Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T09:03:38.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Response of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Ecotypes to Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John W. Leif ,
Jennifer L. Vollmer ,
Thomas J. Hartberg  and
Thomas O. Ballard
John W. Leif*
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Company, P.O. BOX 400, Princeton, NJ 08543
Jennifer L. Vollmer
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Company, P.O. BOX 400, Princeton, NJ 08543
Thomas J. Hartberg
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Company, P.O. BOX 400, Princeton, NJ 08543
Thomas O. Ballard
Affiliation:
American Cyanamid Company, P.O. BOX 400, Princeton, NJ 08543
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: leifj@pt.cyanamid.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin in 1992 and 1993 to evaluate growth and response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to imazethapyr. Plants from ecotypes originating in each state were grown at all four locations. Nontreated plants grown in Wisconsin or Ohio were consistently taller than plants grown in Michigan or Indiana, regardless of the origin of the seeds. Nontreated plants originating from Wisconsin or Michigan showed a trend toward flowering earlier than those originating from Indiana or Ohio, regardless of test site. The results suggest the existence of common ragweed ecotypes based on origin of the seeds. Weather conditions after treatment with imazethapyr had a greater influence on common ragweed control and regrowth than the origin of common ragweed seeds. Common ragweed regrew following imazethapyr application through the development of axillary buds under conditions of warm temperatures and moist soils during the 4 to 6 wk following imazethapyr application. Mild to cool temperatures or dry conditions following imazethapyr application reduced treated common ragweed regrowth. Both early- and mid-postemergence imazethapyr treatments delayed flowering of all ecotypes. However, flowering of imazethapyr-treated plants followed the same order as nontreated plants, with plants from the Michigan or Wisconsin ecotypes showing a trend toward flowering earlier than those from Indiana or Ohio.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELEnvironmental conditionsweed ecotypeAMBELEPOST, early postemergenceMPOST, mid-postemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 150 - 155
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

Ahmadi, M. S., Haderlie, L. C., and Wicks, G. A. 1980. Effects of growth stage and water stress on barnyardgrass (Echnichloa crus-galli) control and on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed Sci. 28: 277–282.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1995. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci. 43: 572–577.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1996a. Response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to postemergence imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 44: 248–251.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1996b. Germination, viability, and protein changes during cold stratification of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed. J. Plant Physiol. 149: 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandeen, J. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Cowett, E. R. 1982. Discovery and distribution of herbicide-resistant weeds in North America. In LeBarron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance In Plants. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1990. Influence of application time on weed control with reduced rates of imazethapyr and thifensulfuron in a weed nursery. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 166–167.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1991. Influence of application time on weed control with reduced rates of imazethapyr and thifensulfuron in a weed nursery, 1991. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 264–265.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. 1997. Weed diversity and weed management. Weed Sci. 45: 357–363.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J. and Toler, J. E. 1999. Differential control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) by postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 165–168.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G. and Renner, K. A. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank mixes. Weed Technol. 8: 766–771.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Renner, K. A., Schabenberger, O., and Penner, D. 1999. Soil moisture, relative humidity, and bentazon affect imazethapyr absorption and translocation in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Technol. 13: 320–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and Albright, J. W. 1990. Imazethapyr rate, timing additive and lupine variety weed control study. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 127–128.Google Scholar
Leif, J. W. and Taylor, F. 1993. Sequential and tank mix combinations with imazethapyr for enhanced weed control and weed resistance management in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:81.Google Scholar
Leuschen, W. E., Gunsolus, J. L., Hoverstad, T. R., and Getting, J. J. 1993a. Postemergence herbicides for common cocklebur control in soybeans at Waseca, MN in 1993. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 248–249.Google Scholar
Leuschen, W. E., Gunsolus, J. L., Hoverstad, T. R., and Getting, J. J. 1993b. Common ragweed control in soybeans at Waseca, MN in 1993. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 290–291.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., Jordan, T. N., and Wills, G. D. 1980. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate in soybeans (Glycine max) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 28: 113–118.Google Scholar
Parsons, R. F. 1968. The significance of growth-rate comparisons for plant ecology. Am. Nat. 102: 595–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1997. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 665 p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Mallipudi, N. M. 1991. Mechanisms of selectivity of the imidazolinones. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 91–102.Google Scholar