The development of a linuron-free weed management strategy for carrot production is essential as a result of the herbicide reevaluation programs launched by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in Canada for herbicides registered before 1995 and the discovery of linuron-resistant pigweed species in Ontario. Field trials were conducted in one of Ontario’s main carrot-growing regions on high organic soils in 2016 and 2017. Pigweed species seedlings were effectively controlled with PRE treatments of prometryn, pendimethalin, S-metolachlor, or glufosinate. POST treatments of pyroxasulfone and metribuzin followed by predetermined biologically effective dose (≥90% control of pigweed seedlings) of acifluorfen, oxyfluorfen, fluthiacet-methyl, and fomesafen achieved excellent crop selectivity and commercially acceptable pigweed species seedling control under field conditions. Carfentrazone-ethyl or fomesafen applied PRE severely reduced seedling emergence and yield in the wet growing season of 2017. This study demonstrated clearly that an alternative linuron-free strategy can be developed for carrots. The strategy of exploring the potential to use the biologically effective dose of selected herbicides to achieve crop selectivity and control of pigweed species seedlings was verified.

Field studies were conducted in 1996 and 1997 at three locations throughout southern Ontario with the objective of developing dose-response curves of RPA 201772 for weed control and crop tolerance in corn. The biologically effective doses required to control redroot pigweed, velvetleaf, and wild mustard were 100, 90, and 80 g/ha, respectively. Yellow foxtail was controlled with 100 to 120 g/ha, while rates for common lambsquarters varied from 60 to 130 g/ha, depending on the year and location. Wild buckwheat control was poor (> 30%) at all of the doses tested. RPA 201772 did not reduce corn grain yield; however, temporary crop injury was evident on coarse sandy soils.

DPX-79406 was evaluated for POST annual grass weed control in both controlled environment and field experiments. In controlled environment experiments, green foxtail was most susceptible to DPX-79406; whereas yellow foxtail was least susceptible of the species evaluated. DPX-79406 at 12 g/ha completely controlled six leaf black-seeded proso millet, yellow foxtail, green foxtail, and barnyardgrass. In the field, DPX-79406 at 3.0 to 25.0 g/ha effectively controlled annual grass weeds without injury to three- to six-leaf corn. There was more variation in the effectiveness of DPX-79406 applied in the field. Early POST applications provided less weed control than the late application, especially for barnyardgrass, because of weeds emerging after application. As a result, higher doses were sometimes needed for effective control. In weed-free field trials at two sites in 1990 and 1991, corn tolerated doses up to 75 g/ha of DPX-79406 applied at the three- to six-leaf growth stage. However, doses as low as 18.8 g/ha applied at the six- to nine-leaf growth stage reduced grain yield. In 1991, corn tillering increases and height and yield reductions were related linearly to the dose of DPX-79406 applied during later growth stages. DPX-79406 should be applied early POST in order to avoid crop injury while providing effective weed control.

Several weedy biotypes of wild-proso millet occur throughout Ontario. Field and laboratory studies were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to evaluate imazethapyr for preemergence and postemergence control of wild-proso millet. In the laboratory, imazethapyr, applied postemergence, effectively controlled weedy biotypes of wild-proso millet in the 4- to 5-leaf stage. Seedlings of black-seeded wild-proso millet were controlled at the 1- to 5-leaf stage by 50 g ai/ha of imazethapyr. Higher doses of imazethapyr were required to control later growth stages. In field studies, imazethapyr, applied preemergence or postemergence, effectively controlled black-seeded wild-proso millet, resulting in soybean yields comparable to the recommended postemergence treatment of sethoxydim.

Weed management strategies are needed for no-till soybean grown on clay soils. The effect of several weed management strategies on weed biomass, soybean yield, and gross return were evaluated in 1993, 1994, and 1995 on clay soils at two locations in southern Ontario. Soybean seeds were planted in narrow (19 cm) and wide (76 cm) rows with or without a rye cover crop. Herbicide treatments included glyphosate alone, glyphosate followed by imazethapyr + metribuzin applied PRE, and glyphosate followed by acifluorfen + bentazon applied POST. Two additional treatments with interrow cultivation were included in the wide-row soybean plots with glyphosate and glyphosate + PRE treatments. A nontreated check plot without rye was also included. Presence of a cover crop did not affect weed biomass or soybean yield. The glyphosate + broadcast PRE treatment provided the most consistent weed control both in narrow- and wide-row soybean. The weed control in this treatment ranged from 92 to 100%. The other treatments provided variable weed control across years and locations. The narrow- row plots with glyphosate + broadcast PRE treatment provided the most consistent soybean yields that were generally higher than the other treatments and ranged from 2,560 to 3,420 kg/ha. Soybean yields varied across locations and years in other treatments. Similar weed control and soybean yields were obtained with banded PRE herbicide + interrow cultivation and PRE treatments; however, herbicide use was 60% lower in banded PRE herbicide + interrow cultivation treatment. Narrow-row soybean averaged 27% higher gross returns than wide-row soybean for all broadcast herbicide treatments. Narrow-row soybean with PRE herbicide provided the highest gross returns. No-till soybean in narrow rows with preplant glyphosate and broadcast PRE treatment was the most risk-efficient weed management system on clay soils.

Field experiments were conducted in 1996 and 1997 at five locations in southwestern Ontario to develop dose-response curves for SAN 1269H (SAN 835H plus dicamba) for weed control and crop tolerance in corn. SAN 1269H controlled wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), pigweeds (Amaranthus retroflexus L. and A. powellii S. Wats.), barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.], and yellow foxtail [Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.]. Biologically effective doses of SAN 1269H (BAS 662H) were 440, 430, 180, and 40 g/ha for yellow foxtail, barnyard grass, wild buckwheat, and common ragweed, respectively. The biologically effective dose (that which provides 90% reduction in weed dry matter) for common lambsquarters was 560 g/ha when SAN 1269H was applied preemergence (PRE) and 110 g/ha when applied postemergence (POST). When applied PRE at a rate of 420 g/ha, pigweed was controlled, whereas only 85 g/ha was required when applied POST. Grain yield increased with dose of SAN 1269H and did not differ with time of application. Temporary crop injury was observed when SAN 1269H was applied at the four- to six-leaf growth stage. Optimum corn yields were achieved with doses of 100 to 250 g/ha.

Field studies were conducted during two soybean-corn rotations to evaluate the effect of tillage systems on quackgrass growth and control with and without glyphosate. In the final year of the study, tillage alone (compared to no-till) resulted in 88%, 78%, 64%, and 31% control of quackgrass with fall moldboard plow, spring moldboard plow, fall soil-saver, and spring soil-saver tillage, respectively. When glyphosate was used to control quackgrass, crop yields increased as tillage was reduced and excellent control of quackgrass in no-till was achieved. Increased shoot growth (in moldboard plowed and fall soil-saver tillage plots), exposure of rhizomes in winter (in fall tilled plots), and increased depth of rhizome burial (in spring tilled plots) increased quackgrass control. In general, the total biomass of quackgrass was reduced in drier years. Nonetheless, drought increased crop yield losses caused by quackgrass interference.

The fundamental role of integrated weed management (IWM) is to provide a source of scientifically based knowledge from which growers can make informed weed-management decisions. The objectives of this article include (1) highlighting the essential knowledge base required for the success of an IWM cropping system, (2) identifying the barriers to acceptance of IWM, and (3) discussing the future research opportunities for IWM. The minimum knowledge base consists of four key components: the effect of tillage on weed population dynamics, the time of weed emergence relative to the crop, the critical period for weed control, and the concept of a harvest window. There are substantial barriers, however, that reduce the willingness of growers to adopt the components of an IWM cropping system. IWM systems can be perceived as unreliable resulting in increased risk to management. No direct economic benefit can be defined clearly nor has there been sustained support for the adoption of IWM. In the future, IWM must change from a descriptive to a predictive science. As new markets evolve for agricultural products, new quality issues will arise that may influence weed management. Environmental auditing of IWM systems in terms of ISO 14000 accreditation, total carbon credits, or energy use will provide an important template from which comparisons of alternative weed-control strategies can be assessed. IWM strategies must be developed to reduce the risk to management and to gain broader support from the crop-protection industry, growers, and government.

Differences in plant community composition have been attributed to abiotic field characteristics, crop type, localized predation, farm implement traffic, and natural dispersal mechanisms. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates and herbicides also are known to influence weed community structure, although their interaction has not been reported in the literature. A growth room experiment was conducted using three weed species (green foxtail, redroot pigweed, and velvetleaf) and five herbicides (nicosulfuron, atrazine, glufosinate, glyphosate, and mesotrione) differing in their mode of action and efficacy to the selected species. The experiment was conducted in growth chambers with two levels of N fertilization (low: 0.7 mM N and high: 7.7 mM N). Weeds were grown to the two- to five-leaf stage (depending on species), treated with the appropriate herbicide, and harvested approximately 2 wk after treatment. The herbicide dose at which a 50% reduction in biomass occurred (GR50) was determined using log-logistic analysis. Herbicide susceptibility of the different weed species was influenced by N level. Green foxtail grown under low N required approximately six times the dose of nicosulfuron compared with plants grown under high N. Similarly, higher doses of nicosulfuron, glufosinate, mesotrione, and glyphosate were required to achieve a 50% reduction in redroot pigweed biomass grown under low N. In contrast, N did not influence the efficacy of mesotrione, glufosinate, or atrazine when applied to velvetleaf. This indicated specificity among herbicide–species combinations. Differences in herbicide efficacy resulting from soil N levels may alter weed community structure and may potentially explain possible weed control failures on farm fields.

Conservation tillage systems, such as no-tillage, are ecologically advantageous because they reduce soil erosion; however, they rely heavily on herbicide use. Our goal was to determine how weed communities of no-tillage systems are affected when the system is modified to reduce herbicide use through a combination of banded herbicides and interrow cultivation. To this end, we conducted a 9-yr study in a no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation. All management systems had a preplant application of glyphosate, followed by either broadcast PRE herbicides (conventional no-tillage), interrow cultivation with banded PRE herbicides, or interrow cultivation alone. Aboveground weed densities were assessed each year and data were grouped into early (1991 to 1993) and late (1996 to 1998) time periods. Over time, weed communities became more distinct, showing a strong response to management and crop. In the early years, weed communities separated more in response to management than crop. In the late years, this was reversed. Weed communities in systems with interrow cultivation were more diverse than those in conventional no-tillage. The response to weed management system and crop was species specific. For example, the abundance of yellow foxtail was higher when interrow cultivation was employed, but abundance was equal in all crops. Dandelion was more abundant in conventional no-tillage of corn and soybean; however, it was equally abundant in all management systems in wheat. Seed bank species richness increased over time and was highest in systems with interrow cultivation. Herbicide use can be reduced in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–wheat rotation by incorporating interrow cultivation, with or without banded herbicides, into the management plan. The weed community trajectory changes, and the weed community becomes more diverse. A more diverse weed community will not necessarily alter how we manage weeds.

Applying glyphosate relative to the growth stage of soybean is important for maximizing weed control and profits in glyphosate-resistant soybean under no-till systems. A study was conducted in Ontario for 4 yr to evaluate the effectiveness and gross return on the timing and sequence of applications of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean. Percent control of various weed species varied among years due to environmental conditions. Timing of glyphosate was critical relative to weed emergence and determined the success of the treatment in terms of optimum soybean yield and gross return. Soybean yield and gross return approximated that the critical period for weed control in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean was the unifoliolate to the one- to three-trifoliolate stage. Sequential applications of glyphosate provided higher soybean yield and gross return than a single preplant application of glyphosate. Glyphosate applied preplant or at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage consistently provided maximum average soybean yield and gross return. Gross return of the sequential glyphosate treatments was also more consistent across variable soybean price scenarios. Competition from uncontrolled later emerging weeds resulted in soybean yield loss with the single preplant application of glyphosate. Competition from uncontrolled early-emerging weeds reduced soybean yields when glyphosate was applied only at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean. Overall, two weed control strategies were identified: (1) two applications of glyphosate, the first at preplant to the unifoliolate stage, followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean, (b) first application of glyphosate at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean if later emerging weeds exceeded threshold densities.

In several European nations, including France and Germany, atrazine has been banned because of environmental concerns. However, in Canada, atrazine remains an important component of modern weed control in corn. The objectives of this study were to determine the value of atrazine to corn producers by examining weed control efficacy, yield of corn, adjusted gross return, and the variability associated with PRE and POST herbicides applied alone or in combination with atrazine. A randomized complete-block design experiment was conducted at two locations for 3 yr to evaluate the performance of selected PRE and POST herbicides with and without atrazine. The addition of atrazine to PRE herbicides increased weed control (25%), improved herbicide performance consistency, increased corn yields (8%), increased adjusted gross return (Can$59 ha−1), and reduced risk ($30 ha−1) over sites and years. Although improving weed control, the addition of atrazine to POST herbicides increased the risk of return compared with treatments without atrazine by about $20 ha−1 because the increased cost of atrazine was not always offset by higher corn yields. Our results clearly demonstrate a value of atrazine for broadleaf weed control in corn, both in terms of efficacy and economic return. From our findings, we estimated that the economic benefit of atrazine to Ontario, Canada, corn producers to be at least $26.1 million in 2004. Under current economic pressures facing agricultural producers, our findings show that a balance between the environmental effects and the benefits of atrazine to corn producers must be found because no alternative herbicide with equal economic and agronomic attributes is available at this time. To meet this balance, research on further reducing atrazine use rates while maintaining effective weed control in corn and on developing a sustainable stewardship plan is warranted.

A plant's ability to detect and adjust morphologically to changes in light quality (red–far-red [R:FR] ratio) is one mechanism by which a crop plant responds to weeds. To test this hypothesis, two experiments were conducted where corn was grown in growth cabinets under different light environments. First, to determine the effect of R:FR ratio on corn growth and development, treatments of high R:FR (1.37) and low R:FR (0.67) ratio were compared. These were established by planting corn in pots and then placing trays of either turface (a baked clay medium with high R:FR) or commercial grass sod (low R:FR) on each side of a row of corn pots. Grass sod was used to simulate low-growing weeds. The low R:FR sod treatment resulted in corn plants which were taller, had larger leaves, and greater shoot–root ratio than plants growing in the high R:FR turface treatment. In the second experiment, the effect of R:FR ratio on corn leaf azimuth position was examined. This was accomplished by adding a third treatment where each corn row had sod placed on one side and turface on the other. The proportion of leaves in four azimuthal classes was recorded. In the presence of sod, the proportion of leaves perpendicular to the corn row decreased, and this altered the proportion of leaves in other classes. Therefore, corn seedlings detected changes in light quality caused by the presence of sod (which simulated low-growing weeds) and responded by adjusting carbon allocation and leaf orientation to optimize the interception of light quantity and quality. These results support our hypothesis that low-lying vegetation can alter the growth of corn seedlings before competition for resources occurs. This change in growth may help explain the importance of early-season weed control in corn.

The development of glufosinate-resistant corn represents a new weed management system for corn growers. Field experiments were conducted from 1995 to 1997 at four locations in southwestern Ontario. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of timing of weed control relative to the growth stage of corn with glufosinate applied alone or in combination with residual herbicides. Control of all species tested improved with the addition of atrazine plus dicamba to glufosinate, applied from the two- to eight-leaf stage of corn growth. Based on a 90% weed dry matter reduction, glufosinate with atrazine plus dicamba controlled common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and pigweed species at the three-leaf stage of corn and yellow foxtail, barnyardgrass, and large crabgrass at the two-, four-, and eight-leaf stage of corn, respectively. Weed control with glufosinate alone was improved when applied at the later growth stages of corn. Glufosinate applied alone at the four-leaf stage of corn controlled common ragweed and common lambsquarters, whereas pigweed species were controlled effectively at the eight-leaf stage of corn growth. Corn grain yield was consistently higher when glufosinate was applied in combination with residual herbicides, compared to glufosinate alone. Glufosinate in combination with residual herbicides applied to corn at the three- to five-leaf stage may represent the best timing for weed control. Our data suggested that a tank mixture of glufosinate with other postemergence residual herbicides or a split application of glufosinate in combination with cultivation may be required for weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn.

Early canopy closure and manipulation of crop row spacing or density can reduce the amount and frequency of herbicide use in corn. Field studies were conducted at Woodstock, ON from 1996 to 1999 to evaluate the effect of corn row spacing, plant density, and frequency of glufosinate application on weed biomass and corn yield in glufosinate-resistant corn. Treatments included row width, corn density, and herbicide. The effect of row width and corn density on weed biomass was variable among years. In a wet year (1996), narrow (38 cm) rows provided greater weed suppression than wide (76 cm) rows regardless of crop density. In a dry year (1998), narrow-row high-density (100,000 plants/ha) corn had the lowest weed biomass. In other years, either narrow row or high density was equally successful in suppressing weeds. Effectiveness of herbicides in reducing weed biomass was not influenced by row width or corn density. Corn yield was influenced by row width or corn density. Although weed biomass was lowered by two applications of glufosinate in comparison with a single application, corn grain yields were similar between the two treatments. Planting corn at higher densities may help in reducing early-season weed competition, whereas narrow rows may help in controlling later-emerging species.

A 9-yr (1990–1998) study was conducted at Woodstock, ON, Canada, to evaluate weed densities, crop yields, and gross returns in a modified no-tillage (no primary tillage) corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation under three weed management treatments: (1) minimum, preplant application of glyphosate followed by mechanical control; (2) integrated weed management (IWM), preplant application of glyphosate followed by band application of preemergence herbicides plus mechanical control; and (3) conventional, preplant application of glyphosate followed by broadcast application of preemergence herbicides in corn and soybean. In wheat the minimum and IWM treatments had no additional weed control measures other than the preplant application of glyphosate, whereas the conventional treatment had a broadcast application of a postemergence herbicide. Weed densities were assessed each year, (except in 1990) once during the growing season in corn and soybean and immediately after crop harvest in wheat. Adjusted gross return was calculated as the gross revenue minus the unique costs for weed control for each of the treatments. Weed densities were greater in the minimum treatment compared with the IWM or conventional treatment in all crops. Weed densities in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. There was no apparent “buildup” of weed density with time in the rotation resulting from weed escapes. Hence, these data challenge current thinking that weed densities increase with time if weed escapes are allowed to go to seed. Corn and soybean yields in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. However, the minimum treatment had the lowest corn and soybean yields. Winter wheat yield was not affected by the treatments. All weed management treatments provided similar gross returns for each crop and for the rotation. Thus, the minimum treatment consisting of glyphosate applied preplant followed by shallow interrow tillage appeared to be a viable option, especially if practiced in a farming system capable of ensuring adequate timing of cultivation operations.