba alone was more effective than 2,4-D in controlling horseweed taller than 30 cm. Despite effectiveness, varying sensitivity of horseweed biotypes to 2,4-D have been observed, which raises concern about horseweed evolving resistance to auxin herbicides (Eubank et al. Reference Eubank, Poston, Nandula, Koger, Shaw and Reynolds2008; Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2007).

Halauxifen-methyl is a new Group 4 synthetic auxin herbicide and a member of the pyridine-2-carboxylate (or arylpicolinate) herbicide chemical family (Epp et al. Reference Epp, Alexander, Balko, Buysse, Brewster, Bryan, Daeuble, Fields, Gast, Green, Irvine, Lo, Lowe, Renga, Richburg, Ruiz, Satchivi, Schmitzer, Siddall, Webster, Wimer, Whiteker and Yerkes2016; WSSA 2018). Other members of the pyridine-2-carboxylate family include picloram, clopyralid, and aminopyralid (Epp et al. Reference Epp, Alexander, Balko, Buysse, Brewster, Bryan, Daeuble, Fields, Gast, Green, Irvine, Lo, Lowe, Renga, Richburg, Ruiz, Satchivi, Schmitzer, Siddall, Webster, Wimer, Whiteker and Yerkes2016). Halauxifen-methyl effectively controls horseweed at varying sizes (McCauley and Young Reference McCauley and Young2016; Zimmer et al Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a, Zimmer et. al Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b). Zimmer et al. (Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a, Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b) reported halauxifen-methyl applied alone at 5 g ae ha−1 controlled GR horseweed 90%, and halauxifen-methyl in combinations with 2,4-D, dicamba, and/or glyphosate controlled GR horseweed 87% to 97%. In another study, dicamba and halauxifen-methyl applied alone provided 80% control of 30-cm horseweed, whereas 2,4-D applied at 560 g ae ha−1 controlled the weed less than 50% (McCauley and Young Reference McCauley and Young2016).

Although halauxifen-methyl effectively controls horseweed, research is limited on its efficacy on many other weeds. Cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock are common weeds in reduced- and no-till systems that are not adequately controlled by glyphosate (Bish and Bradley Reference Bish and Bradley2015; Clewis et al. Reference Clewis, Jordan, Spears and Wilcut2007; Culpepper et al. Reference Culpepper, Carlson and York2005; Scott et al. Reference Scott, Shaw and Barrentine1998; Steckel Reference Steckel2008; Vidrine et al. Reference Vidrine, Miller, Sanders, Scroggs and Stewart2007; York and Collins Reference York and Collins2016). Because cutleaf evening primrose control by glyphosate and paraquat is inadequate, 2,4-D is normally recommended with the aforementioned herbicides to improve control of cutleaf evening primrose and other weeds (Culpepper et al. Reference Culpepper, Carlson and York2005). Culpepper et al. (Reference Culpepper, Carlson and York2005) reported glyphosate plus 2,4-D and 2,4-D plus paraquat controlled cutleaf evening primrose 86% and 94%, respectively. Other researchers found that 2,4-D controlled cutleaf evening primrose at rates as low as 134 g ae ha−1 (York and Culpepper Reference York and Culpepper2005). Similar results were observed by Clewis et al. (Reference Clewis, Jordan, Spears and Wilcut2007), who reported glyphosate plus 2,4-D controlled cutleaf evening primrose 97% to 99%, whereas glyphosate alone provided 83% and 84% control. Bish and Bradley (Reference Bish and Bradley2015) observed 60% to 80% curly dock control by 2,4-D and dicamba, whereas a combination of the two herbicides controlled the weed 80% to 100%. Furthermore, research is limited on preplant burndown control of henbit, purple deadnettle, purple cudweed, and common chickweed by halauxifen-methyl.

The objective of this study was to further investigate halauxifen-methyl for horseweed control and efficacy against many prevailing weeds frequently encountered preplant burndown.

Materials and Methods

Experiments were conducted at the Eastern Shore Agriculture Research and Extension Center near Painter, VA (37.58°N, 75.78°W), at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station near Rocky Mount, NC (35.9382°N, 77.7905°W), and in a producer’s field near Jackson, NC (36.3896°N, 77.4214°W) during 2017 and 2018 seasons, as well as in two producers’ fields near Gates, NC (36.4202°N, 76.6875°W) during the 2018 season. Adjacent areas of the same fields were used for multiple locations at Painter, Rocky Mount, and Jackson (Table 1). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with treatments replicated three or four times, depending on location. Plot sizes ranged from 2.8 to 3.7 m in width and 6 m to 12 m in length depending on locations. Experiments were conducted in the absence of a crop.

Table 1. Locations, soil descriptions, and herbicide application dates.a

a Soil texture at all sites was sandy loam.

b Humic matter determined according to Mehlich (Reference Mehlich1984).

c Coarse-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults.

d Fine-silty, siliceous, subactive, thermic Typic Paleudults.

e Fine, mixed, subactive, thermic Aquic Hapludults.

f Fine-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Oxyaquic Paleudults.

g Fine-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Aquic Paleudults.

Halauxifen-methyl, dicamba, and 2,4-D were applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, along with glyphosate applied alone, in mid-March to mid-April (Tables 1 and 2). Methylated seed oil at 1% vol/vol was included with halauxifen-methyl and glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl, and nonionic surfactant at 0.25% vol/vol was included with 2,4-D and dicamba; no adjuvants were included with combinations of glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba (Table 2). Herbicides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with flat-fan nozzles (TTI 110015 Turbo TeeJet® Induction flat spray tip; TeeJet Technologies, Wheaton, IL) delivering 140 L ha−1 at 207 kPa. Weed species varied across locations; average weed size, density in nontreated checks, and number of locations with each species present are listed in Table 3.

Table 2. Herbicides and adjuvants used in experiments. a

a Specimen labels for each product and mailing and web site addresses of each manufacturer can be found at www.cdms.net.

Table 3. Average weed size, density, and number of locations with each species present.

a Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

b Some weeds are measured by height, some by diameter.

Visual estimates of weed control were collected 2 and 4 wk after application using a 0% (no weed control) to 100% scale (complete necrosis). Weed density data were collected 4 wk after application by counting the number of weeds plot−1; three 0.25-m2 subsamples were used when weeds were present at higher densities. Plant response to auxin herbicides is relatively slow (Ross and Childs Reference Ross and Childs1996); therefore, results were focused on visible weed control and weed density 4 wk after treatment (WAT).

Statistical Analyses

Data were subjected to ANOVA using the PROC GLIMMIX procedure in SAS, version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Herbicide treatment was considered a fixed factor, whereas locations and replications were treated as random factors. The two-way interactions of location by herbicide treatment were significant for all weed species. However, with the exception of horseweed, the F values associated with the main effect of herbicide treatment were approximately 20 to 1,650 times greater than F values associated with the interaction; hence, data for these weed species were pooled across locations. Horseweed size influences control by auxin herbicides (Budd et al. Reference Budd, Soltani, Robinson, Hooker, Mill and Sikkema2017; McCauley and Young Reference McCauley and Young2016; Zimmer et al. Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a; Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b). Because the two-way interaction of location by herbicide treatment was significant and F values would not allow data for horseweed to be pooled across all nine locations, a secondary analysis was conducted for small or large horseweed separately. Weed heights were collected for each species prior to herbicide applications; horseweed that averaged 5 cm tall were considered small and those averaging 15 cm tall were considered large. For these analyses, the two-way interactions of location by herbicide treatment were not significant. Therefore, data for small and large horseweed are reported separately pooled over six and three locations, respectively. Means were separated using Fisher protected LSD at α = 0.05. Data for nontreated checks were excluded from analysis except in a separate analysis for which the Dunnett procedure (Dunnett Reference Dunnett1955) was used to compare weed density in the nontreated checks to all other treatments.

Results and Discussion

Large horseweed (average height, 15 cm) was more difficult to control than small horseweed (Table 4), which agrees with previous research (Budd et al. Reference Budd, Soltani, Robinson, Hooker, Mill and Sikkema2017; McCauley and Young Reference McCauley and Young2016; Zimmer et al. Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a; Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b). Halauxifen-methyl controlled small and large horseweed 89% and 79%, respectively, and was similar to dicamba control, which controlled small horseweed 91% and large horseweed 77%. The LR (50%–72%) and HR (64%–80%) of 2,4-D were less effective than halauxifen-methyl and dicamba for control of small and large horseweed. In general, horseweed density followed similar trends as visual control data (Tables 4 and 5). Small and large horseweed density in nontreated checks averaged 6 and 5 plants m−2, respectively (Table 3). All auxin herbicides applied alone reduced small and large horseweed density compared with the nontreated check (data not shown). Similar to visual estimates of horseweed control, halauxifen-methyl and dicamba reduced small horseweed density greater than did both rates of 2,4-D (Table 5). When horseweed plants were larger (average height, 15 cm), halauxifen-methyl and dicamba remained more effective than 2,4-D LR but provided equivalent reductions in density to 2,4-D HR.

Table 4. Weed control 4 wk after treatment. a

a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test at α = 0.05.

b Abbreviations: HR, high rate; LR, low rate.

c Halauxifen-methyl, dicamba, 2,4-D LR, 2,4-D HR, and glyphosate were applied at 5, 280, 533, 1,066, and 1,260 g ae ha−1, respectively. Methylated seed oil at 1% vol/vol was included with halauxifen-methyl and glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl whereas nonionic surfactant at 0.25% vol/vol was included with 2,4-D and dicamba; no adjuvants were included with combinations of glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba.

d Average height of small horseweed: 5 cm.

e Average height of large horseweed: 15 cm.

Table 5. Weed density reduction 4 wk after treatment. a,b

a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test at α = 0.05.

b Weed density reductions in comparison to nontreated checks. Weed density for small horseweed, large horseweed, henbit, purple deadnettle, cutleaf evening primrose, curly dock, purple cudweed, and common chickweed averaged 6, 5, 14, 16, 18, 8, 2, and 11 plants m−2, respectively.

c Abbreviations: HR, high rate; LR, low rate.

d Halauxifen-methyl, dicamba, 2,4-D LR, 2,4-D HR, and glyphosate were applied at 5, 280, 533, 1,066, and 1,260 g ae ha−1, respectively. Methylated seed oil at 1% vol/vol was included with halauxifen-methyl and glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl, whereas nonionic surfactant at 0.25% vol/vol was included with 2,4-D and dicamba; no adjuvants were included with combinations of glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba.

e Average height of small horseweed: 5 cm.

f Average height of large horseweed: 15 cm.

Henbit and purple deadnettle are members of the Lamiaceae and responded similarly to herbicide treatments (Tables 4 and 5). Halauxifen-methyl controlled henbit 90% and purple deadnettle 99%, similar to previous research (Steckel Reference Steckel2018). Of the auxin herbicides applied alone, 2,4-D and dicamba were less effective at controlling henbit and purple deadnettle than was halauxifen-methyl. Glyphosate alone and glyphosate combinations controlled henbit 100% and purple deadnettle 99%.

Halauxifen-methyl efficacy for control of cutleaf evening primrose has not been documented previously, to our knowledge, although control is claimed on the label (Anonymous 2018a). Halauxifen-methyl (4%) and dicamba (51%) were less effective than 2,4-D (74% to 85%) for control of cutleaf evening primrose. Cutleaf evening primrose density in nontreated check plots averaged 18 plants m−2 (Table 3); all herbicide treatments, except halauxifen-methyl alone, reduced cutleaf evening primrose density compared with the nontreated (data not shown). Similar to visible control data of the auxin herbicides applied alone, 2,4-D reduced cutleaf evening primrose density the most compared with the nontreated check and was more effective than halauxifen-methyl and dicamba (Table 5).

Like cutleaf evening primrose, curly dock control by glyphosate can be difficult; adequate control may require an additional mode of action (Bish and Bradley Reference Bish and Bradley2015; Scott et al. Reference Scott, Shaw and Barrentine1998). Dicamba and 2,4-D controlled curly dock 59% to 70%, respectively, and were more effective than halauxifen-methyl (5%). Likewise, 2,4-D and dicamba reduced curly dock density compared with the nontreated check, whereas halauxifen-methyl did not (data not shown).

Common chickweed and purple cudweed are also encountered burndown before planting cotton and other crops and can be difficult to control with auxin herbicides (Monning and Bradley Reference Monning and Bradley2007; York and Collins Reference York and Collins2016). None of the auxin herbicides effectively controlled purple cudweed (control range, 7% to 21%) or common chickweed (control range, 6% to 12%). Compared with the nontreated check, 2,4-D, dicamba, and halauxifen-methyl did not reduce density of common chickweed or purple cudweed (data not shown).

Despite a history of GR horseweed in North Carolina and Virginia, GR biotypes only made up a small portion of the horseweed populations used for this experiment, as demonstrated by excellent horseweed control by glyphosate alone (Table 4). Furthermore, glyphosate applied alone controlled all weeds 95% or greater with the exception of cutleaf evening primrose (35%) and curly dock (37%). Compared with glyphosate alone, adding 2,4-D, dicamba, or halauxifen-methyl to glyphosate did little to improve control of horseweed (96% to 99%), henbit (100%), purple deadnettle (99%), purple cudweed (100%), and common chickweed (100%). In contrast, poor control of cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock by glyphosate was improved 30% to 58% and 35% to 41% with the addition of 2,4-D or dicamba, respectively. Culpepper et al. (Reference Culpepper, Carlson and York2005) documented the addition of 2,4-D to glyphosate improved cutleaf evening primrose 37% at 4 WAT compared with glyphosate alone. Combining halauxifen-methyl with glyphosate did little to improve cutleaf evening primrose (46%) or curly dock (38%) control compared with glyphosate alone. Weed density data on glyphosate alone and glyphosate combinations reaffirm visual estimates of weed control (Table 5). This research confirms 2,4-D continues to be recommended for control of cutleaf evening primrose, whereas control by halauxifen-methyl is inadequate.

These data from North Carolina and Virginia, in addition to research from Indiana (Zimmer et al. Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018a, Reference Zimmer, Young and Johnson2018b), indicate halauxifen-methyl effectively controls horseweed. In this experiment, halauxifen-methyl and dicamba controlled horseweed averaging 5 or 15 cm in height more effectively than did 2,4-D. Besides horseweed, information is limited on efficacy of halauxifen-methyl for control many other weed species. Steckel (Reference Steckel2018) observed halauxifen-methyl plus florasulam (Anonymous 2018b) controlled henbit. However, it was not distinguished which active ingredient or if both were responsible for henbit control. In this experiment, halauxifen-methyl controlled henbit 90% and purple deadnettle 99%, whereas 2,4-D and dicamba controlled these weeds not greater than 8%. Despite effectiveness against horseweed, henbit, and purple deadnettle, halauxifen-methyl was less effective against other weeds in this experiment. Like 2,4-D and dicamba, purple cudweed and common chickweed control by halauxifen-methyl was inadequate (≤ 7%). Halauxifen-methyl controlled cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock less than dicamba and 2,4-D did. This is of particular concern because cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock are commonly encountered preplant burndown (York and Collins Reference York and Collins2016) and glyphosate does not effectively control these species (Culpepper et al. Reference Culpepper, Carlson and York2005; Scott et al. Reference Scott, Shaw and Barrentine1998); 2,4-D or dicamba is often relied upon in combination with glyphosate to control these weeds. Replacing 2,4-D with halauxifen-methyl in preplant burndown applications may result in inadequate control of cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock.

In conclusion, halauxifen-methyl is a useful tool for horseweed, henbit, and purple deadnettle management. However, future research should address combinations of halauxifen-methyl with glyphosate and various rates of 2,4-D for broader-spectrum weed control where preplant intervals allow, especially where cutleaf evening primrose and curly dock are commonplace.

Acknowledgments

Partial funding for this research was provided by the cotton producers of North Carolina and Virginia through the Cotton Incorporated State Support Program and by the Virginia Cotton Board. The authors also acknowledge support from the Hatch Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Vipan Kumar, Kansas State University

References

Anonymous (2018a) Elevore™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences. Indianapolis, IN: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldE1J001.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2018.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Quelex™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences. Indianapolis, IN: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldDBL000.pdf. Accessed: March 2, 2018.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, PC, Bekech, MM (1993) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agron Trends Agric Sci 1:6771 Google Scholar
Bish, MD, Bradley, K (2015) Weed of the month: curly dock. https://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/2015/4/Weed-of-the-Month-Curly-Dock/. Accessed: March 25, 2019Google Scholar
Bruce, JA, Kells, JT (1990) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, CM, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Hooker, DC, Mill, RT, Sikkema, P (2017) Efficacy of saflufenacil for control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) as affected by height, density, and time of day. Weed Sci 65:275284 Google Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MK, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, SB, Jordan, DL, Spears, JF, Wilcut, JW (2007) Influence of environmental factors on cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata) germination, emergence, development, vegetative growth, and control. Weed Sci 55:264272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Carlson, DS, York, AC (2005) Pre-plant control of cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Cotton Sci 9:223228 Google Scholar
Dunnett, CW (1955) A multicomparisons procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50:10961121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, JB, Alexander, AL, Balko, TW, Buysse, AM, Brewster, WK, Bryan, K, Daeuble, JF, Fields, SC, Gast, RE, Green, RA, Irvine, NM, Lo, WC, Lowe, CR, Renga, JM, Richburg, JS, Ruiz, JM, Satchivi, NM, Schmitzer, PR, Siddall, TL, Webster, JD, Wimer, MR, Whiteker, GT, Yerkes, CN (2016) The discovery of Arylex™ active and Rinskor™ active: two novel auxin herbicides. Bioorgan Med Chem 24:362371 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eubank, TW, Nandula, VK, Poston, DH, Shaw, DR (2012) Multiple resistance of horseweed to glyphosate and paraquat and its control with paraquat and metribuzin combinations. Agron J 2012:385–370Google Scholar
Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH, Shaw, DR, Reynolds, DB (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate, paraquat, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol 22:1621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/Species.aspx?WeedID=61. Accessed: February 28, 2018Google Scholar
Koger, CH, Poston, DH, Hayes, RM, Montgomery, RF (2004) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol 18:820825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2007) Investigating Indiana horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations for response to 2,4-D. Page 101 in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual North Central Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL. Las Cruces, NM: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol 24:425429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Stachler, JM, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG (2009) Frequency, distribution, and characterization of horseweed biotypes with resistance to glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 57:652659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M, Stachler, J, Johnson, B, Nice, G, Davis, V, Nordby, D (2006) Biology and management of horseweed. Publication GWC-9. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue ExtensionGoogle Scholar
Main, CL, Mueller, TC, Hayes, RM, Wilkerson, JB (2004) Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem 52:879883 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCauley, CL, Young, B (2016) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with halauxifen-methyl versus dicamba and 2,4-D. Page 37 in Proceedings of the 71st Annual North Central Weed Science Society, Des Moines, IA. Las Cruces, NM: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Mehlich, A (1984) Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun Soil Sci Plan 15:14171422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monning, N, Bradley, KW (2007) Influence of fall and early spring herbicide applications on winter and summer annual weed population in no-till soybean. Weed Technol 21:724731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, MA, Childs, DJ (1996) Herbicide mode-of-action summary. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ws/ws-23-w.html. Accessed: November 18, 2018Google Scholar
Scott, R, Shaw, DR, Barrentine, WL (1998) Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:2326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smisek, A, Doucet, C, Jones, M, Weaver, SE (1998) Paraquat resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex County, Ontario. Weed Sci 46:200204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Gwathmey, CO (2009) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) growth, seed production, and interference in cotton. Weed Sci 57:346350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L (2008) Cutleaf evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill). https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/W209.pdf. Accessed: November 2, 2018Google Scholar
Steckel, L (2018) New broadleaf herbicide options available in wheat. https://news.utcrops.com/2018/02/new-herbicide-options-broadleaf-weed-control-wheat/. Accessed: August 17, 2020Google Scholar
Trainer, GD, Loux, MM, Harrison, SK, Regnier, E (2005) Response of horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate. Weed Technol 19:231236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uva, RH, Neal, JC, DiTomaso, JM (1997) Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ (2001) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Science 49:703705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Scott, BA, Johnson, QR (2006) Paraquat-resistant horseweed identified in the mid-Atlantic states. Crop Manag 5:15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, PR, Miller, DK, Sanders, DE, Scroggs, DM, Stewart, AM (2007) Controlling weeds in cotton. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/e/6/6/4/e664015324796f18eea141420974bc2c/pub2746weedsincotton2007final.pdf. Accessed: November 3, 2018Google Scholar
Weaver, SE (2001) The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis . Can J Plant Sci 81:867875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America (2018) Summary of herbicide mechanism of action according to WSSA. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Mechanism-of-Action.pdf. Accessed: March 2, 2018Google Scholar
York, AC, Collins, G (2016) March is burndown time (York & Collins). https://cotton.ces.ncsu.edu/2016/03/march-is-burndown-time-york-collins/. Accessed: November 18, 2018Google Scholar
York, AC, Culpepper, AS (2005) Control of cutleaf eveningprimrose in conservation tillage cotton. Pages 2848–2849. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN. Memphis, TN: National Cotton CouncilGoogle Scholar
Zheng, D, Kruger, GR, Singh, S, Davis, VM, Tranel, PJ, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2011) Cross resistance of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations with three different ALS mutations. Pest Manag Sci 67:14861492 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018a) Herbicide programs utilizing halauxifen-methyl for glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in soybean. Weed Technol 32:659664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018b) Weed control with halauxifen-methyl applied alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:597602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Locations, soil descriptions, and herbicide application dates.a

Figure 1

Table 2. Herbicides and adjuvants used in experiments.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Average weed size, density, and number of locations with each species present.

Figure 3

Table 4. Weed control 4 wk after treatment.a

Figure 4

Table 5. Weed density reduction 4 wk after treatment.a,b