Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-tkzrn Total loading time: 0.252 Render date: 2021-06-25T05:18:26.842Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

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
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
Corresponding
E-mail address:

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.

Type
Research Article
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.

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
Archontoulis, SV, Miguez, FE (2015) Nonlinear regression models and applications in agricultural research. Agron J 107:786798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, MC, Cahoon, CW, Flessner, ML, VanGessel, MJ (2019) Chemical termination of cover crop rapeseed. Weed Technol 33:686692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, DL, Lynd, JQ (1967) Factors in paraquat-induced chlorosis with Phaseolus foliar tissues. Agron J 59:364366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, RD, Weldon, LW (1965) The sensitivity of duckweeds (Lemnaceae) and azolla to diquat and paraquat. Weeds 13:147149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, PD, Brian, RC (1975) Surfactants and the uptake and movement of paraquat in plants. Pestic Sci 6:419427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brian, RC (1967) The uptake and absorption of diquat and paraquat by tomato, sugar beet and cocksfoot. Ann Appl Biol 59:9199 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 35:581591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calderbank, A, Slade, P (1966) The fate of paraquat in plants. Outlook Agr 5:5559 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 49:813 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 38:1371 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duke, SO (2018) The history and current status of glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 74:10271034 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekins, WL, Appleby, AP, Furtick, WR (1970) Influence of three drift control adjuvants on volatility, adherence, and efficacy of herbicides. Weed Sci 18:505508 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 2:358370 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 22:1621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, RA, Eckert, RE (1965) Paraquat-surfactant combinations for control of downy brome. Weeds 13:150151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Johnson, WG, Hillger, DE (2005) Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:10651070 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 103:963969 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, TR (2014) Mechanisms of resistance to paraquat in plants. Pest Manag Sci 70:13161323 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, FD, Foy, CL (2000) Interaction of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol 14:807813 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 40:4045 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 23:162166 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 15:531539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkle, MG, Leinweber, CL, Bovey, RW (1965) The influence of light, oxygen and temperature on the herbicidal properties of paraquat. Plant Physiol 40:832835 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 31:550556 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 30:307310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearcy, RW, Ehleringer, J (1984) Comparative ecophysiology of C3 and C4 plants. Plant Cell Environ 7:113 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 196:464468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, AR, Ries, SK (1968) Factors influencing the phytotoxicity and movement of paraquat in quackgrass. Weed Sci 16:8083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Coble, HD (1981) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci 29:480485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (ed) (2014) Pp 337338 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 6:267274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LW, Foy, CL (1967) Interaction of several paraquat-surfactant mixtures. Weeds 15:6772 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 45:378381 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 40:9095 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 40:471476 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 33:531536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Harre et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Harre et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 159 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Harre et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Harre et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 360 KB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *