Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-k78ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-26T19:56:50.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed control in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant soybean with one- and two-pass herbicide programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2023

Emily Duenk
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Robert T. Miller
Affiliation:
Regional Technical Services Manager, BASF Canada Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada
David C. Hooker
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Professor Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Nader Soltani, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0. Email: soltanin@uoguelph.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes of horseweed were first confirmed in southern Ontario in 2010 and have spread across southern Ontario. A total of four field experiments were conducted between 2021 and 2022 to determine GR horseweed control with one- and two-pass herbicide programs in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant (GG2R) soybean. 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, halauxifen-methyl, and saflufenacil applied preplant (PP) controlled GR horseweed by 59%, 72%, and 78% 8 wk after postemergence (POST) application (WAA-POST); there was no improvement of GR horseweed control when 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA was added to saflufenacil; in contrast, there was improved GR horseweed control when saflufenacil was added to 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA. Glufosinate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST controlled glyphosate-resistant horseweed by 71% and 86%, respectively, 8 WAA-POST. Two-pass herbicide programs of a PP followed by POST application provided greater GR horseweed control than a PP or POST herbicide applied alone. Glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST following 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA or halauxifen-methyl applied PP improved GR horseweed control by 29% to 38% and 24%, respectively at 8 WAA-POST. The application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST following saflufenacil applied PP improved control by 20% 8 WAA-POST; there was no improvement of GR horseweed control when glufosinate was applied POST following saflufenacil applied PP or when either POST herbicide was applied following saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP. When used in a two-pass program, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST provided 2% to 3% greater control of GR horseweed than glufosinate.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Horseweed is a common, nuisance weed for Ontario soybean producers. Native to North America, horseweed belongs to the Asteraceae family with a winter or summer annual growth habit (Weaver Reference Weaver2001). The fall-emerging cohort has a competitive advantage over the spring-emerging cohort because it is in a more advanced growth stage relative to the spring-emerging summer annual cohort (Buhler and Owen Reference Buhler and Owen1997). However, the spring-emerging cohort may escape control from preplant (PP) nonresidual herbicide applications by emerging after herbicide applications (Buhler and Owen Reference Buhler and Owen1997). A ruderal weed that germinates best when seeds are on the soil surface, horseweed has a high capability to thrive under reduced-, strip-, and no-till cropping systems (Nandula et al. Reference Nandula, Eubank, Poston, Koger and Reddy2006; Weaver Reference Weaver2001).

One horseweed plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds with the potential to germinate immediately after seed release (Davis et al. Reference Davis, Kruger, Stachler, Loux and Johnson2009; Weaver Reference Weaver2001). Horseweed plants that grow taller than the soybean canopy are more competitive with increased seed production compared with plants that grow below the canopy (Davis and Johnson Reference Davis and Johnson2008). Seeds are distributed by wind, commonly landing within 100 m of the parent plant, but have the potential to move hundreds of kilometers if the seed enters the planetary boundary layer (Dauer et al. Reference Dauer, Mortensen and VanGessel2006; Shields et al. Reference Shields, Dauer, VanGessel and Neumann2006). Horseweed interference can cause substantial yield losses in soybean, especially fall-emerged cohorts at high densities. Uncontrolled horseweed can decrease soybean seed yield by up to 93% (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013a). The burial of horseweed seeds with tillage is an effective method of reducing horseweed populations (Nandula et al. Reference Nandula, Eubank, Poston, Koger and Reddy2006). Tillage is not an option in crop production systems that use no-till methods; consequently, herbicides are relied upon for horseweed control.

The introduction of transgenic soybean that is resistant to glyphosate played an integral role in the expansion of minimum tillage (Carpenter and Gianessi Reference Carpenter and Gianessi1999). The swift uptake in the use of glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops accompanied by an exponential increase in the use of glyphosate in agricultural lands has placed intense selection pressure on the evolution of GR weed biotypes. Horseweed was the first annual dicotyledonous plant to evolve resistance to glyphosate in a GR crop (VanGessel Reference VanGessel2001). The initial confirmation of GR horseweed in Ontario was from a field located in Essex County in 2010 (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013b). Since 2010, GR horseweed populations have been confirmed in 30 Ontario counties up to 750 km from the original point of discovery (Budd et al. Reference Budd, Soltani, Robinson, Hooker, Miller and Sikkema2018). GR horseweed biotypes have little to no fitness penalty relative to susceptible biotypes (Kruger et al. Reference Kruger, Davis, Weller and Johnson2010). After an application of glyphosate, some GR horseweed biotypes have yellow discoloration in the growing point and produce new branches from basal axillary nodes; these plants produce viable seeds with resistant offspring (Dinelli et al. Reference Dinelli, Marotti, Bonetti, Minelli, Catizone and Barnes2006), whereas other GR biotypes exhibit no symptomology following glyphosate application. The use of diverse crop and weed management practices are recommended to curb GR horseweed populations and reduce weed seed return (Budd et al. Reference Budd, Soltani, Robinson, Hooker, Miller and Sikkema2018).

One response to the evolution of GR weeds is the expansion of herbicide-resistant (HR) crops with multiple herbicide-resistance traits. These HR crops can delay the further evolution of GR weeds by allowing multiple herbicide modes of action to be applied to the crop (Duke Reference Duke2014). Producers have rapidly adopted HR technologies because of improved weed control, minimized crop injury, reduced complexity of weed management, and decreased environmental impact of herbicides (Mall et al. Reference Mall, Gupta, Dhadialla, Rodrigo, Kumar, Barone and Smith2019).

Glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D choline-resistant (GG2R) soybean (E3 soybeanTM) is now commercially available in Ontario. These cultivars possess the transgene [aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12)] that confers resistance to 2,4-D (Wright et al. Reference Wright, Shan, Walsha, Lira, Cui, Song, Zhuang, Arnold, Lin, Yau, Russell, Cicchillo, Peterson, Simpson, Zhou, Ponsamuel and Zhang2010). AAD-12 has been inserted into soybean cultivars, which cleaves 2,4-D into nontoxic compounds dichlorophenol and glyoxylate (Wright et al. Reference Wright, Shan, Walsha, Lira, Cui, Song, Zhuang, Arnold, Lin, Yau, Russell, Cicchillo, Peterson, Simpson, Zhou, Ponsamuel and Zhang2010). AAD-12-derived resistance when stacked with other HR traits provides additional control options for GR weed biotypes (Craigmyle et al. Reference Craigmyle, Ellis and Bradley2013; Wright et al. Reference Wright, Shan, Walsha, Lira, Cui, Song, Zhuang, Arnold, Lin, Yau, Russell, Cicchillo, Peterson, Simpson, Zhou, Ponsamuel and Zhang2010). GG2R soybean also expresses the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) and CP4 EPSPS genes that confer resistance to glufosinate and glyphosate, respectively (Duke and Powles Reference Duke and Powles2008; Takano and Dayan Reference Takano and Dayan2020).

The effectiveness of numerous PP herbicides for the control of GR horseweed in soybean has been explored. Horseweed control with synthetic auxin herbicides is influenced by herbicide rate and plant size at herbicide spray time (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013a). 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (1,720 g ai ha−1) provides inconsistent GR horseweed control (Ford et al. Reference Ford, Soltani, Robinson, Nurse, McFadden and Sikkema2014a). Halauxifen-methyl (5 g ai ha−1) applied PP suppressed GR horseweed by 72% in a study conducted in Ontario (Quinn et al. Reference Quinn, Ashigh, Soltani, Hooker, Robinson and Sikkema2021). Saflufenacil (25 g ai ha−1) applied PP provides variable (10% to 100%) GR horseweed control in soybean (Byker et al. Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013c). Many postemergence (POST) herbicides have limited activity on horseweed in soybean crops (Bruce and Kells Reference Bruce and Kells1990). The introduction of new HR soybean technologies has provided new options for POST herbicides to be applied for GR horseweed control.

Two-pass herbicide strategies consisting of a PP herbicide followed by (fb) a POST-applied herbicide can enhance GR horseweed control (Ford et al. Reference Ford, Soltani, Robinson, Nurse, McFadden and Sikkema2014a). 2,4-D-choline/glyphosate DMA and glufosinate applied POST to GG2R soybean can control late-emerging GR horseweed and other weeds that escape control from the PP herbicide without harming the crop (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Soltani, Kaastra, Hooker, Robinson and Sikkema2019). The effectiveness of a POST-applied herbicide may be improved when used in a two-pass weed control program because the PP herbicide can decrease horseweed density and size at the POST herbicide spray timing (Davis et al. Reference Davis, Kruger, Young and Johnson2010).

The aim of this research was to evaluate one- and two-pass herbicide programs and to compare 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA versus glufosinate applied POST in two-pass weed control strategies to effectively control GR horseweed in GG2R soybean.

Methods and Materials

A total of four field trials were carried out in commercial no-tillage soybean fields in Ontario, Canada, over a 2-yr period (2021, 2022). In 2021, one trial was located near Kintyre (42.57°N, 81.77°W), and another near Bothwell (42.62°N, 81.91°W); in 2022, one trial was near Kintyre, and the second near Duart (42.51°N, 81.73°W) (Table 1). Each field location contained GR horseweed biotypes. The treatments and associated information on the herbicides evaluated in this study are included in Tables 2 through 4. The PP herbicide application timing is referred to as Application A and the POST herbicide application timing is referred to as Application B. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design containing four replications. Each plot was 2.25 m wide (containing three rows of soybean spaced 75 cm apart) by 8 m in length. GG2R soybean [Brevant seeds cultivar ‘B061FE’ (Corteva Agriscience, Calgary, AB)] was planted at a rate of approximately 420,000 seeds ha−1 to a depth of approximately 4.0 cm. The herbicide treatments were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer set to deliver a spray volume of 200 L ha−1 at 240 kPa using four ULD 11002 spray nozzles (Pentair, New Brighton, MN, USA) at a 0.5-m spacing delivering a 2-m spray pattern. PP herbicide treatments [2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (1,720 g ae ha−1), halauxifen-methyl (5 g ai ha−1), saflufenacil (25 g ai ha−1), and saflufenacil (25 g ai ha−1) plus 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (1,720 g ae ha−1)] were applied when GR horseweed grew to an average height or diameter of 10 cm (Table 2). POST herbicide treatments [glufosinate (500 g ai ha−1) and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (1,720 g ae ha−1)] were applied as soon as GR horseweed plants reached 10 cm in height in any PP herbicide treatment plot; one POST application was made. All POST herbicide applications were made after 9:00 AM and before 11:00 AM to reduce the time-of-day at application effect on glufosinate efficacy (Martinson et al. Reference Martinson, Durgan, Gunsolus and Sothern2005; Montgomery et al. Reference Montgomery, Treadway, Reeves and Steckle2017; Takano and Dayan Reference Takano and Dayan2020).

Table 1. Field trial data.a

a Abbreviations: OM, organic matter; PP, preplant; POST, postemergence.

b POST herbicide treatments [glufosinate (500 g ai ha−1) and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (1,720 g ae ha−1)] were applied as soon as glyphosate-resistant horseweed plants reached 10 cm in height in any PP herbicide treatment plot.

Table 2. Herbicide information.

a The recommended adjuvant was applied with each herbicide used: Glufosinate ammonium included ammonium sulfate (Alpine Plant Foods, 30 Neville St., New Hamburg, ON, Canada N3A 4G7) at 6.5 L ha−1; Halauxifen-methyl included methylated seed oil concentrate (Loveland Products Inc., 3005 Rocky Mountain Ave., Loveland, CO, 80538 USA) at 1.0% vol/vol; saflufenacil included Merge® (BASF Canada Inc., 100 Milverton Dr., Mississauga, ON, Canada L5R 4H1) at 1 L ha−1.

Visual assessments of crop injury were evaluated 2 wk after soybean emergence (WAE), 4 wk after the PP herbicide was applied (WAA-PP), and 1 and 4 wk after the POST herbicide application (WAA-POST) on an evaluation scale of 0 to 100, where 0 indicates no injury and 100 represents complete soybean necrosis. Visible GR horseweed control assessments (an estimation of biomass decrease compared to the weedy control in each replicate) were completed on a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates similar biomass to the control and 100 represents complete biomass elimination, 2 and 4 WAA-PP, and 4 and 8 WAA-POST. GR horseweed density and dry weight (aboveground biomass) were determined 4 WAA-POST from two 0.25-m2 quadrats placed arbitrarily within all plots within the treated area. GR horseweed plants inside each quadrat were counted, cut at the soil surface stored in labeled paper bags, dried to constant moisture, and the dry weight recorded. Upon crop maturity, the center two soybean rows were combined with a small-plot combine; soybean seed moisture content and weight were recorded. Soybean yield was corrected to 13.0% seed moisture content prior to statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis

All data were subjected to mixed model variance analysis using the GLIMMIX procedure in SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC USA). Variance consisted of the fixed effect of herbicide treatment and the random effects of block, environment, and block within environment. Environment consists of differences in both location and year of the trials. The treatment by environment interaction was not significant; therefore, data were pooled across all environments. Residuals were plotted and the Shapiro-Wilk statistics were used to ensure the assumptions of the analysis were valid. These assumptions included that the errors are random, homogenous, independent of effects, have a mean of zero, and are normally distributed. To meet the assumptions, arcsine square-root transformations to control data were performed. GR horseweed density and dry weight data were analyzed using a log-normal distribution. All transformed data were back-transformed for the presentation of results. All visual control data from the nontreated control was excluded from the analysis due to no variance. The Tukey-Kramer test was used with a significance of P = 0.05. Nonorthogonal contrasts were conducted to compare single PP or POST herbicide applications to two-pass herbicide programs, PP to POST herbicides, and to compare the two POST herbicides in a two-pass program.

Results and Discussion

Soybean Injury

The PP and POST herbicides evaluated caused minimal soybean injury (<5%); data not presented.

Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed Control

The control varied among PP herbicide treatments. Applied PP, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA and halauxifen-methyl controlled GR horseweed by 74% and 81%, respectively 2 WAA-PP, which was less than saflufenacil (97%); there was no improvement of GR horseweed control with the addition of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA to saflufenacil (99%; Table 3). At 4 WAA-PP, both saflufenacil and saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA provided greater control of GR horseweed compared to the 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP; control with halauxifen-methyl was intermediate and comparable to all (Table 3). Ford et al. (Reference Ford, Soltani, McFadden, Nurse, Robinson and Sikkema2014b) observed that 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP controlled GR horseweed by 64% to 80%, which is similar to this study. Byker et al. (Reference Byker, Soltani, Robinson, Tardif, Lawton and Sikkema2013c) also observed 88% to 100% control of GR horseweed 4 WAA with saflufenacil applied PP.

Table 3. Comparison of means for preplant herbicide treatments prior to a postemergence glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA application. a,b

a Abbreviations: WAA-PP, weeks after application preplant herbicide treatment.

b Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to the Tukey-Kramer test (P < 0.05).

When applied POST, following no PP herbicide, glufosinate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA controlled GR horseweed by 77% and 84%, respectively, 4 WAA-POST (Table 4). The one-pass PP herbicides controlled GR horseweed by 63% to 89%; saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA provided greater control of GR horseweed compared to 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA; halauxifen-methyl and saflufenacil provided intermediate control and were similar to all. There was no enhancement of GR horseweed control with the addition of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA to saflufenacil. The two-pass programs of a PP herbicide fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST controlled GR horseweed similarly at 91% to 99%; control was improved with all two-pass programs with the exception of saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP fb glufosinate applied POST 4 WAA-POST. Based on nonorthogonal contrasts a two-pass herbicide program provided greater GR horseweed control compared to a single PP or POST herbicide application. An application of a PP fb a POST herbicide provided 19% and 17% greater control of GR horseweed compared to a single PP or POST herbicide application, respectively, at 4 WAA-POST. The single PP or POST herbicides evaluated provided similar control of GR horseweed. When applied in a two-pass system, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST controlled GR horseweed 2% more than glufosinate applied POST.

Table 4. Means and nonorthogonal contrasts for glyphosate-resistant horseweed control 4 and 8 wk after POST application, density, dry biomass, and soybean yield. a,b,c

a Abbreviations: fb, followed by; PP, preplant; POST, postemergence; WAA-POST, weeks after application POST herbicide treatment.

b Means followed by the same lowercase letter within the same column are not statistically different according to the Tukey-Kramer test (P < 0.05).

c An asterisk (*) indicates P < 0.05.

A similar pattern was observed for GR horseweed control 8 WAA-POST. The PP herbicides controlled GR horseweed by 59% to 89% 8 WAA-POST; saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA provided greater control of GR horseweed compared to 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA; halauxifen-methyl and saflufenacil applied PP provided intermediate control and were similar to all. The two-pass programs of a PP herbicide fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST, controlled GR horseweed similarly at 88% to 98%. GR horseweed control was increased by 29 and 38 percentage points when 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP was followed by glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST, respectively. Similarly, Ford et al. (Reference Ford, Soltani, Robinson, Nurse, McFadden and Sikkema2014a) reported 100% control of GR horseweed 4 and 8 WAA-POST with two passes of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied to field corn; in that study, one PP application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA resulted in inconsistent GR horseweed control; adding a second herbicide application improved consistency of control (Ford et al. Reference Ford, Soltani, Robinson, Nurse, McFadden and Sikkema2014a). GR horseweed control was increased by 24 percentage points when halauxifen-methyl applied PP was fb a POST-applied herbicide. GR horseweed control was increased by 20 percentage points when saflufenacil applied PP was fb 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA; there was no improvement in control when saflufenacil applied PP was fb glufosinate applied POST. There was no enhancement of GR horseweed control with saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP followed by either POST-applied herbicide. The level of GR horseweed control at 8 WAA-POST in this study is consistent with findings by Quinn et al. (Reference Quinn, Ashigh, Soltani, Hooker, Robinson and Sikkema2021) who reported 72% GR horseweed control with halauxifen-methyl applied PP. Based on nonorthogonal contrasts a two-pass herbicide program provided greater control of GR horseweed compared to a single PP or POST herbicide application. An application of a PP fb a POST herbicide provided 20% and 17% greater control of GR horseweed compared to a single PP or POST herbicide application, respectively, at 8 WAA-POST. The single PP or POST herbicides evaluated provided similar control of GR horseweed. When applied in a two-pass system, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST caused greater control of GR horseweed than glufosinate applied POST.

Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed Density and Dry Biomass

Glufosinate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, halauxifen-methyl, and saflufenacil applied PP resulted in GR horseweed density that was similar to the nontreated control; in contrast, saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP decreased GR horseweed density by 96%. All the two-pass herbicide applications reduced GR horseweed density from 87% to 95%, with the exception of saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP fb 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST. Based on nonorthogonal contrasts a two-pass herbicide program reduced GR horseweed density more than a single PP or POST application. There was no difference in GR horseweed density among a single PP or POST application. When applied in a two-pass system, a PP-applied herbicide fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST reduced GR horseweed density similarly.

All herbicide applications decreased GR horseweed biomass ≥75% compared to the nontreated weedy control. Glufosinate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST application reduced GR horseweed biomass by 92% and 75%, respectively. 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, halauxifen-methyl, saflufenacil, and saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied PP decreased GR horseweed biomass by 89%, 95%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. All two-pass weed control programs decreased GR horseweed biomass similarly at 98% to 100%. Based on nonorthogonal contrasts a two-pass herbicide program reduced GR horseweed biomass more than a single PP or POST application. There was no difference in GR horseweed biomass with a single PP or POST application. When applied in a two-pass system, a PP herbicide fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST reduced GR horseweed biomass similarly.

Soybean Yield

Interference from GR horseweed reduced soybean seed yield by up to 53% in this study (the greatest yielding treatment compared to the nontreated weedy control; Table 4). Reduced GR horseweed interference with all herbicide treatments evaluated resulted in greater soybean yield than the nontreated weedy control. Two passes of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, a single PP application of saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA, and saflufenacil + 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA fb glufosinate, resulted in greater soybean yield than a single POST application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA. Based on nonorthogonal contrasts, the application of a POST herbicide following a PP herbicide resulted in greater soybean yield compared to a single POST application. One-pass programs of a PP herbicide provided greater soybean yield than a POST application.

In summary, two-pass weed control strategies provide increased GR horseweed control compared to a single PP or POST herbicide application in GG2R soybean. When used in a two-pass program, 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied POST gives greater control of GR horseweed than glufosinate applied POST. Full-season control of GR horseweed is advised to reduce weed seed return and slow the spread of GR horseweed. HR crop technologies play a role in diversifying chemical weed control options by allowing alternate modes of action to be applied POST. Growers should also implement a diverse, integrated weed management program to increase the longevity of these valuable weed management tools.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded in part by BASF Canada and Grain Farmers of Ontario. No other conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Lawrence E. Steckel, University of Tennessee

References

Bruce, JA, Kells, JJ (1990) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, CM, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Hooker, DC, Miller, RT, Sikkema, PH (2018) Distribution of glyphosate and cloransulam-methyl resistant Canada fleabane [Conyza canadensis (L.) cronq.] in Ontario. Can J Plant Sci 98:492497 Google Scholar
Buhler, DD, Owen, MDK (1997) Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 45:98101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013a) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013b) Glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.]: Dose response to glyphosate and control with postemergence herbicides in soybean in Ontario. Can J Plant Sci 93:11871193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013c) Control of glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.] with preplant herbicide tankmixes in soybean [Glycine max. (L). Merr.]. Can J Plant Sci 93:659667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J, Gianessi, L (1999) Herbicide tolerant soybeans: why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum 2:6572 Google Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:7884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauer, JT, Mortensen, DA, VanGessel, MJ (2006) Temporal and spatial dynamics of long-distance Conyza canadensis seed dispersal. J Appl Ecol 44:105114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM, Johnson, WG (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean. Weed Sci 56:231236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Stachler, JM, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG (2009) Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations resistant to glyphosate, ALS-inhibiting, and multiple (glyphosate + ALS-inhibiting) herbicides. Weed Sci 57:494504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2010) Fall and spring preplant herbicide applications influence spring emergence of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Technol 24:1119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinelli, G, Marotti, I, Bonetti, A, Minelli, M, Catizone, P, Barnes, J (2006) Physiological and molecular insight on the mechanisms of resistance to glyphosate in Conyza canadensis (L.) cronq. biotypes. Pestic Biochem Phys 86:3041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO (2014) Perspectives on transgenic, herbicide-resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction. Pest Manag Sci 71:652657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319325 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, L, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Nurse, RE, McFadden, A, Sikkema, PH (2014a) Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis) control with preplant applied residual herbicides followed by 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied postemergence in corn. Can J Plant Sci 94:12311237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, L, Soltani, N, McFadden, A, Nurse, RE, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2014b) Control of Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis) with glyphosate DMA/2,4-D choline applications in corn (Zea mays). Agr Sci 5:7783 Google Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations after exposure to postemergence 2,4-D. Weed Sci 58:413419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mall, T, Gupta, M, Dhadialla, TS, Rodrigo, S (2019) Overview of biotechnology-derived herbicide tolerance and insect resistance traits in plant agriculture. Pages 313342 in Kumar, S, Barone, P, Smith, M, eds. Transgenic Plants: Methods in Molecular Biology. New York: Humana Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, KB, Durgan, BR, Gunsolus, JL, Sothern, RB, (2005) Time of day of application effect on glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy. Crop Manag Res 4:17 Google Scholar
Montgomery, GB, Treadway, JA, Reeves, JL, Steckle, 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
Nandula, VK, Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Koger, CH, Reddy, KN (2006) Factors affecting germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 54:898902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J, Ashigh, J, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2021) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed and giant ragweed in soybean with halauxifen-methyl applied preplant. Weed Technol 35:324329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, EJ, Dauer, JT, VanGessel, MJ, Neumann, G (2006) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed collected in the planetary boundary layer. Weed Sci 54:10631067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A, Soltani, N, Kaastra, AJ, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2019) Annual weed management in isoxaflutole-resistant soybean using a two-pass weed control strategy. Weed Technol 33:411425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, HK, Dayan, FE (2020) Glufosinate-ammonium: a review of the current state of knowledge. Pest Manag Sci 76:39113925 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanGessel, MJ (2001) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (2001) The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis. Can J Plant Sci 81:867875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsha, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20240–2024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Field trial data.a

Figure 1

Table 2. Herbicide information.

Figure 2

Table 3. Comparison of means for preplant herbicide treatments prior to a postemergence glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA application.a,b

Figure 3

Table 4. Means and nonorthogonal contrasts for glyphosate-resistant horseweed control 4 and 8 wk after POST application, density, dry biomass, and soybean yield.a,b,c