Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:19:54.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Control with Glufosinate or Fomsafen Combined with Growth Regulator Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kelly A. Barnett ,
Thomas C. Mueller  and
Lawrence E. Steckel
Kelly A. Barnett
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Building, 2431 Joe Johnson Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
*
Corresponding author's Email: lsteckel@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of crops resistant to 2,4-D, dicamba, and glufosinate may provide new options for the management of glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed and other herbicide-resistant weeds. A fallow field study was conducted in 2011 and 2012 to determine the control of GR giant ragweed with 2,4-D and dicamba applied alone and in combination with glufosinate or fomesafen. Dicamba and 2,4-D tank-mixed with glufosinate or fomesafen provided the highest level of control at 10 or 20 days after application (DAA). At 30 DAA, all herbicide treatments provided > 88% control of giant ragweed except glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D alone at 0.56 kg ae ha−1. Glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D alone at 0.56 kg ae ha−1 also had the highest number of giant ragweed plants (> 5.8 plants m−2) and highest biomass (> 19.2 g m−2). Contrast statements between 2,4-D and dicamba indicated no differences among treatments containing these herbicides. However, contrast analysis indicated that herbicides applied alone resulted in 56, 58, and 61% control while tank-mix combinations of 2,4-D or dicamba with glufosinate or fomesafen resulted in 86, 91, and 93% control, respectively. Herbicides applied alone also had more giant ragweed plants and biomass per m−2 than herbicides applied in tank-mix combinations. Tank-mixing combinations of 2,4-D and dicamba will be important for effective control of GR giant ragweed.

El desarrollo de cultivos resistentes a 2,4-D, dicamba, y glufosinate podría brindar nuevas opciones para el manejo de Ambrosia trifida resistente a glyphosate (GR) y de otras malezas resistentes a herbicidas. En 2011 y 2012, se realizó un estudio de campo en barbecho para determinar el control de A. trifida GR con 2,4-D y dicamba aplicados solos y en combinación con glufosinate o fomesafen. Dicamba y 2,4-D en mezcla en tanque con glufosinate o fomesafen brindaron el mayor nivel de control a 10 ó 20 días después de la aplicación (DAA). A 30 DAA, todos los tratamientos de herbicidas brindaron >88% de control de A. trifida excepto glyphosate, glufosinate, y 2,4-D solos a 0.56 kg ae ha−1. Glyphosate, glufosinate, y 2,4-D solos a 0.56 kg ae ha−1 también tuvieron el mayor número de plantas de A. trifida (>5.8 plantas m−2) y la mayor biomasa (19.2 g m−2). Pruebas de contraste entre 2,4-D y dicamba indicaron que no hubo diferencias entre tratamientos que contenían estos herbicidas. Sin embargo, el análisis de contrastes indicó que los herbicidas aplicados solos resultaron en 56, 58, y 61% de control mientras que las combinaciones de mezcla en tanque de 2,4-D o dicamba con glufosinate o fomesafen resultaron en 86, 91, y 93% de control, respectivamente. Los herbicidas aplicados solos también tuvieron más plantas y mayor biomasa de A. trifida por m−2 que los tratamientos con combinaciones de mezcla en tanque. Las combinaciones de mezcla en tanque de 2,4-D y dicamba serán importantes para el control efectivo de A. trifida GR.

Keywords

DAAdays after applicationGRglyphosate resistantgiant ragweedAmbrosia trifida L.2,4-Ddicambafomesafenglufosinateglyphosateglyphosate resistanceherbicide resistance
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 454 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1003–1010.Google Scholar
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses, and prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:299–308.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J.A. and Sims, B. D. 1992. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:13–18.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and DeFelice, M. S. (eds.). 2009. Giant ragweed. Page 53 in Weeds of the South. Athens, GA University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Chalal, G.S. and Johnson, W. G. 2012. Influence of glyphosate or glufosinate combinations with growth regulator herbicides and other agrochemicals in controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 26:638–643.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. and Powles, S. B. 2009. Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in the future. AgBioForum. 12:346–347.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 2002. Comparison of glyphosate with other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): Efficacy and economics. Weed Technol. 16:701–706.Google Scholar
Franey, R. J. and Hart, S. E. 1999. Timing of application of cloransulam for giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:825–828.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N.D. (ed.) Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. 2005. Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:214–245.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci. 49:224–229.Google Scholar
Hartnett, D. C., Hartnett, B. B., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1987. Persistence of Ambrosia trifida populations in old fields and responses to successional changes. Amer. J. Bot. 74:1239–1248.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2012. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: August 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Johnson, B., Loux, M., Nordby, D., Sprague, C., Nice, G., Westhoven, A., and Stachler, J. 2006. Biology and management of giant ragweed. Purdue Extension Publication GWC-12.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Jha, P., Steckel, L. E., and Scott, R. C. 2010. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in Tennessee. Weed Technol. 24:64–70.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Riar, D., Jha, P., and Scott, R. C. 2011. Confirmation, control, and physiology of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 25:430–435.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.Google Scholar
Robinson, A. P., Simpson, D. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2012. Summer annual weed control with 2, 4-D and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 26:657–660.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2007. Giant ragweed. University of Tennessee FACT sheet. W119. https://utextension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/W119.pdf. Accessed: August 9, 2012.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Mueller, T. C., Thompson, M. A., Rhodes, N., Hayes, R. M., Brown, B., and Sims, B. D. 2011. 2012 Weed Control Manual for Tennessee Field Crops, Forage Crops, Farm Ponds, and Harvest Aids. PB 1580.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Marketing Service. 2012. Cotton varieties planted 2012 crop. http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/cnavar.pdf. Accessed: September 16, 2012.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:122–128.Google Scholar