To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Seed retention, and ultimately seed shatter, are extremely important for the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) and are likely influenced by various agroecological and environmental factors. Field studies investigated seed-shattering phenology of 22 weed species across three soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]-producing regions in the United States. We further evaluated the potential drivers of seed shatter in terms of weather conditions, growing degree days, and plant biomass. Based on the results, weather conditions had no consistent impact on weed seed shatter. However, there was a positive correlation between individual weed plant biomass and delayed weed seed–shattering rates during harvest. This work demonstrates that HWSC can potentially reduce weed seedbank inputs of plants that have escaped early-season management practices and retained seed through harvest. However, smaller individuals of plants within the same population that shatter seed before harvest pose a risk of escaping early-season management and HWSC.
Potential effectiveness of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems depends upon seed shatter of the target weed species at crop maturity, enabling its collection and processing at crop harvest. However, seed retention likely is influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed-shatter phenology in 13 economically important broadleaf weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after physiological maturity at multiple sites spread across 14 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. Greater proportions of seeds were retained by weeds in southern latitudes and shatter rate increased at northern latitudes. Amaranthus spp. seed shatter was low (0% to 2%), whereas shatter varied widely in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) (2% to 90%) over the weeks following soybean physiological maturity. Overall, the broadleaf species studied shattered less than 10% of their seeds by soybean harvest. Our results suggest that some of the broadleaf species with greater seed retention rates in the weeks following soybean physiological maturity may be good candidates for HWSC.
Seed shatter is an important weediness trait on which the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) depends. The level of seed shatter in a species is likely influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed shatter of eight economically important grass weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after maturity at multiple sites spread across 11 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. From soybean maturity to 4 wk after maturity, cumulative percent seed shatter was lowest in the southern U.S. regions and increased moving north through the states. At soybean maturity, the percent of seed shatter ranged from 1% to 70%. That range had shifted to 5% to 100% (mean: 42%) by 25 d after soybean maturity. There were considerable differences in seed-shatter onset and rate of progression between sites and years in some species that could impact their susceptibility to HWSC. Our results suggest that many summer annual grass species are likely not ideal candidates for HWSC, although HWSC could substantially reduce their seed output during certain years.
Information on performance of sequential treatments of quizalofop-P-ethyl with florpyrauxifen-benzyl on rice is lacking. Field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 in Stoneville, MS, to evaluate sequential timings of quizalofop-P-ethyl with florpyrauxifen-benzyl included in preflood treatments of rice. Quizalofop-P-ethyl treatments were no quizalofop-P-ethyl; sequential applications of quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 g ha−1 followed by (fb) 120 g ai ha−1 applied to rice in the 2- to 3-leaf (EPOST) fb the 4-leaf to 1-tiller (LPOST) growth stages or LPOST fb 10 d after flooding (PTFLD); quizalofop-P-ethyl at 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST or LPOST fb PTFLD; quizalofop-P-ethyl at 139 g ha−1 fb 100 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST and LPOST fb PTFLD; and quizalofop-P-ethyl at 85 g ha−1 fb 77 g ha−1 fb 77 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST fb PTFLD. Quizalofop-P-ethyl was applied alone and in mixture with florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 29 g ai ha−1 LPOST. Visible rice injury 14 d after PTFLD (DA-PTFLD) was no more than 3%. Visible control of volunteer rice (‘CL151’ and ‘Rex’) 7 DA-PTFLD was similar and at least 95% for each quizalofop-P-ethyl treatment. Barnyardgrass control with quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 fb 120 g ha−1 LPOST fb PTFLD was greater (88%) in mixture with florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The addition of florpyrauxifen-benzyl to quizalofop-P-ethyl increased rough rice yield when quizalofop-P-ethyl was applied at 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST. Sequential applications of quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 g ha−1 fb 120 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST, 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST, or 139 g ha−1 fb 100 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST controlled grass weed species. The addition of florpyrauxifen-benzyl was not beneficial for grass weed control. However, because quizalofop-P-ethyl does not control broadleaf weeds, florpyrauxifen-benzyl could provide broad-spectrum weed control in acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase–resistant rice.
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl and quizalofop were available for POST applications in 2018; however, little is known about the response of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase)–resistant rice cultivars and advanced lines to POST herbicides. A field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 at Stoneville, MS, to characterize the response of ACCase-resistant rice cultivars and advanced lines to POST applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The imidazolinone-resistant (IR) rice cultivars ‘CL163’ and ‘CLXL 745’, and ACCase-resistant rice cultivars ‘PVL01’, ‘PVL013’, ‘PVL024-B’, ‘PVL038’, ‘PVL080’, and ‘PVL081’were treated with florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 0 (nontreated control for each cultivar) and 58 g ai ha–1 at the four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) growth stage. At 14 d after treatment (DAT), PVL01 was injured 5% to 6% greater than CLXL 745, PVL013, and PVL081; however, injury was ≤10% at that evaluation for all cultivars. Similarly, injury was ≤13% for all cultivars 28 DAT. Mature heights were reduced for all cultivars except PVL013 and PVL081. Rough rice yield was ≥100% of the control for all cultivars except PVL081, PVL013, and CL163. Results suggest that florpyrauxifen-benzyl can safely be applied POST to rice cultivars grown in Mississippi as well as ACCase-resistant cultivars that are currently under development.
Rice with enhanced tolerance to herbicides that inhibit acetyl coA carboxylase (ACCase) allows POST application of quizalofop, an ACCase-inhibiting herbicide. Two concurrent field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 near Stoneville, MS, to evaluate control of grass (Grass Study) and broadleaf (Broadleaf Study) weeds with sequential applications of quizalofop alone and in mixtures with auxinic herbicides applied in the first or second application. Sequential treatments of quizalofop were applied at 119 g ai ha−1 alone and in mixtures with labeled rates of auxinic herbicides to rice at the two- to three-leaf (EPOST) or four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) growth stages. In the Grass Study, no differences in rice injury or control of volunteer rice (‘CL151’ and ‘Rex’) were detected 14 and 28 d after last application (DA-LPOST). Barnyardgrass control at 14 and 28 DA-LPOST with quizalofop applied alone or with auxinic herbicides EPOST was ≥93% for all auxinic herbicide treatments except penoxsulam plus triclopyr. Barnyardgrass control was ≥96% with quizalofop applied alone and with auxinic herbicides LPOST. In the Broadleaf Study, quizalofop plus florpyrauxifen-benzyl controlled more Palmer amaranth 14 DA-LPOST than other mixtures with auxinic herbicides, and control with this treatment was greater EPOST compared with LPOST. Hemp sesbania control 14 DA-LPOST was ≤90% with quizalofop plus quinclorac LPOST, orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST, and triclopyr EPOST or LPOST. All mixtures except quinclorac and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST controlled ivyleaf morningglory ≥91% 14 DA-LPOST. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl or triclopyr were required for volunteer soybean control >63% 14 DA-LPOST. To optimize barnyardgrass control and rice yield, penoxsulam plus triclopyr and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac should not be mixed with quizalofop. Quizalofop mixtures with auxinic herbicides are safe and effective for controlling barnyardgrass, volunteer rice, and broadleaf weeds in ACCase-resistant rice, and the choice of herbicide mixture could be adjusted based on weed spectrum in the treated field.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.