Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T21:18:47.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Weed Management Practices and Crop Rotation on Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Population Dynamics and Crop Yield-Years III and IV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vince M. Davis ,
Kevin D. Gibson ,
Thomas T. Bauman ,
Stephen C. Weller  and
William G. Johnson
Vince M. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Kevin D. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Thomas T. Bauman
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Horseweed is an increasingly common and problematic weed in no-till soybean production in the eastern cornbelt due to the frequent occurrence of biotypes resistant to glyphosate. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of crop rotation, winter wheat cover crops (WWCC), residual non-glyphosate herbicides, and preplant application timing on the population dynamics of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed and crop yield. A field study was conducted from 2003 to 2007 in a no-till field located at a site that contained a moderate infestation of GR horseweed (approximately 1 plant m−2). The experiment was a split-plot design with crop rotation (soybean–corn or soybean–soybean) as main plots and management systems as subplots. Management systems were evaluated by quantifying in-field horseweed plant density, seedbank density, and crop yield. Horseweed densities were collected at the time of postemergence applications, 1 mo after postemergence (MAP) applications, and at the time of crop harvest or 4 MAP. Viable seedbank densities were also evaluated from soil samples collected in the fall following seed rain. Soybean–corn crop rotation reduced in-field and seedbank horseweed densities vs. continuous soybean in the third and fourth yr of this experiment. Preplant herbicides applied in the spring were more effective at reducing horseweed plant densities than when applied in the previous fall. Spring-applied, residual herbicide systems were the most effective at reducing season-long in-field horseweed densities and protecting crop yields since the growth habit of horseweed in this region is primarily as a summer annual. Management systems also influenced the GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotype population structure after 4 yr of management. The most dramatic shift was from the initial GR : GS ratio of 3 : 1 to a ratio of 1 : 6 after 4 yr of residual preplant herbicide use followed by non-glyphosate postemergence herbicides.

Keywords

Glyphosatehorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICA.Integrated weed managementcropping systemsseedbank dynamicscover cropscrop rotationherbicide timing
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , August 2009 , pp. 417 - 426
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

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. Crop Manage. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org. Accessed: January 2008.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Bekech, M. M. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence and distribution in no-till and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agron. J. (Trends Agric. Sci.) 1:67–71.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Nonchemical options for delaying weed resistance to herbicides in Midwest cropping systems. Weed Technol. 13:636–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and Hunter, J. S. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. New York J. Wiley. 158–180.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Technol. 2:269–270.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–547.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98–101.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.Google Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Tillage Information Center 2004. National Crop Residue Management Survey Conservation Tillage Data. West Lafayette, IN 47907. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CRM.html. Accessed: March 2008.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Bauman, T. T., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. Influence of weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horseweed population dynamics and crop yield. Weed Sci. 55:508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., and Johnson, W. G. 2008. A field survey to determine distribution and frequency of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 22:331–338.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Gibson, K. D., Mock, V. A., and Johnson, W. G. 2009. In-field and soil-related factors that affect the presence and prediction of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations collected from Indiana soybean fields. Weed Sci. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, V. M. and Johnson, W. G. 2008. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean. Weed Sci. 56:231–236.Google Scholar
Fernald, M. L. 1950. 1447. In Fernald, M. L. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed. New York American Book.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modeling the effectiveness of herbicide rotation and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol. 4:186–198.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2008. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: March 2008.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max) weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27:520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, G. R., Davis, V. M., Westhoven, A. M., Mock, V. A., Weller, S. C., and Johnson, W. G. 2007. Distribution and characterization of ALS resistance in Indiana horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations. Proceedings North Central Weed Science Society. 62. 39 p. St. Louis, MO North Central Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in full-season no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:814–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neve, P. 2007. Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution and management: 50 years after Harper. Weed Res. 47:365–369.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The population dynamics of Erigeron canadensis, a successional winter annual. J. Ecol. 67:923–933.Google Scholar
Trainer, G. D., Loux, M. M., Harrison, S. K., and Regnier, E. 2005. Response of horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 19:568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. Washington, DC USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. www.pestmanagement.info/nass. Accessed: March 2008.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:714–724.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:867–875.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use pattern and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 20:301–307.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A., Owen, M. D. K., and Vangessel, M. J. 2004. Inheritance of evolved glyphosate resistance in Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Theor. Appl. Genet. 110:58–70.Google Scholar