Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:29:18.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Triallate-Resistant Wild Oat (Avena fatua) to Alternative Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw ,
John T. O'Donovan ,
M. Paul Sharma ,
K. Neil Harker  and
Denise Maurice
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Res. Center, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
John T. O'Donovan
Affiliation:
Pest Management Program, Alberta Environmental Center, Vegreville, AB T9C 1E2
M. Paul Sharma
Affiliation:
Pest Management Program, Alberta Environmental Center, Vegreville, AB T9C 1E2
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Res. Center, Lacombe, AB, T0C 1S0
Denise Maurice
Affiliation:
Weed Res., Alberta Agric. and Rural Dev., Edmonton, AB T6H 4P2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat populations resistant to triallate have been identified in Alberta. Dose response experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine if triallate-resistant wild oat was controlled by other selective wild oat herbicides. Triallate-resistant wild oat populations were effectively controlled by atrazine, ethalfluralin, fenoxaprop-P, flamprop, imazamethabenz, and tralkoxydim. EPTC and cycloate, which are chemically related to triallate, differed in their efficacy on triallate-resistant wild oats. EPTC at the 0.25x field use rate was more efficacious on triallate-resistant than triallate-susceptible wild oat. In contrast, cycloate at the 0.25 to 0.5x field use rate was less efficacious on triallate-resistant than susceptible wild oats. At higher rates, both EPTC and cycloate killed triallate-resistant wild oat populations. Growers have several herbicide choices to selectively control triallate-resistant wild oat in prairie field crops but should plan to rotate herbicides among different chemical families and adopt integrated weed management practices to reduce the risk of these wild oat populations developing resistance to other wild oat herbicides.

Keywords

cycloate, S-ethyl cyclohexylethylcarbamothioatediclofop, (±)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acidEPTC, S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioatequizalofop, (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)-oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidCross-resistanceherbicide resistancedose response curvesresistance managementAVEFA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 258 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Banting, J. D., 1967. Factors affecting the activity of diallate and triallate. Weed Res. 7:302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Burnet, M.W.M., Hart, Q., Holtum, J.A.M., and Powles, S.B. 1994. Resistance to nine herbicide classes in a population of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 42:369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dew, D. A., 1978. Estimating crop losses caused by wild oats. p. 15–18 in Wild Oat Action Comm. Proc., Regina, SK.Google Scholar
4. De Prado, R., Sanchez, M., Jorrin, J., and Dominguez, C. 1992. Negative cross-resistance to bentazon and pyridate in atrazine-resistant Amaranthus cruentus and Amaranthus hybridus biotypes. Pestic. Sci. 35:131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gressel, J. 1991. Why get resistance? It can be prevented or delayed. p. 1–25 in Casely, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., ed. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
6. Heap, I. M., Murray, B. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Morrison, I. N. 1993. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 41:232–238.Google Scholar
7. Kirkland, K. J., 1994. Efficacy of fall incorporated and non-incorporated granular triallate on wild oat (Avena fatua) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 8:607–611.Google Scholar
8. Malchow, W. E., Fay, P. K., Maxwell, B. D., and Dyer, W. E. 1993. Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) resistance to triallate in Montana. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:18.Google Scholar
9. Mead, R., and Curnow, R. N. 1983. Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. Chapman and Hall, NY. 335 p.Google Scholar
10. O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., Maurice, D., Baig, M. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Wild oat (Avena fatua) populations resistant to triallate are also resistant to difenzoquat. Weed Sci. 42:195–199.Google Scholar
11. O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.Google Scholar
12. Saari, L. L., Cotterman, J. C., and Thill, D. C. 1994. Resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. p. 83–139 in Powles, S. B., and J.A.M., Holtum, ed. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
13. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 6, Vol. 2, 4th ed. Cary, NC. 846 p.Google Scholar
14. Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. 633 p.Google Scholar
15. Thomas, A. G., 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci. 33:34–43.Google Scholar