Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:14:11.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Smooth scouringrush (Equisetum laevigatum) control with glyphosate in eastern Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2022

Drew J. Lyon*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Mark E. Thorne
Affiliation:
Associate in Research, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Drew J. Lyon, Professor, Washington State University, PO Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164-6420. E-mail: drew.lyon@wsu.edu

Abstract

Smooth scouringrush has invaded no-till production fields across the US Pacific Northwest. The ability of Equisetum species to take up and accumulate silica on the epidermis and in cell walls may affect herbicide uptake. The objectives of this study were to measure the silica concentration in smooth scouringrush stems over time, and to determine how time of application affects the efficacy of glyphosate for smooth scouringrush control, with and without the addition of an organosilicone surfactant (OSS). Field studies were conducted at three sites in eastern Washington from 2019 to 2021. Three herbicide treatments (no herbicide, glyphosate, and glyphosate + OSS) were applied at four application times (May, June, July, and August) in 2019 fallow. The silica content of smooth scouringrush stems increased over the course of the 2019 growing season at all three sites. In 2020, smooth scouringrush stem densities were reduced when the 2019 herbicide treatments were applied in late June (12% of no herbicide density) compared to late July (24%) or August (30%). Smooth scouringrush stem densities at all three sites, in both 2020 and 2021, were reduced in the glyphosate + OSS treatment compared to glyphosate alone. In 2021, 2 yr after herbicide application, there was no effect of application timing for the glyphosate treatment without OSS, but stem densities were reduced when glyphosate + OSS was applied in late June (1%) compared with applications in late July (26%) or late August (21%). It is not clear if the cause of reduced glyphosate efficacy with late July and late August applications is the result of increased silica content in smooth scouringrush stems over time. Maximum glyphosate efficacy on smooth scouringrush was achieved with an application in late June and with the addition of an OSS. Control of smooth scouringrush with glyphosate + OSS can be sustained for at least 2 yr after application.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. 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: Rodrigo Werle, University of Wisconsin

References

Baylis, AD (2000) Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manage Sci 56:299308 3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernards, ML, Sandell, LD, Frasure, EF (2010) UNL CropWatch June 16, 2010: controlling scouringrush. http://cropwatch.unl.edu/unl-cropwatch-june-16-2010-controlling-scouringrush. Accessed: March 31, 2021Google Scholar
Coupland, D, Peabody, DV (1981) Absorption, translocation, and exudation of glyphosate, fosamine, and amitrole in field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Weed Sci 29:556560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusciol, CAC, de Arruda, DP, Fernandes, AM, Antonangelo, JA, Alleoni, LRF, Nascimento, CAC, Rossato, OB, McCray, JM (2018) Methods and extractants to evaluate silicon availability for sugarcane. Sci Rep 8:916 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, RJ, Bishop, NG (1988) Promotion of stomatal infiltration of glyphosate by an organosilicone surfactant reduces the critical rainfall period. Pesticide Sci 24:562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, SJ, Whetmore, RH (1948) Studies of development in the vegetative shoot of Equisetum arvense L. I. The shoot apex. Am J Bot 35:755767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauke, RL (1960) The smooth scouring rush and its complexities. Am Fern J 50:185193 Google Scholar
Haysom, MB, Ostatek-Boczynski, ZA (2006) Rapid, wet oxidation procedure for the estimation of silicon in plant tissue. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 37:22992306 Google Scholar
Huggins, DR, Reganold, JP (2008) No-till: the quiet revolution. Sci Am 299:7077 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husby, C (2013) Biology and functional ecology of Equisetum with emphasis on the giant horsetails. Bot Rev 79:147177 Google Scholar
Kerbs, BD, Hulting, AG, Lyon, DJ (2019) Scouringrush (Equisetum spp.) control in dryland winter wheat. Weed Technol 33:808814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H, Travlos, I, Qi, L, Kanatas, P, Wang, P (2019) Optimization of herbicide use: study on spreading and evaporation characteristics of glyphosate–organic silicone mixture droplets on weed leaves. Agronomy 9, doi: 10.3390/agronomy9090547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, M, Nöske, R, Bach, G, Glaubauf, T, Bartoszek, M, Strauch, P (2011) A procedure for rapid determination of the silicon content in plant materials. Z. Naturforsch 66:289294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapei, L (2007) Characterisation of silica in Equisetum hyemale and its transformation into biomorphous ceramics. Ph.D. dissertation. Universität Potsdam. 158 pGoogle Scholar
SAS (2019) SAS OnlineDoc. Version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, M, Gaylord, D, Busacca, A (2007) Evolution of Eureka Flat; A dust-producing engine of the Palouse loess, U.S.A. Quatern Int 162(D7):7696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thirunarayanan, K, Zimdahl, RL, Smika, DE (1985) Chlorsulfuron adsorption and degradation in soil. Weed Sci 33:558563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar