Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T19:29:09.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence and Influence of Stalk-Boring Insects on Glyphosate Activity on Indiana and Michigan Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric J. Ott ,
Corey K. Gerber ,
Dana B. Harder ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
William G. Johnson
Eric J. Ott
Affiliation:
Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
Corey K. Gerber
Affiliation:
Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
Dana B. Harder
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field surveys were conducted to evaluate the prevalence of stalk-boring insects in giant ragweed in Indiana and Michigan soybean fields. Greenhouse studies were also conducted to determine whether stalk-boring insects had a negative impact on control of giant ragweed with glyphosate. In the June 2005 field surveys, 18 to 30% of all giant ragweed plants sampled contained stalk-boring insects or insect tunnels. Languriidae, Noctuidae, Pyralidae, and Tortricidae families were found most often at the time glyphosate was being applied to soybean fields to control giant ragweed. Cerambycidae and Curculionidae families were typically found later in the season after herbicide applications were completed. In the August field surveys in Indiana, 28 to 62% of the giant ragweed plants that showed evidence of stalk-boring insects were not controlled by POST herbicide applications suggesting that control was compromised by the presence of stalk-boring insects. In greenhouse studies, glyphosate efficacy on 15-cm-tall giant ragweed was enhanced by the presence of stalk-boring insects; however, glyphosate efficacy on 45-cm plants was reduced by the presence of stalk-boring insects. Overall, this research suggests that there is a possibility that stalk-boring insects could reduce glyphosate efficacy on giant ragweed.

Keywords

Giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrLepidoptera: NoctuidaeLepidoptera: TortricideaeLepidoptera: PyralidaeColeoptera: CerambycidaeColeoptera: CurculionidaeColeoptera: LanguriidaeEuropean corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner)Glyphosateinsect–weed–herbicide interaction
Type
Extension/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 526 - 531
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

Abul-Fatih, H. A., Bazzaz, F. A., and Hunt, R. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. III growth and biomass allocation. New Phytol. 83:829–838.Google Scholar
Barnes, J., Johnson, B., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean. Online. Crop Manag. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Williams, M. M. II. 2004. Combined effects of Aceria malherbae and herbicides on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) growth. Weed Sci. 52:297–301.Google Scholar
Cook, K. A. and Nordby, D. E. 2004. What's in your weeds?. part I. http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=12&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=8. Accessed: January 2006.Google Scholar
Decker, G. C. 1931. The biology of the stalk borer, Papaipema nebris (Gn). Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 143:289–351.Google Scholar
Dicke, F. F. 1932. Studies on the host plants of the European corn borer, Pyrausta nubilalis Hubner, in southeastern Michigan. J. Econ. Entomol. 25:868–878.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
Heap, I. M. 2006. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 2006.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hilger, D. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Johnson, B., Barnes, J., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Late season weed escapes in Indiana soybean fields. Online. Crop Manag. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-01-BR.Google Scholar
Martinson, K. B., Durgan, B., Gunsolus, J. L., and Sothern, R. B. 2005. Time of day of application effect on glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy. Online. Crop Manag. DOI:10.1094/CM-2005-0718-02-RS.Google Scholar
McGhee, J. W. 1985. Three important distributions. Pages 183–233. in Introductory Statistics. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. 1986. The impact of a stem boring insect on the tissues, physiology and reproduction of Russian thistle. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 42:169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Wax, L. M., Hartzler, R. G., and Harrison, K. 2004. Variations in emergence patterns of giant ragweed biotypes from Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 44:60. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Stehr, F. W. 1991. Immature Insects. Dubuque, IA Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807–813.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
Westra, P. H., Wyse, D. L., and Cook, E. F. 1981. Weevil (Notaris bimaculatus) feeding reduces effectiveness of glyphosate on quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 29:540–547.Google Scholar