Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:38:50.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relating initial paraquat injury to final efficacy in selected weed species influenced by environmental conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2020

Nick T. Harre Open the ORCID record for Nick T. Harre [Opens in a new window] ,
Garth W. Duncan ,
Julie M. Young  and
Bryan G. Young Open the ORCID record for Bryan G. Young [Opens in a new window]
Nick T. Harre
Affiliation:
Visiting Scholar, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Garth W. Duncan
Affiliation:
Former graduate student, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Julie M. Young
Affiliation:
Researcher, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Bryan G. Young*
Affiliation:
Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Bryan G. Young, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN47907. (Email: BryanYoung@purdue.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control of paraquat can be erratic and may be attributable to differing species sensitivity and/or environmental factors for which minor guidance is available on commercial labels. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to quantify selectivity of paraquat across select weed species and the influence of environmental factors. Experiments were performed under controlled conditions in the greenhouse and growth chamber. Compared with purple deadnettle (dose necessary to reduce shoot biomass by 50% = 39 g ai ha−1), waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, giant ragweed, and horseweed were 4.9, 3.3, 1.9, and 1.3 times more sensitive to paraquat, respectively. The injury progression rate over 3 d after treatment (DAT) was a more accurate predictor of final efficacy at 14 DAT than the lag phase until symptoms first appeared. For example, at the 17.5 g ha−1 dose, the injury rate of waterhemp and Palmer amaranth was, on average, 3.6 times greater than that of horseweed and purple deadnettle. The influence of various environmental factors on paraquat efficacy was weed specific. Applications made at sunrise improved control of purple deadnettle over applications at solar noon or sunset. Lower light intensities (200 or 600 μmol m−2 s−1) surrounding the time of application improved control of waterhemp and horseweed more than 1,000 μmol m−2 s−1. Day/night temperatures of 27/16 C improved horseweed and purple deadnettle control compared with day/night temperatures of 18/13 C. Though control was positively associated with injury rates in the application time of day and temperature experiments, a negative relationship was observed for waterhemp in the light-intensity experiment. Thus, although there are conditions that enhance paraquat efficacy, the specific target species must also be considered. These results advocate paraquat dose recommendations, currently based on weed height, be expanded to address sensitivity differences among weeds. Moreover, these findings contrast with paraquat labels stating temperatures of 13 C or lower do not reduce paraquat efficacy.

Keywords

Paraquatgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) CronqPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watsonpurple deadnettle, Lamium purpureum L.waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. SauerAdjuvantapplication time of daybipyridiliumlight intensitymethyl-viologentemperatureWeibull
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 279 - 288
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Anderson, DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: primer on evidence. New York: Springer. 184 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018) Parazone® 3SL. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/agrian-cg-fs1-production/pdfs/PARAZONE_3SL1g_Label.pdf. Accessed: February 9, 2020Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019) Gramoxone® SL 2.0. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/agrian-cg-fs1-production/pdfs/Gramoxone_SL_2.0_Label1n.pdf. Accessed: February 9, 2020Google Scholar
Archontoulis, SV, Miguez, FE (2015) Nonlinear regression models and applications in agricultural research. Agron J 107:786–798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, MC, Cahoon, CW, Flessner, ML, VanGessel, MJ (2019) Chemical termination of cover crop rapeseed. Weed Technol 33:686–692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, DL, Lynd, JQ (1967) Factors in paraquat-induced chlorosis with Phaseolus foliar tissues. Agron J 59:364–366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, RD, Weldon, LW (1965) The sensitivity of duckweeds (Lemnaceae) and azolla to diquat and paraquat. Weeds 13:147–149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, PD, Brian, RC (1975) Surfactants and the uptake and movement of paraquat in plants. Pestic Sci 6:419–427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brian, RC (1967) The uptake and absorption of diquat and paraquat by tomato, sugar beet and cocksfoot. Ann Appl Biol 59:91–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, RF (1987) Germination of Aristida armata under constant and alternating temperatures and its analysis with the cumulative Weibull distribution as a model. Aust J Bot 35:581–591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calderbank, A, Slade, P (1966) The fate of paraquat in plants. Outlook Agr 5:55–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Loughin, TM (2001) Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinis-Oliveira, RJ, Duarte, JA, Sánchez-Navarro, A, Remião, F, Bastos, ML, Carvalho, F (2008) Paraquat poisonings: mechanisms of lung toxicity, clinical features, and treatment. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:13–71 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duke, SO (2018) The history and current status of glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 74:1027–1034 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekins, WL, Appleby, AP, Furtick, WR (1970) Influence of three drift control adjuvants on volatility, adherence, and efficacy of herbicides. Weed Sci 18:505–508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Agronomy 2:358–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol 22:16–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, RA, Eckert, RE (1965) Paraquat-surfactant combinations for control of downy brome. Weeds 13:150–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Johnson, WG, Hillger, DE (2005) Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:1065–1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A (2020) Weed control in wheat stubble fields. The Bulletin, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois. https://farmdoc.illinois.edu/field-crop-production/weeds/weed-control-in-wheat-stubble-fields.html. Accessed: September 20, 2020Google Scholar
Hart, JJ, Di Tomaso, JM, Kochian, LV (1993) Characterization of paraquat transport in protoplasts from maize (Zea mays L.) suspension cells. Plant Physiol 103:963–969 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, TR (2014) Mechanisms of resistance to paraquat in plants. Pest Manag Sci 70:1316–1323 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, FD, Foy, CL (2000) Interaction of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol 14:807–813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ipor, IB, Price, CE (1994) Uptake, translocation and activity of paraquat on Mikania micrantha H.B.K. grown in different light conditions. Int J Pest Manage 40:40–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Owen, MDK, Shaw, DR, Wilcut, JW, Jordan, DL, Wilson, RG, Bernards, ML, Young, BG (2009) U.S. grower views on problematic weeds and changes in weed pressure in glyphosate-resistant corn, cotton, and soybean cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:162–166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoczki, E, Laskay, G, Gaal, I, Szigeti, Z (1992) Mode of action of paraquat in leaves of paraquat-resistant Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Plant Cell Environ 15:531–539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkle, MG, Leinweber, CL, Bovey, RW (1965) The influence of light, oxygen and temperature on the herbicidal properties of paraquat. Plant Physiol 40:832–835 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, GB, Treadway, JA, Reeves, JL, Steckel, LE (2017) Effect of time of day of application of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, paraquat, and saflufenacil on horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control. Weed Technol 31:550–556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information. Data tools: 1981-2010 normals. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals. Accessed: January 13, 2017 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Griffith, G (2011) Evaluation of combinations of paraquat plus photosystem II-inhibiting herbicides for controlling failed stands of maize (Zea mays). Crop Prot 30:307–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearcy, RW, Ehleringer, J (1984) Comparative ecophysiology of C3 and C4 plants. Plant Cell Environ 7:1–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, JC, Sandve, SR (2013) Adaptation to seasonality and the winter freeze. Front Plant Sci 4:167 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purba, E, Preston, C, Powles, SB (1995) The mechanism of resistance to paraquat is strongly temperature dependent in resistant Hordeum leporinum Link and H. glaucum Steud. Planta 196:464–468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, AR, Ries, SK (1968) Factors influencing the phytotoxicity and movement of paraquat in quackgrass. Weed Sci 16:80–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Coble, HD (1981) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci 29:480–485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (ed) (2014) Pp 337–338 in Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Slade, P, Bell, EG (1966) The movement of paraquat in plants. Weed Res 6:267–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LW, Foy, CL (1967) Interaction of several paraquat-surfactant mixtures. Weeds 15:67–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2019) National Agricultural Statistics Service. Surveys. Agriculture Chemical Use Program. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/. Accessed: February 29, 2020Google Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Hart, SE, Wax, LM (1997) Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci 45:378–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2015) Baseline survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-Weed-Survey_Baseline.xlsx. Accessed: February 8, 2020Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2019) Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits, and vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019-Weed-Survey_broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: February 8, 2020Google Scholar
Wehtje, G, Wilcut, JW, McGuire, JA (1992a) Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds. Weed Sci 40:90–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G, Wilcut, JW, McGuire, JA (1992b) Paraquat phytotoxicity, absorption, and translocation in peanut and selected weeds as influenced by chloramben. Weed Sci 40:471–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, HP, Hines, TE, Bellinder, RR, Grande, JA (1985) Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 33:531–536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Harre et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Harre et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 159.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Harre et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Harre et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 360.3 KB