Widespread occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds and more variable weather conditions across the United States has made weed control in many crops more challenging. Preemergence (PRE) herbicides with soil residual activity have resurged as the foundation for early season weed control in many crops. Field experiments were conducted in Janesville and Lancaster, Wisconsin, in 2021 and 2022 (4 site-years) to evaluate the weed control efficacy of solo (single site of action [SOA]) and premix (two or more SOAs) PRE herbicides in conventional tillage corn. Treatments consisted of 18 PRE herbicides plus a nontreated check. At the Janesville-2021 site, S-metolachlor + bicyclopyrone + mesotrione, atrazine + S-metolachlor + bicyclopyrone + mesotrione, and clopyralid + acetochlor + mesotrione provided >72% giant ragweed control. At the Janesville-2022 site, none of the PRE herbicides evaluated provided >70% giant ragweed control due to the high giant ragweed density and the lack of timely rainfall. At the Lancaster-2021 site, atrazine, dicamba, and flumetsulam + clopyralid provided <45% waterhemp control, but the remaining treatments provided >90% control. At the Lancaster-2022 site, the efficacy of some PRE herbicides was reduced due to the high waterhemp density; however, most herbicides provided >75% control. At the Lancaster-2021 and Lancaster-2022 sites, only dicamba and S-metolachlor did not provide >75% common lambsquarters control. Group 15 PRE herbicides provided >75% control of giant foxtail. Across weed species, PRE herbicides with two (78%) and three (81%) SOAs provided greater weed control than PRE herbicides with a single SOA (68%), indicating that at least two SOA herbicides applied PRE result in better early season weed control. The efficacy of the PRE herbicide treatments evaluated herein varied according to the soil seedbank weed community composition and environmental conditions (i.e., rainfall following application), but the premixes were a more reliable option to improve early season weed control in conventional tillage corn.

Waterhemp has evolved resistance to seven herbicide modes of action in the United States and to five in Canada, which limits weed control options for producers. The objective of this research was to quantify the level and duration of residual control of multiple herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp with five Group 15 herbicides (acetochlor, dimethenamid-p, flufenacet, pyroxasulfone, and S-metolachlor) applied preemergence in a non-crop area. Four field trials were conducted over a 2-yr period (2021, 2022) in southwestern Ontario, Canada. By 4 wk after application (WAA) 91% of waterhemp had emerged in the nontreated control area. The numerical control of waterhemp with all Group 15 herbicides, with the exception of pyroxasulfone, was greatest at 4 WAA, then control declined. Flufenacet provided the lowest waterhemp control; dimethenamid-p and S-metolachlor provided intermediate control, and acetochlor and pyroxasulfone provided the highest control. Waterhemp control with pyroxasulfone peaked at 6 WAA with 99% and declined to 77% at 12 WAA. Flufenacet (low and high rates) was predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 50% for 42 to 44 d after application (DAA). Dimethenamid-p, S-metolachlor, and acetochlor (both formulations and three rates) were predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 80% for 36, 43, and 33 to 51 DAA, respectively; in contrast, pyroxasulfone was predicted to reduce waterhemp emergence by 80% for 82 DAA. This study concludes that of the Group 15 herbicides evaluated, flufenacet provides the lowest and shortest residual control of waterhemp, and pyroxasulfone provides the highest and longest residual control of waterhemp.

Limited information exists on the global economic impact of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds. The objective of this manuscript was to estimate the potential yield and economic loss from uncontrolled GR weeds in the major field crops grown in Ontario, Canada. The impact of GR weed interference on field crop yield was determined using an extensive database of field trials completed on commercial farms in southwestern Ontario between 2010 and 2021. Crop yield loss was estimated by expert opinion (weed scientists and Ontario government crop specialists) when research data were unavailable. This manuscript assumes that crop producers adjust their weed management programs to control GR weeds, which increases weed management costs but reduces crop yield loss from GR weed interference by 95%. GR volunteer corn, horseweed, waterhemp, giant ragweed, and common ragweed would cause an annual monetary loss of (in millions of Can$) $172, $104, $11, $3, and $0.3, respectively, for a total annual loss of $290 million if Ontario farmers did not adjust their weed management programs to control GR biotypes. The increased herbicide cost to control GR volunteer corn, horseweed, waterhemp, giant ragweed, and common ragweed in the major field crops in Ontario is estimated to be (in millions of Can$) $17, $9, $2, $0.1, and $0.02, respectively, for a total increase in herbicide expenditures of $28 million annually. Reduced GR weed interference with the adjusted weed management programs would reduce farm-gate monetary crop loss by 95% from $290 million to $15 million. This study estimates that GR weeds would reduce the farm-gate value of the major field crops produced in Ontario by Can$290 million annually if Ontario farmers did not adjust their weed management programs, but with increased herbicide costs of Can$28 million and reduced crop yield loss of 95% the actual annual monetary loss in Ontario is estimated to be Can$43 million annually.

Six field experiments were conducted to investigate any interaction between pyroxasulfone and flumioxazin on soybean tolerance and control of multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp in soybean during 2016 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada. There was a synergistic increase in soybean injury with the co-application of pyroxasulfone and flumioxazin at all rates evaluated at 2 wk after emergence (WAE), the two highest rates evaluated (134/106 and 268/211 g ai ha–1) at 4 WAE, and the highest rate (268/211 g ai ha–1) evaluated at 8 WAE. Soybean injury with all pyroxasulfone and flumioxazin treatments was transient and had no adverse effect on soybean grain yield. Pyroxasulfone applied preemergence at 45, 89, 134, and 268 g ai ha–1 controlled MHR waterhemp up to 72%, 89%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. Flumioxazin applied preemergence at 35, 70, 106, and 211 g ai ha–1 controlled MHR waterhemp up to 78%, 90%, 93%, and 96%, respectively. Pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin applied preemergence at 45/35, 89/70, 134/106, and 268/211 g ai ha–1 controlled MHR waterhemp up to 92%, 96%, 98%, and 100%, respectively. There were no significant antagonistic or synergistic interactions for the control of MHR waterhemp with pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin at rates evaluated except at 268/211 g ai ha–1, which provided a synergistic increase in MHR waterhemp control at 4 WAE. The MHR waterhemp biomass and density reductions followed a trend similar trend to visible control. Pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin at 268/211 g ai ha–1 caused a synergistic response in biomass reduction (9% difference). Based on these results, there is an additive increase in MHR waterhemp control and potential for a synergistic increase in soybean injury with the co-application of pyroxasulfone plus flumioxazin.

Herbicides that inhibit very-long-chain fatty acids (VLCFAs) have been widely used for preemergence control of annual monocot and small-seeded dicot weed species, such as waterhemp, since their discovery in the 1950s. VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides are often applied in combination with active ingredients that possess residual activity on small-seeded broadleaf weeds, which can make their contribution to preemergence waterhemp control difficult to quantify. Bare-ground field experiments were designed to investigate the efficacy of eight VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides applied at their minimum and maximum labeled rates for control of Illinois waterhemp populations. Four different locations were selected, two of which contained previously characterized VLCFA inhibitor–resistant waterhemp populations in Champaign County (CHR) and McLean County (MCR). Two locations with VLCFA inhibitor–sensitive waterhemp populations included the University of Illinois South Farm in Urbana, IL, and the Orr Research Center in Perry, IL. Soils at the CHR, MCR, and Urbana locations contained greater than 3% organic matter, but less than 3% organic matter at Perry. Non-encapsulated acetochlor and alachlor controlled CHR and MCR waterhemp populations 28 d after treatment (DAT), whereas other VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides resulted in 61% and 76% control of the CHR and MCR populations, respectively. In contrast, all VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides resulted in 81% and 88% control of the Perry and Urbana waterhemp populations, respectively, 28 DAT. Waterhemp control decreased by 42 DAT, especially for the VLCFA inhibitor–resistant CHR and MCR populations. Overall, VLCFA-inhibiting herbicides remain effective for controlling sensitive waterhemp, but most are not effective for controlling VLCFA inhibitor–resistant waterhemp populations. Proper herbicide stewardship and integrated weed management practices should be implemented to maintain VLCFA-inhibiting herbicide efficacy for waterhemp management in the future.

Cover crops can be utilized to suppress weeds via direct competition for sunlight, water, and soil nutrients. Research was conducted to determine if cover crops can be used in label-mandated buffer areas in 2,4-D-resistant soybean cropping systems. Delaying termination of cover crops containing cereal rye to at or after soybean planting resulted in a 25 to more than 200 percentage point increase in cover crop biomass compared to a control treatment. Cover crops generally improved horseweed control when 2,4-D was not used. Cover crops reduced grass densities up to 54% at four of six site-years when termination was delayed to after soybean planting. Cover crops did not reduce giant ragweed densities. Cover crops reduced waterhemp densities by up to 45%. Cover crops terminated at or after planting were beneficial within buffer areas for control of grasses and waterhemp, but not giant ragweed. Yield reductions of 14% to 41% occurred when cover crop termination was delayed to after soybean planting at three of six site-years. Terminating the cover crops at planting time provided suppression of grasses and waterhemp within buffer areas and had similar yield to the highest-yielding treatment in five out of six site-years.

The evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds has resulted in the necessity to integrate nonchemical control methods with chemicals for effective management in crop production systems. In soybean, control of the pigweed species, particularly herbicide-resistant waterhemp and Palmer amaranth, have become predominant concerns. Cereal rye planted as a winter cover crop can effectively suppress early-season weed emergence in soybean, including waterhemp, when planted at a rate of 123 kg ha−1. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of different cereal rye seeding rates (0, 34, 56, 79, 110, and 123 kg ha−1) on early-season waterhemp suppression and soybean growth and yield. Soybean was planted into fall-seeded cereal rye, which was terminated within 4 d of soybean planting. The experiment was conducted over the 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons in Columbia, Missouri. Effects of cereal rye on early-season waterhemp suppression varied by year and were most consistent at 56 kg ha−1 or higher seeding rates. Linear regression analysis of cereal rye biomass, height, or stand at soybean planting showed inverse relationships with waterhemp emergence. No adverse effects on soybean growth or yield were observed at any of the cereal rye seeding rates relative to plots that lacked cereal rye cover. Result differences among the years suggest that the successfulness of cereal rye on suppression of early-season waterhemp emergence is likely influenced by the amount of waterhemp seed present in the soil seed bank.

The invasion of waterhemp into northern sugarbeet growing regions has prompted producers to re-integrate inter-row cultivation into weed management programs, as no currently registered herbicides can control glyphosate-resistant waterhemp POST in crop. Inter-row cultivation was a common weed control practice in sugarbeet until the release of glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet cultivars in 2008 made the use of inter-row cultivation unnecessary. In the late 2010s, producers began again to use inter-row cultivation to remove weeds that glyphosate did not control, but producers need information on the effectiveness and safety of inter-row cultivation when used with soil-residual herbicide programs. Efficacy and tolerance field experiments were conducted in Minnesota and North Dakota from 2017 to 2019. Results from the efficacy experiment demonstrated that cultivation improved waterhemp control 11% and 12%, 14 and 28 d after treatment, respectively. Waterhemp response to cultivation was dependent on crop canopy and precipitation after cultivation. Cultivation had minimal effect on waterhemp density in three environments, but at one environment, near Galchutt, ND in 2019, waterhemp density increased 600% and 196%, 14 and 28 d after treatment, respectively. Climate data indicated that in 2019 Galchutt, ND received 105 mm of precipitation in the 14 d following cultivation and had an open crop canopy that probably contributed to further weed emergence. Results from the tolerance experiment demonstrated that root yield and recoverable sucrose were not affected by cultivation timing or number of cultivations. In one environment, cultivating reduced sucrose content by 0.8% regardless of date or cultivation number, but no differences were found in four environments. Damage/destruction of leaf tissue from in-season cultivation is probably responsible for the reduction in sucrose content. Results indicate that cultivation can be a valuable tool to control weeds that herbicide cannot, but excessive rainfall and open crop canopy following cultivation can create an environment conducive to further weed emergence.

Control of waterhemp is becoming more difficult in Ontario because biotypes have evolved resistance to four herbicide sites of action (SOA), including groups 2, 5, 9, and 14. The objective of this study was to compare PRE, POST, and PRE followed by (fb) POST herbicide programs for their effect on control, density, and biomass of multiple-herbicide–resistant (MHR) waterhemp as well as corn injury and grain yield. Two separate field studies, each consisting of five field trials, were conducted over a 2-yr period (2018 and 2019) in fields where corn was grown in Ontario, Canada. The first experiment evaluated MHR waterhemp control with an inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenyl-pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) applied PRE, PRE fb glufosinate applied POST, and glufosinate applied POST. The second experiment evaluated MHR waterhemp control with a non-HPPD inhibitor applied PRE, then PRE fb a POST application of atrazine + mesotrione, and then atrazine + mesotrione applied POST. Atrazine + isoxaflutole caused 3% to 5% corn injury at environment 1 (E1); no corn injury was observed with PRE and POST herbicide programs at environments E2, E3, E4, and E5. In general, atrazine/bicyclopyrone/mesotrione/S-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P/saflufenacil applied PRE controlled MHR waterhemp ≥95% 12 wk after POST application (WAA). A POST application of glufosinate following atrazine + tolpyralate PRE, and a POST application of atrazine + mesotrione following atrazine/dicamba or atrazine/S-metolachlor PRE, improved control at 4, 8, and 12 WAA in most environments. In general, PRE fb POST applications resulted in better control of MHR waterhemp throughout the growing season than single PRE and POST applications (P < 0.05). We conclude that herbicide programs based on multiple effective SOAs may offer effective control of MHR waterhemp where field corn is grown. It is advisable that when choosing an herbicide application program that excellent control of MHR waterhemp should be the goal given its high fecundity and competitive ability.

As herbicide-resistant weeds become more problematic, producers will consider the use of cover crops to suppress weeds. Weed suppression from cover crops may occur especially in the label-mandated buffer areas of dicamba-resistant soybean where dicamba use is not allowed. Three cover crops terminated at three timings with three herbicide strategies were evaluated for their effect on weed suppression in dicamba-resistant soybean. Delaying termination until soybean planting or after and using cereal rye or cereal rye + crimson clover increased cover-crop biomass by at least 40% compared to terminating early or using a crimson clover–only cover crop. Densities of problematic weed species were evaluated in early summer before a blanket POST application. Plots with cereal rye had 75% less horseweed compared to crimson clover at two of four site-years. Cereal rye or the mixed cover crop terminated at or after soybean planting reduced waterhemp densities by 87% compared to early termination timings of crimson clover and the earliest termination timing of the mix at one of two site-years. Cover crops were not as effective in reducing waterhemp densities as they were in reducing horseweed densities. This difference was due to a divergence in emergence patterns; waterhemp emergence generally peaks after termination of the cover crop, whereas horseweed emergence coincides with establishment and rapid vegetative growth of cereal rye. Cover crops alone were generally not as effective as was using a high-biomass cover crop combined with an herbicide strategy that contained dicamba and residual herbicides. However, within label-mandated buffer areas where dicamba cannot be used, a cover crop containing cereal rye with delayed termination until soybean planting combined with residual herbicides could be used to improve suppression of horseweed and waterhemp.

Herbicides used in sugarbeet are commonly adapted from other row crops and may cause injury and yield loss often associated with environmental and edaphic factors. Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in sugarbeet requires a PRE herbicide, such as S-metolachlor, for its control. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance to PRE S-metolachlor, including air temperature and soil water content interactions with soil series in field and growth chamber experiments. Results from field experiments conducted in 12 environments in 2015, 2016, and 2017 indicated 2.16 or 4.32 kg ai ha−1S-metolachlor applied PRE reduced sugarbeet density and stature but did not reduce root yield, sucrose content, or recoverable sucrose compared with the untreated control in environments with soils with less than 3.5% organic matter (OM) and receiving greater than 40-mm cumulative rainfall within 14 d after planting. In the growth chamber, sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight following S-metolachlor application was influenced by soil moisture content, air temperature, and soil series but not by S-metolachlor rate. Sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight were reduced 15% and 106%, respectively, when S-metolachlor was applied to a Glyndon sandy loam (2.6% OM, 9.5% clay) at 100% field capacity (FC) and 14 C compared with S-metolachlor application to a Fargo silty clay (7.7% OM and 54% clay) at 100% FC and 21 C. It is concluded that field selection, rather than herbicide rate, is an important criterion for managing sugarbeet tolerance with S-metolachlor.

We conducted a survey in the major row-crop production regions of Texas to determine the response of waterhemp to glyphosate (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase [EPSPS] inhibitor), atrazine (photosystem II [PSII] inhibitor), pyrithiobac (acetolactate synthase [ALS] inhibitor), tembotrione (hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase [HPPD] inhibitor), fomesafen (protoporphyrinogen oxidase [PPO] inhibitor), and dicamba (synthetic auxin). We evaluated 127 accessions for these herbicides. Resistance was confirmed on the basis of plant survival within an accession, and the injury ratings of surviving plants were used to categorize each accession as resistant (<50% injury) or less sensitive (50% to 89% injury). For glyphosate, approximately 27% of all tested accessions were resistant and 20% were less sensitive. The Gulf Coast region had the most glyphosate-resistant accessions (46% of the accessions from this region), followed by the Blacklands region (9%). A dose-response assay of the most resistant waterhemp accession (TX-25) exhibited 17-fold resistance to glyphosate when compared with a susceptible standard. Waterhemp resistance to atrazine also was common in the Gulf Coast region. The accession with the greatest atrazine resistance (TX-31) exhibited 47- and 68-fold resistance to this herbicide when applied POST and PRE, respectively. Widespread resistance to pyrithiobac was observed in waterhemp accessions throughout the Blacklands and Gulf Coast regions. The most resistant accession identified in this study was 61-fold resistant compared with a susceptible standard. No high-level resistance was detected for tembotrione, dicamba, or fomesafen, but high variability in sensitivity to tembotrione and dicamba was observed. One waterhemp accession exhibited reduced sensitivity to fomesafen; the rest were sensitive. Overall, at least two accessions exhibited resistance or reduced sensitivity to herbicides with five different sites of action. The study illustrates the prevalence of multiple herbicide resistance in waterhemp accessions in Texas and emphasizes the need to implement diversified management tactics.

Herbicides registered in vegetable soybean often fail to control waterhemp. The objective of this research was to quantify vegetable soybean tolerance to preemergence herbicides for early-season waterhemp control, including flumioxazin applied alone PRE or in mixture with chlorimuron, metribuzin, or pyroxasulfone at use rates in grain-type soybean. Crop tolerance to the herbicides was tested in field trials with 20 vegetable soybean cultivars and four grain-type cultivars through 4 wk after treatment (WAT). Flumioxazin-based treatments were equally safe, resulting in only minor, transitory crop response (<5% injury 2 WAT) and no effect on crop emergence or early season growth. Flumioxazin mixtures provided greater than 99% control of waterhemp 4 WAT, as evidenced by reduced weed density from 29.7 plants m−2 in the nontreated control to no waterhemp. Flumioxazin applied alone or in tank mixture with chlorimuron, metribuzin, or pyroxasulfone were as safe in vegetable soybean as previously reported in grain-type soybean. Registration of these products in vegetable soybean would provide the industry with additional options for managing waterhemp.

A total of four field experiments were conducted over a 2-yr period (2011 and 2012) near Mokane and Moberly, Missouri, to determine the control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) waterhemp with dicamba and glyphosate applied alone or as a tank-mix combination. In one experiment, dicamba was applied at 0.14, 0.28, 0.42, and 0.56 kg ae ha−1 with or without 0.86 kg ae ha−1 glyphosate to GR waterhemp plants 7.5, 15, and 30 cm in height. In a second experiment, sequential treatments of dicamba or dicamba plus glyphosate were applied 4, 7, and 14 d after the initial herbicide treatment to plants measuring either 7.5 or 23 cm in height. Control of GR waterhemp ranged from 7 to 62%, 11 to 40%, and 8 to 30% when applied to 7.5-, 15-, and 30-cm plants, respectively. Control of 7.5-cm GR waterhemp increased by 16 to 36%, and biomass reduction increased by 29 to 52% in response to 0.14, 0.28, 0.42, and 0.56 kg ha−1 dicamba plus glyphosate compared to these same rates of dicamba alone. When sequential dicamba-containing treatments were averaged across all treatments and application timings, GR waterhemp control ranged from 46 to 47%, and biomass reduction ranged from 55 to 66%. No differences in control were observed based on the timing of the sequential herbicide treatment. However, in terms of GR waterhemp biomass reduction, sequential treatments applied 4 d after the initial treatment reduced GR waterhemp biomass more than sequential treatments applied 14 d after the initial treatment. Results from these experiments indicate that, in the absence of crop competition, a single treatment of dicamba up to 0.56 kg ha−1 provides less than 62% control of GR waterhemp, and sequential dicamba plus glyphosate treatments targeting 7.5 cm plants are required to achieve at least 72% control.