Anda di halaman 1dari 84

TERMINATION REPORT

MISSISSIPPI SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD


FY 2007
Title: Strategies to Monitor and Control Glyphosate-resistant Weeds
Principal
Investigators: Daniel H. Poston, Delta Research and Extension Center
Clifford H. Koger, USDA-ARS Crop Production and Genetics Research Unit
David R. Shaw, Plant and Soil Sciences Department
Objectives:
1. Monitor and screen weed populations suspected of being glyphosate-resistant.
2. Develop management strategies for glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible
horseweed.
3. Determine the optimum time to control horseweed by documenting emergence
and growth patterns for horseweed at various locations in Mississippi.
4. Disseminate information to producers in a timely fashion.
Objective 1: Plant materials and seed of weeds suspected of being resistant to glyphosate
continue to be collected from various locations around the state. Glyphosate titrations in
the field and greenhouse as well as assay techniques, reported on in earlier reports, have
been used successfully to determine resistance in horseweed populations from across the
state. Glyphosate resistant horseweed has been documented as far south as Greenville,
MS and is suspected of being more widely disseminated throughout the state. More
complaints of glyphosate failing to control horseweed were reported this past growing
season and more alternative chemistries, mostly cloransulam, were used to control this
weed in soybean. Italian ryegrass populations with 3-fold tolerance to glyphosate have
been confirmed and alternative control methods are being evaluated. Glyphosate tolerant
Italian ryegrass could potentially pose a larger threat to crop production than glyphosateresistant horseweed because there are few affordable control alternatives. This raises
great concern because many herbicides that are added to glyphosate to control resistant
horseweed reduce the control of ryegrass.
Pigweed plants and seed were collected from several locations, but no confirmed cases of
pigweed or waterhemp resistance have been documented to date. Giant ragweed is
another weed that we suspect of developing increased tolerance to glyphosate in
Mississippi, however in many cases it may represent the encroachment of this weed into
fields from field borders and this weed was never effective controlled by glyphosate.
Reports of poor Johnsongrass control with glyphosate raised perhaps the most concern
among our research group. We investigate on location where glyphosate failed to control
Johnsongrass. Coincidentally, this occurred about the time that glyphosate-resistant
Johnsongrass was confirmed in Argentina. Rhizomes were collected from this location,
but we have been unable to confirm resistance at this location as of yet. Plans are in

place to closely monitor this location in 2007. Glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass poses


perhaps the largest threat to date for production systems in Mississippi.
SEE ALSO ATTACHED MANUSCRIPT REPRINT.
Objectives 2
SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.
Objective 3:
SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.
Objective 4: To date, two journal articles associated with this project have been
accepted. In addition, one M.S. thesis has been completed and at least two articles will be
submitted within the next month. Findings from this project have been presented at
numerous meetings around the state, region, and nation including the DREC field day,
grower meetings, The Southern Weed Science Society annual meeting, The Weed
Science Society of America annual Meeting, The Beltwide Cotton Conference, The
Mississippi Joint Pest Management Conference, The Delta Ag Expo, and the Mississippi
Crop College. Findings have also been featured in the Delta Business Journal and other
popular press articles.

Appendix A

FIELD EMERGENCE OF HORSEWEED [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.] AND


CONTROL UTILIZING TILLAGE AND HERBICIDES

By
Thomas William Eubank III

A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of
Mississippi State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
in Weed Science
in the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences
Mississippi State, Mississippi
December 2006

FIELD EMERGENCE OF HORSEWEED [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.] AND


CONTROL UTILIZING TILLAGE AND HERBICIDES
By

Thomas William Eubank III


Approved:

Daniel H. Poston
Associate/Extension Professor of
Weed Science
(Co-Major Professor)

David R. Shaw
Giles Distinguished Professor of
Weed Science
(Co-Major Professor)

D. Wayne Wells
Extension Professor
(Minor Professor)

Daniel B. Reynolds.
Professor of Weed Science
(Committee Member)

Clifford H. Koger
USDA Research Agronomist
(Committee Member)

William Kingery
Graduate Coordinator of
the Department of Plant & Soil
Sciences

Vance H. Watson
Dean of the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences

Name: Thomas William Eubank III


Date of Degree: December 8, 2006
Institution: Mississippi State University
Major Field: Weed Science
Major Professor: Dr. Daniel H. Poston
Title of Study: FIELD EMERGENCE OF HORSEWEED [Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq.] AND CONTROL UTILIZING TILLAGE AND HERBICIDES
Pages in Study: 49
Candidate for Degree of Master of Science
Horseweed has been documented in many crops around the world and is
listed as being a problem weed in no-till production systems. Horseweed has developed
resistance to many herbicides including glyphosate. Field experiments were conducted
from 2004 to 2006 in the Mississippi Delta to evaluate the field emergence of horseweed
and various treatment programs for its control.
Field emergence of horseweed was observed occurring primarily in the fall of the
year, September through November, when temperatures were between 16 to 23 C with
later emergence occurring in January through April when temperatures were from 5 to 16
C. Tillage in September followed by herbicide in March gave 100% control of horseweed
across all locations. Glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba provided 90% or
better horseweed control 4 WAT both years. Glufosinate-based burndowns provided 81
to 97% horseweed control, and soybean yields were generally similar with all
glufosinate-based treatments.

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this work to my wife (Beth Eubank) and children (Adelle
and Will Eubank). Your love, patience and support have allowed me to pursue my
dreams, and I thank you.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Daniel Poston for allowing
me to further my education. Your patience and mentoring have enabled me to broaden
my horizons and brighten my future. I would also like to thank Drs. David Shaw, Dan
Reynolds, Trey Koger and Wayne Wells for their time in serving as members of my
graduate committee.
A special thanks to Russel Coleman, Brewer Blessitt, Hunter Doty, Troy Gibson,
Beth Graves, and Robert Wells who have all contributed to my research efforts in the
field, lab and office. I appreciate all your hard work.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION .........................................................................................................

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................

iii

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................

vi

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................

II. FIELD EMERGENCE OF HORSEWEED AND IMPACT OF


HERBICIDE AND TILLAGE TIMING ON CONTROL..............................

13

Abstract ........................................................................................................
Introduction ..................................................................................................
Materials and Methods ..................................................................................
Horseweed Emergence ............................................................................
Tillage and Herbicide Controls................................................................
Results and Discussion..................................................................................
Horseweed Emergence ............................................................................
Tillage and Herbicide Controls................................................................
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................

13
14
17
18
18
19
19
21
24

III. GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED CONTROL USING


GLYPHOSATE-, PARAQUAT-, AND GLUFOSINATE-BASED
HERBICIDE PROGRAMS...........................................................................

31

Abstract ........................................................................................................
Introduction ..................................................................................................
Materials and Methods ..................................................................................
Results and Discussion..................................................................................
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................

31
32
35
37
43

iv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Page

Impact of tillage and herbicide applied at various timings on horseweed


control in May at 3 locations in the Mississippi Delta....................................

30

Air temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation for 7 d prior and 7 d


after postemergence herbicide applications in 2005 and 2006........................

46

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed control 2 and 4 WAT and plant density 7


WAT with glyphosate-based burndown programs .........................................

47

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed control 2 and 4 WAT and plant density 7


WAT with paraquat-based burndown programs...............................................

48

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed control 2 and 4 WAT and plant density 7


WAT with glufosinate-based burndown programs.........................................

49

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Page

Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Stoneville, MS from


September 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence is plotted for the
first and last half of each month and the standard error of each mean is
affixed as an indicator of variability for each observation period.. .................

26

Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Lamont, MS (Lamont


location I) from September 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence
is plotted for the first and last half of each month and the standard error of
each mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for each observation
period................................................................................................................

27

Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Lamont, MS (Lamont


location II) from October 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence is
plotted for the first and last half of each month and the standard error of
each mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for each observation
period................................................................................................................

28

Horseweed emergence and average air temperature averaged across 3


locations in the Mississippi Delta from September 2004 to May 2005. Mean
horseweed emergence is plotted for the first and last half of each month and
the standard error of each mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for
each observation period.........................................................................................................

29

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.),
soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.), and corn (Zea mays L.), have revolutionized the
agricultural landscape allowing producers to control a broad spectrum of weed species
with in-season applications of glyphosate (Baylis 2000). The widespread adoption of GR
crops has made glyphosate the worlds leading agrochemical (EPA 2004) and has led to
the decreased utilization of tillage and alternative herbicides for the control of problem
weeds (Young 2006).
Horseweed, mares tail, Canada fleabane, hogweed, mule tail, and butterweed are
listed as being common names for Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. also listed as Erigeron
canadensis (Holm et al. 1997; Steyermark 1963; SWSS 2003). Erigeron comes from the
Greek language er, meaning spring, and geron for old man old man in spring which
refers to the plants hairy covering of plant parts (Bailey, 1951; Holm et al. 1997).
Horseweed was moved from the genus Erigeron to the genus Conyza (which is mainly
tropical) in recent years and the change has met with some reservations and thusly both
genus names are still used (Holm et al. 1997). Horseweed is in the family Asteraceae
(Compositae) with the genus and species being Conyza (syn. Erigeron) canadensis (L)
Cronq.

and

the

species

being

separated

into

varieties:

2
1) Var. canadensis is most abundant in the north and central U.S., and is
distinguished by stems with spreading pubescence.
2) Var. glabrata (Gray) Cronq. is most common in the southwest portion of the U.S.,
and is distinguished by nearly glabrous stems and stramineous phyllaries.
3) Var. pusilla (Nutt) Cronq. is most common in the southeast portion of the U.S.,
and is distinguished by nearly glabrous stems and tips of the phyllaries stained a
purplish-red (Correll and Johnston 1970; Radford et al. 1968).
Described as an erect winter or summer annual or biennial from 1 to 3 meters in height, a
solid stem nearly smooth or bristly hairy, unbranching at the base, branching near the
apex; leaves are alternate and numerous often appearing opposite, light to dark green in
color, sessile (without petioles), simple linear to oblanceolate, 2.5-10 cm long and 1-15
mm wide, entire, toothed or slightly lobed, more or less pubescent; roots are described as
a long taproot or fibrous; flowers are numerous small heads arranged in an elongated
panicle, white to lavender ray flowers 1-2 mm long, disk flowers yellow; fruit is an
achene, cylindrical, elongate, broadest above the middle, surface longitudinally grooved,
somewhat tapering from base to apex with numerous slender white bristles, yellowish
brown in color with scattered white hairs, pappus of 10-25 bristles, 2-2.3 mm long;
seedling cotyledons are green, lacking evident veins, smooth, early leaves usually entire
and later leaves toothed with a short apical projection, blades green on upper surface and
light green on lower smooth surface; crushed leaves and other plant parts are said to have
the faint odor of carrots (Correll and Johnston 1970; Holm et al. 1997; Radford et al.
1968; SWSS 2003; Uva et al. 1997). Horseweed reproduces only via seed production

3
and in the northern temperate zone flowering begins in July and August and ends in
October to early November (Holm et al. 1997). Horseweed can produce many winddisseminated seeds, Estimates of seed production for horseweed average 50,000
seeds/plant, with some plants producing over 200,000 seeds (Bhowmik and Bekech 1993;
Holm et al. 1997). Horseweed is capable of traveling great distances and is aided in
dispersal by means of a small achene and pappus (Dauer et al. 2006; Bhowmik and
Bekech 1993). Some research has shown allelophathic-like properties of horseweed
where poor seedling growth being reported where residue of previous horseweed plants
were decaying in the soil, with the effects lasting up to 2 months (Holm et al. 1997).
Horseweed has been reported as being used as a tonic, astringent, and a diuretic
(Steyermark 1963). The whole plant of horseweed is used as a folk medicine in China
(Rustaiyan 2004). Horseweed decoction is indicated as an inhibitor of the growth of
bacteria and common mold (Rustaiyan 2004). The oil from horseweed can prevent
allergic diarrhea of children to milk (Rustaiyan 2004).
Horseweed has been documented in 70 countries and 40 different crops around
the world (Holm et al. 1997) and is listed as being a problematic weed in cotton, grain
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), corn, and soybean (Brown and Whitwell 1988;
Buhler and Owen 1997; Mueller 2003; Vencill and Banks 1994; Wiese et al 1997). Since
1993, horseweed in North America has developed resistance to photosystem II inhibitors,
bipyridiliums, acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, ureas, amides, and most recently,
glycines (Heap 2006; Koger et al. 2004; Smisek et al. 1998; Trainer et al. 2005;
VanGessel 2001; Weaver et al. 2004). Smisek et al. (1998) reported on the discovery of

4
paraquat-resistant horseweed in Ontario, Canada, where paraquat had been applied 4 to 5
times per year for a 10-year period and exhibited resistance levels 25 to 35 times higher
than susceptible populations (Smisek et al. 1998). These paraquat-resistant plants were
also found to have a 7-fold resistance to diquat and a 3-fold resistance to linuron (Weaver
et al. 2004). In Delaware, after three years of a glyphosate-only no-till production system,
glyphosate failed to control horseweed (VanGessel 2001). Seeds were collected from
suspected resistant plants and grown in a green house and were found to exhibit a 8- to
13-fold glyphosate resistance compared to susceptible horseweed populations (VanGessel
2001). Currently glyphosate-resistant populations of horseweed have been reported in
several states across the United States including Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi
(Heap 2006; Koger et al. 2004; VanGessel 2001). Horseweed is the first annual broadleaf
documented as resistant to glyphosate (VanGessel 2001), and is considered one of the top
10 worst weeds among herbicide-resistant biotypes (Heap 2006). Research focusing on
the mechanism of resistance has shown that resistance does not appear to be based on the
differential uptake of glyphosate, metabolism, differential gene expression of a specific
5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphonate synthase (EPSP), or amplification EPSP synthase
(Feng et al. 2004). However, a difference was noted between resistant and susceptible
plants in that similar amounts of glyphosate were taken up into the leaf by each plant but
the susceptible plants translocated approximately 2-fold more glyphosate into the roots
(Feng et al. 2004; Koger and Reddy 2005).
Horseweed is a robust, tap-rooted plant, is classified as a winter annual (Brown
and Whitwell 1988), and is a problem weed in no-tillage production systems (Barnes et al

5
2004; Bruce and Kells 1990). Ecologists consider horseweed a successional winter
annual that can rapidly inhabit abandoned fields (Regehr and Bazzaz 1979). Winter
annuals typically germinate in the fall, remain vegetative throughout the winter months,
and produce seed in the spring to early summer. Depending upon the region, research has
shown that horseweed may emerge from early fall through late spring (Bhowmik and
Bekech 1993; Buhler and Owen 1997). Saphangthong and Witt (2006) reported
germination occurring throughout the year when seed were planted. Horseweed also can
germinate over a wide range of temperature and environmental extremes (Nandula et al.
2006). VanGessel (2001) notes that understanding the biology and ecology of horseweed
is essential for developing effective management strategies.
Horseweed is considered one of the most common and troublesome winter annual
weeds in no-tillage production systems (Bruce and Kells 1990). Horseweed is commonly
found in undisturbed areas such as abandoned fields, right of ways, and fallow areas and
has been listed as a problem weed in conservation and no-tillage systems (Brown and
Whitwell 1988; Bruce and Kells, 1990; Keeling et al. 1989). The elimination of tillage
practices in agricultural fields creates an environment similar to abandoned fields, where
horseweed can thrive, because of the lack of annual soil disturbance (Buhler and Owen
1997; Vencill and Banks 1994). Reduced-till production systems are well suited for the
growth and development of horseweed. Kapusta (1979) reports a field being observed as
a solid stand of horseweed in the first year of a no-tillage system following 20 years of a
conventional tillage system free of horseweed. Much of the resistant populations
identified to date occur in areas of the country where no-till practices have been widely

6
adopted (Koger et al. 2004; Main et al. 2004; VanGessel 2001). Studies conducted in
Alabama found that shallow fall tillage, in the form of disking 7 to 10 cm in depth,
sufficiently disturbed soil enough to prevent horseweed survival in each year of a 3 year
study (Brown and Whitwell 1988). Tillage can be effective in the removal of horseweed
in the fall (Brown and Whitwell 1988), however the potential for germination after a
tillage event is possible (based on current findings), and a single tillage event in the fall
may not be sufficient in controlling later-emerging horseweed that emerge from seed
already in the seedbank or that blow in from other locations. No-tillage systems are not
widely embraced in Mississippi, especially in the Delta, where tillage is often required in
the fall of the year to remove implement ruts and prepare fields for the upcoming
production season. However, reduced tillage practices are gaining popularity in the
Midsouth and will likely continue to increase as fuel and production costs continue to
rise.
Chemical control of horseweed had been successful with glyphosate prior to
2001. Studies by Wilson and Worsham (1988) found that 0.6 kg ae/ha of glyphosate gave
75% control of 15 to 46 cm tall horseweed and 1.1 kg ae/ha gave 94% control 4 WAT.
Similar findings have been observed where 0.4 kg ae/ha glyphosate gave 83 to 100%
control of 10 to 15 cm tall horseweed 4 WAT (Keeling et al. 1989) and 87 to 93% control
of horseweed 1 to 6 cm in height 6 WAT (Bruce and Kells 1990). Scott et al. (1998)
stated that at least 1.12 kg ae/ha glyphosate was required to control horseweed at least
92% when it was 20 to 25 cm in height, and VanGessel et al. (2001) observed 100%
control of 15 to 30 cm horseweed with 0.8 kg ae/ha glyphosate in 1998. Reduced

7
glyphosate absorption associated with mixing contact herbicides with glyphosate has
been well documented (Hydrick and Shaw 1994; Norris et al. 2001; Starke and Oliver
1998), and research is needed to determine the most efficacious tank mix partners for
glyphosate-based burndowns for the control of horseweed. Control of horseweed with
paraquat alone has proven difficult. Bruce and Kells (1990) reported paraquat at 0.56 kg
ai/ha with a carrier volume of 210 L/ha gave only 15 and 60% control when applied to
horseweed 6 to 8 cm in height. Similar findings were reported in a study by Keeling et al.
(1989) where 0.6 kg ai/ha paraquat in 140 L/ha gave 67 and 53% control of 3 to 4 cm
diameter horseweed 4 WAT; however, control dropped to 40 and 30% 12 WAT. A
broadleaf herbicide that has shown excellent activity on horseweed is 2,4-D (Bruce and
Kells 1990; Keeling et al. 1989; Moseley and Hagood 1990). A study by Wiese et al.
(1995) found that 2,4-D ester at 0.56 kg ai/ha gave 100% control of 30 cm tall
horseweed, but only 47% control of plants in rosette stage at 5 cm in height. The addition
of 2,4-D to paraquat to aid in the control of horseweed has proven erratic. Wilson and
Worsham (1988) found 0.6 kg ai/ha paraquat gave only 74% control of 18 cm tall
horseweed, but the addition of 0.6 kg ai/ha 2,4-D improved control to 92%. When the
same treatments were applied to 15 to 46 cm tall horseweed, however, control was only
58% and 61%, respectively. Moseley and Hagood (1990) found that the addition of 2,4-D
amine did not significantly improve control over paraquat alone. Glufosinate is a contact
herbicide with limited systemic activity (WSSA 2002). Glufosinate has shown promise as
an alternative to glyphosate for the control of horseweed, but control has been
inconsistent (Talbert et al. 2004). Some studies have indicated poor control with

8
glufosinate when high plant densities are present at application (Steckel et al. 1997;
Tharp and Kells 2002). Horseweed, especially glyphosate-resistant horseweed, pose a
threat to production agricultural in the Midsouth and control options need to be
developed to prevent potential losses in yield and increased production costs.

LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, L. H. 1951. Compositae, Erigeron in Manual of Cultivated Plants. Macmillan.
1007 p.
Barnes, J., B. Johnson, K. Gibson, and S. Weller. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system
influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean.
Online. Crop Management doi:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR.
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses, and
prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:299-308.
Bhowmik, P. C. and M. M. Bekech. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed
production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn
(Zea mays). Agronomy (Trends in Agricultural Science) 1:67-71.
Brown, S. M. and T. Whitwell. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza
canadensis. Weed Technol. 2:269-270.
Bruce, J. A. and J. J. Kells. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage
soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol.
4:642-647.
Buhler, D. D. and M. D. K. Owen. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98-101.
Correll, D. S., and M. C. Johnston. 1970. Conyza L. in Manual of the Vascular Plants of
Texas. Texas Research Foundation. 160-1608 p.
Dauer, J. T., D. A. Mortensen, and R. Humston. 2006. Controlled experiments to predict
horseweed (Conyza canadensis) dispersal distances. Weed Sci. 54:484-489.
Feng, P. C., M. Tran, T. Chiu, R. D. Sammons, G. R. Heck, and C. A. CaJacob. 2004.
Investigation into glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis): retention,
uptake, translocation, and metabolism. Weed Sci. 52:498-505.
Heap, I. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.
www.weedscience.com
Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq. (syn. Erigeron canadensis L.) in World Weeds: Natural Histories and
Distributions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 226-235 p.

10
Hydrick, D. E. and D. R. Shaw. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective
foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol.
8:129-133.
Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max)
weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27:520-526.
Keeling, J. W., C. G. Henniger, and J. R. Abernathy. 1989. Horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed
Technol. 3:399-401.
Koger, C. H. and K. N. Reddy. 2005. Role of absorption and translocation in the
mechanism of glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci.
53:84-89.
Koger, C. H., D. H. Poston, R. M. Hayes, and R. F. Montgomery. 2004. Glyphosateresistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820-825.
Main, C. L., T. C. Mueller, R. M. Hayes, and J. B. Wilkerson. 2004. Response of selected
horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 52:879-883.
Moseley, C. M., and E. S. Hagood. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in fullseason no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:814-818.
Mueller, T. C., J. H. Massey, R. M. Hayes, C. L. Main, and C. N. Stewart. 2003.
Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant
horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680-684.
Nandula, V. K., T. W. Eubank, D. H. Poston, C. H. Koger, and K. N. Reddy. 2006.
Factors affecting germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 54:898902.
Norris, J. L. D. R. Shaw, and C. E. Snipes. 2001. Weed control from herbicide
combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:552-558.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Erigeron: in Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. 1067-1070 p.
Regehr, D. L. and F. A. Bazzaz.1979. The population dynamics of Erigeron canadensis,
a successional winter annual. J. Ecol. 67:923-933.
Rustaiyan, A., P. A. Azar, M. Moradlizadeh, S. Masoudi, and N. Ameri. 2004. Volatile
constituents of three Compositae herbs: Anthemis altissima L. var. altissima, Conyza

11
canadensis (L.) Cronq. and Grantina aucheri Boiss. growing wild in Iran. Journal of
Essential Oil Research. 16:579-581.
Saphangthong, T. and W. W. Witt. 2006. Germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis
L.) under field conditions. In W. Vencill (ed.) 59th Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc., San
Antonio, TX. 23 25 Jan. 2006. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.
Scott, R., D. R. Shaw, and W. L. Barrentine. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN
582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean
(Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23-26.
Smisek, A., C. Doucet, M. Jones, and S. Weaver. 1998. Paraquat resistance in horseweed
(Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex
County, Ontario. Weed Sci. 46:200-204.
Starke, R. J. and L. R. Oliver. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron,
fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46:652-660.
Steckel, G. J., L. M. Wax, F. W. Simmons, and W. H. Phillips. 1997. Glufosinate
efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol.
11:484-488.
Steyermark, J. A. 1963. Compositae, Erigeron in Flora of Missouri. Iowa State
University Press. 1529 p.
[SWSS] Southern Weed Science Society. 2003. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign,
IL: Southern Weed Science Society.
Talbert, R. E., M. R. McClelland, J. L. Barrentine, K. L. Smith, and M. B. Kelley. 2004.
Managing glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Arkansas cotton. Fayetteville, AR.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Research Series 530.
Tharp, B. E., and J. J. Kells. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with
glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274-281.
Trainer, G. D., M. M. Loux, S. K. Harrison, and E. Regnier. 2005. Response of
horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate.
Weed Technol. 19:231-236.
[EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7503C) EPA-733-R-04-001.
www.epa.gov/pesticides. May.

12
Uva, R. H., J. C. Neal, and J. M. DiTomaso. 1997. Dicots: Asteraceae = Compositae:
Horseweed in Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell Univ. Press. 136-137 p.
VanGessel, M. J., A. O. Ayeni, and B. A. Majek. 2001. Glyphosate in double-crop no-till
glyphosate-resistant soybean: Role of preplant applications and residual herbicides.
Weed Technol. 15:703-713.
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Rapid Publication. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from
Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703-705.
Vencill, W. K. and P. A. Banks. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management
on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541-547.
Weaver, S., M. Downs, and B. Neufeld. 2004. Response of paraquat-resistant and
susceptible horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to diquat, linuron, and oxyfluorfen. Weed
Sci. 52:549-553.
Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. W. K. Vencill, ed.
Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 229 p.
Wiese, A. F., C. D. Salisbury, and B. W. Bean. 1995. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum),
jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) and horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in
fallow. Weed Technol. 9:249-254.
Wilson, J. S. and A. D. Worsham. 1988. Combinations of nonselective herbicides for
difficult to control weeds in no-till corn, Zea mays, and soybeans, Glycine max. Weed
Sci. 36:648-652.
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting
from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. 20:301-307.

CHAPTER II
FIELD EMERGENCE OF HORSEWEED AND IMPACT OF HERBICIDE AND
TILLAGE TIMING ON CONTROL
Abstract
Experiments were conducted at 3 locations in the Mississippi Delta to determine
time of field emergence for horseweed in relation to temperature. Studies were initiated
in September 2004 and terminated in May 2005. Averaged across locations, horseweed
emerged primarily in the fall of the year, September through early November, when
temperatures ranged from 16 to 23 C with subsequent emergence occurring from late
January through early April when temperatures ranged from 5 to 16 C. No emergence to
very low emergence was observed from late November through early March. Limited
emergence could possibly be due to the lower temperatures observed during this time
from a high of 13 C to a low of 3 C. Experiments were also conducted to evaluate
horseweed control utilizing tillage or glufosinate applied in September, November, or
March. Tillage in September followed by (fb) glufosinate in March was included as a
comparison treatment because fall tillage fb chemical weed removal in the spring is a
common practice in the Mississippi Delta. Tillage in September fb glufosinate in March
provided 100% control of horseweed across all locations. Horseweed control with
glufosinate in March and tillage in March was comparable. Percent horseweed
groundcover in May averaged across locations was 0, 4, and 8% for tillage in September
13

14
fb glufosinate in March, glufosinate in March, and tillage in March, respectively.
Horseweed control with tillage in November and glufosinate in November was
comparable to tillage in September fb glufosinate in March at only 1 and 2 of 3 locations,
respectively. Tillage in November failed to completely kill emerged horseweed at one
location and new emergence following November tillage occurred at all locations.
Nomenclature: Glyphosate, glufosinate; Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. # ERICA.
1

Additional index words: glyphosate resistance, weed resistance, burndown, herbicide


mixtures, herbicide efficacy, yield reduction.
Introduction
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops have revolutionized the agricultural landscape,
allowing producers to control a broad spectrum of weed species with in-season
applications of glyphosate. The widespread adoption of GR crops has led to increased use
of glyphosate and decreased use of tillage and alternative herbicides for the control of
problem weeds (Young 2006). Tillage practices have been utilized for decades for the
control of troublesome weeds in production agriculture, however, concerns over soil
erosion and increased production costs associated with tillage have prompted many
producers to adopt no-till practices. Reduced- and no-tillage production systems may
promote many weed species such as hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) (Webster et
al. 2000), redvine (Brunnichia ovata) (Elmore et al. 1995), green foxtail (Setaria viridis
(L.) Beauv.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and horseweed (Conyza
canadensis (L.) Cronq.) (Buhler, 1992). Glyphosate has been useful in the control of
1

Letters following this symbol are a WSSA-approved computer code from Composite List of Weeds,
Revised 1989. Available only on computer disk from WSSA, 810 East 10th Street, KS 66044-8897.

15
many weeds associated with no-tillage practices, however, after three years of a
glyphosate-only no-till production system, glyphosate failed to control horseweed in
Delaware (VanGessel 2001). Currently glyphosate-resistant populations of horseweed
have been reported in several states across the United States including Arkansas,
Tennessee, and Mississippi (Heap 2006; Koger et al. 2004; VanGessel 2001).
Horseweed is a robust, tap-rooted member of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family
and is classified as a winter annual (Brown and Whitwell 1988). Winter annuals typically
germinate in the fall (August through November), remain vegetative throughout the
winter (December through February), and produce seed in the spring (March through
May) to early summer (June and July). Depending upon the region, horseweed typically
emerges in the fall and to a lesser extent in the spring (Bhowmik and Bekech 1993;
Buhler and Owen 1997). Saphangthong and Witt (2006) reported germination occurring
throughout the year when seed were planted in Kentucky. Horseweed can produce many
wind-disseminated seeds. Estimates of seed production for horseweed average 50,000
seeds/plant, with some plants producing over 200,000 seeds (Bhowmik and Bekech 1993;
Holm et al. 1997). Horseweed also can germinate over a wide range of temperature and
environmental extremes (Nandula et al. 2006). VanGessel (2001) noted that
understanding the biology and ecology of horseweed is essential for developing effective
management strategies. Determining when horseweed emerges in the Mississippi Delta is
imperative in determining the best timings for control.
Horseweed is considered one of the most common and troublesome winter annual
weeds in no-tillage production systems (Bruce and Kells 1990). Horseweed is commonly

16
found in undisturbed areas such as abandoned fields, right of ways, and fallow areas and
has been listed as a problem weed in conservation and no-tillage systems (Brown and
Whitwell 1988; Bruce and Kells, 1990; Keeling et al. 1989). The elimination of tillage
practices in agricultural fields creates an environment similar to abandoned fields, where
horseweed can thrive, because of the lack of annual soil disturbance (Buhler and Owen
1997; Vencill and Banks 1994). Reduced-till production systems are well suited for the
growth and development of horseweed. Kapusta (1979) reported a field being observed
as a solid stand of horseweed in the first year of a no-tillage system following 20 years of
a conventional tillage system free of horseweed. Much of the resistant populations
identified to date occur in areas of the country where no-till practices have been widely
adopted (Koger et al. 2004; Main et al. 2004; VanGessel 2001). Tillage is effective in the
removal of horseweed in the fall (Brown and Whitwell 1988), however the potential for
germination after a tillage event is possible (based on current findings), and a single
tillage event in the fall may not be sufficient in controlling later-emerging horseweed that
emerge from seed already in the seed bank or that blow in from other locations. Notillage systems are not widely utilized in Mississippi, especially in the flat, alluvial flood
plain of the Mississippi Delta, where tillage is often required in the fall of the year to
remove implement ruts and prepare fields for the upcoming production season. However,
reduced tillage practices are gaining popularity in Mississippi and will likely increase as
the use of herbicide-resistant crops increases. Research is needed to determine emergence
patterns and the optimum timing for effective control of horseweed by either tillage or
herbicide means in preventing this weed from competing with subsequent crops.

17
The objectives of this study were to observe field emergence of horseweed in
Mississippi and to evaluate the influence of tillage and herbicide timing on control of
horseweed. Little data are available relative to emergence and control of horseweed in the
mid-South.

Materials and Methods


Experiments were conducted at 3 locations in the Mississippi Delta to monitor
horseweed emergence and evaluate the impact of tillage and herbicides applied at various
timings on horseweed control. One study was conducted at the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi and two studies were conducted near Lamont
(Lamont I and Lamont II), Mississippi. Studies at Stoneville and Lamont I were initiated
in early September 2004, and Lamont II was initiated in early October 2004. The soil at
Stoneville was a Sharkey clay (very-fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Epiaquerts) with a
pH of 7.1 and 2.8% organic matter content. The soil at both sites in Lamont was a
Dundee very fine sandy loam (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs) with
a pH of 6.2 and organic matter content of 1.2%. Plots at all locations were established
following no-tillage soybean and were naturally infested with horseweed. No crops were
planted for the duration of the study.

Horseweed Emergence. Emergence of horseweed was monitored every two weeks by


counting all emerged plants in a 1-m2 plot with eight replications per location. Horseweed
emergence was monitored from the time plots were initiated until June the following

18
year. After emergence counts were recorded, emerged plants in each replication were
controlled with 0.56 kg ai/ha glufosinate. Glufosinate was applied with a CO2-pressurized
sprayer calibrated to deliver 140 L/ha at 207 kPa using flat fan nozzles2. Daily averaged
air temperature data were obtained from weather stations maintained by the Delta
Agricultural Weather Center located at the Delta Research and Extension Center.
Weather stations were located approximately eight km from Lamont and one km from
Stoneville. Mean horseweed emergence was plotted for the first and last half of each
month. Standard errors of means were affixed around each mean as an indicator of
variability for a particular emergence period.

TeeJet XR 11002VS. Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL 60189.

19
Tillage and Herbicide Controls. Tillage (disk) or herbicide (glufosinate) was applied in
September, November, or March. Tillage in September fb glufosinate in March was
included as a comparison treatment because fall tillage fb chemical weed removal in the
spring is a commonly use practice in the Mississippi Delta. A nontreated control was also
included. Tilled plots were disked once. Herbicide plots were treated with 0.56 kg ai/ha
glufosinate applied with a CO2-pressurized sprayer calibrated to deliver 140 L/ha at 207
kPa using regular flat fan nozzles. Plots were 3 x 12 m with 4 replications. The
experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Visual
ratings were made in May 2005 and expressed as percent horseweed groundcover. Plant
densities were taken by counting all plants in a 1-m2 grid and expressed as plants/m2.
Data were subjected to analyses of variance and means separated using Fishers LSD (P =
0.05). Data were pooled across locations only when appropriate.

Results and Discussion

Horseweed Emergence. Horseweed emergence at Stoneville was greatest in late October


(90 plants/m2) through early November (20 plants/m2), with some emergence noted in
late January (1 plant/m2), and early and late February (5.5 plants/m2 and 4 plants/m2,
respectively) (Figure 2.1). Emergence occurred within a temperature range from 5 to 23
C although emergence was greatest during the higher temperatures of late October and
early November when temperatures ranged from 15 to 23 C. Horseweed emergence at

20
Lamont I was greatest from late September (97 plants/m ) through late October (58
2

plants/m2), with lesser emergence occurring in late March (10 plants/m2) and early April
(5 plants/m2)(Figure 2.2). Temperatures during observed emergence ranged from 13 to 21
C with greatest emergence being seen when temperatures were highest in late September
and late October. Peak emergence occurred at Lamont II in early and late October 2004
(130 and 51 plants/m2) and some horseweed emergence occurring in late March and early
April (2 and 1 plants/m2)(Figure 2.3). Temperature ranges for emergence were from 13 to
21 C with greatest emergence occurring in early to late October 2004 with corresponding
temperatures from 18 to 21 C, respectively. Averaged across all locations, horseweed
emerged primarily in the fall of the year, September 2004 through early November 2004,
when temperatures were between 16 to 23 C with subsequent emergence occurring from
late January through early April of 2005 with temperatures ranging from 5 to 16 C
(Figure 2.4). These field emergence findings compared well with the findings of Nandula
et al. (2006), where peak germination of horseweed occurred when air temperatures were
from 20 to 24 C in growth chamber studies. No emergence to very low emergence was
observed from late November 2004 through early March 2005 at all locations and could
possibly be due to the lower temperatures observed during this time from a high of 13 C
to a low of 4 C, which supports the findings of Nandula et al. (2006) where no
germination of horseweed was observed when temperatures were below 12 C. The
extreme variance in emergence in the months of September and October are thought to be
due to the availability of moisture during these typically drier months (8.6 and 8.0 cm
precipitation, respectively) in the Mississippi Delta3.
3

30-year average rainfall for the months of September and October in Stoneville MS

21
These results support the findings of others (Bhowmik and Bekech 1993; Buhler
and Owen 1997), where horseweed germinated primarily in the fall and to a lesser extent
in spring; however, the densities observed in Mississippi are much lower than those
found in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Iowa that approached 1,000 plants/m2.
Saphangthong and Witt (2006) found that horseweed could emerge at any time of year
given suitable environmental conditions. In Mississippi, the majority of viable horseweed
seed emerges in the fall (August through November) when moisture and temperature
requirements are suitable for germination. Spring emergence of horseweed may occur
given there are viable seed remaining near the soil surface and environmental conditions
are suitable for emergence. Based on personal observations in producer fields, spring
emergence tends to be greater in years when rainfall is limited the previous fall. Under
these conditions, few seed germinate in the fall due to lack of moisture, and a large
percentage of seed germinate in the spring when temperatures reach optimal levels for
emergence.

Tillage and Herbicide Controls. Location by treatment interactions were detected for
percent groundcover (Table 2.1). Therefore, these data are presented separately by
location. No such interactions were detected for horseweed density. Therefore, these data
were pooled over location.
Tillage in September fb glufosinate in March provided 100% control of
horseweed at all locations (Table 2.1). Horseweed control with glufosinate in March and
tillage in March was comparable. Percent horseweed groundcover at Stoneville was 5, 6,

22
and 0% for glufosinate in March, tillage in March, and tillage in September fb glufosinate
in March, respectively. Horseweed control with tillage in November was comparable to
glufosinate or tillage in March, but not as effective as November tillage fb glufosinate in
March. Glufosinate in September, glufosinate in November, and tillage in September
were the least effective treatments at Stoneville. Percent horseweed groundcover for these
treatments was 70, 43, and 33%, respectively, compared to 73% with the nontreated
control. Stoneville was the only site where fall tillage had a distinct advantage over fall
herbicide applications. Horseweed emerged later in the fall at this site, probably due to
lack of rainfall, and tillage effectively removed any horseweed plants that were present
when tillage was applied. The soil at Stoneville was a heavy clay soil compared to
lighter-textured soils at the other two sites. Therefore, burial of horseweed seed by tillage
may be more effective on heavier-textured soil types where emergence may be more
restricted. Nandula et al. (2006) reported no horseweed emergence from a depth of 0.5
cm in a Bosket sandy loam, fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Mollic Hapludalfs soil. Tillage in
September fb glufosinate in March was the only treatment at Lamont I that reduced
percent horseweed groundcover significantly compared to the nontreated control.
Groundcover ranged from 0 to 11% at the Lamont II location with the best treatments,
which were September tillage fb glufosinate in March, glufosinate in March, glufosinate
in November, and March tillage. The least effective treatments at Lamont II were tillage
or glufosinate in September and tillage in November, all of which did not reduce
groundcover significantly compared to the nontreated control Glufosinate applied in
November was more effective than November tillage at Lamont II. November tillage, at

23
Lamont II, did not effectively kill all horseweed plants and many plants recovered
subsequent to treatment. In contrast, glufosinate provided essentially complete control of
emerged plants. Horseweed emerged earlier at Lamont locations compared to Stoneville
and these older plants were more difficult to control completely with tillage.
Based on plant counts, September tillage fb glufosinate in March removed100%
of horseweed plants. March tillage, glufosinate in March, glufosinate in November, and
November tillage treatments all reduced plant populations to levels similar to September
tillage fb glufosinate in March.
Tillage or non-residual herbicides like glufosinate applied in the fall will likely
not provide consistent control of spring-emerging horseweed. However, fall herbicide
programs that include residual herbicides to prevent subsequent horseweed flushes may
be effective (data not presented). Spring-applied herbicide treatments or fall tillage fb
spring herbicides are likely to provide more effective control in the absence of residual
herbicides. Although tillage in March was one of the most effective horseweed control
options in this study, it is unlikely that spring tillage will be widely adopted in the
Mississippi Delta where stale seedbed production systems that rely on spring applied
herbicides for preplant weed control are most commonly used. These results differed
from the findings of Brown and Whitwell (1988) where fall tillage effectively controlled
horseweed for the subsequent crop. While studies have shown burial events of horseweed
seed greater than 0.5 cm can effectively negate future emergence (Nandula et al. 2006),
this does not explain why fall tillage events were inconsistent in the control of
horseweed. One hypothesis may be that the wind-dispersed seed of horseweed, which

24
have a small achene and pappus to aid in dispersal (Dauer et al. 2006), may continue to
move with winds throughout the winter months into new areas for re-introduction. In
addition, tillage may not completely eliminate all plants present in the field, allowing
plants to subsequently recover.

LITERATURE CITED
Bhowmik, P. C. and M. M. Bekech. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed
production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn
(Zea mays). Agronomy (Trends in Agricultural Science) 1:67-71.
Brown, S. M. and T. Whitwell. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza
canadensis. Weed Technol. 2:269-270.
Bruce, J. A. and J. J. Kells. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage
soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol.
4:642-647.
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays)
as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241-248.
Buhler, D. D. and M. D. K. Owen. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98-101.
Dauer, J. T., D. A. Mortensen, and R. Humston. 2006. Controlled experiments to predict
horseweed (Conyza canadensis) dispersal distances. Weed Sci. 54:484-489.
Elmore, C. D., L. G. Heatherly, R. A. Wesley. 1995. Weed control in no-till doublecrop
soybean (Glycine max) following winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) on a clay soil.
Weed Technol. 9:306-315.
Heap, I. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.
www.weedscience.com
Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq. (syn. Erigeron canadensis L.) in World Weeds: Natural Histories and
Distributions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 226-235 p.
Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max)
weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27:520-526.
Keeling, J. W., C. G. Henniger, and J. R. Abernathy. 1989. Horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed
Technol. 3:399-401.
Koger, C. H., D. H. Poston, R. M. Hayes, and R. F. Montgomery. 2004. Glyphosateresistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820-825.

25

26
Main, C. L., T. C. Mueller, R. M. Hayes, and J. B. Wilkerson. 2004. Response of selected
horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 52:879-883.
Nandula, V. K., T. W. Eubank, D. H. Poston, C. H. Koger, and K. N. Reddy. 2006.
Factors affecting germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 54:898902.
Saphangthong, T. and W. W. Witt. 2006. Germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis
L.) under field conditions. In W. Vencill (ed.) 59th Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc., San
Antonio, TX. 23 25 Jan. 2006. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Rapid Publication. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from
Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703-705.
Vencill, W. K. and P. A. Banks. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management
on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541-547.
Webster, T. M., J. Cardina, and S. J. Woods. Apocynum cannabinum interference in notill Glycine max. Weed Sci. 48:716-719.
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting
from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. 20:301-307.

27
120

25.0
Emergence
Temperature
20.0

80
15.0
60
10.0

Temperature (C)

Emergence (plants/m2)

100

40
5.0

20

0.0

La
te

Se
Ea pt.
rly
O
La ct.
te
O
Ea
c
rly t.
No
v
La
te .
N
Ea ov
rly .
D
La ec.
te
D
Ea ec.
rly
J
La an.
te
J
Ea an.
rly
F
La eb.
te
F
Ea eb.
rly
M
La ar.
te
M
Ea ar.
rly
A
La pr.
te
A
Ea pr.
rly
M
ay

Date

Figure 2.1. Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Stoneville, MS from
September 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence is plotted for the
first and last half of each month and the standard error of each mean is affixed
as an indicator of variability for each observation period.

28
180

25.0
Emergence

160

Temperature
20.0

120
15.0
100
80
10.0

Temperature (C)

Emergence (plants/m2)

140

60
40

5.0

20
0.0

La
te

Se
Ea pt.
rly
O
La ct.
te
O
Ea
c
rly t.
No
v
La
te .
N
Ea ov
rly .
D
La ec.
te
D
Ea ec.
rly
J
La an.
te
J
Ea an.
rly
F
La eb.
te
F
Ea eb.
rly
M
La ar.
te
M
Ea ar.
rly
A
La pr.
te
A
Ea pr.
rly
M
ay

Date

Figure 2.2. Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Lamont, MS (Lamont
location I) from September 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence is
plotted for the first and last half of each month and the standard error of each
mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for each observation period.

29
250

25.0
Emergence

20.0

150

15.0

100

10.0

50

5.0

0.0

Ea
rly

O
ct
La
.
te
O
ct
Ea
rly .
No
v.
La
te
N
Ea ov.
rly
De
c.
La
te
D
Ea ec.
rly
Ja
La n.
te
J
Ea an.
rly
Fe
b.
La
te
Fe
b.
Ea
rly
M
La ar.
te
M
Ea ar.
rly
A
La pr.
te
A
Ea pr.
rly
M
ay

200

Temperature (C)

Emergence (plants/m2)

Temperature

Date

Figure 2.3. Horseweed emergence and average air temperature at Lamont, MS (Lamont
location II) from October 2004 to May 2005. Mean horseweed emergence is
plotted for the first and last half of each month and the standard error of each
mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for each observation period.

30
120.0

25.0
Emergence
Temperature
20.0

80.0
15.0
60.0
10.0

Temperature (C)

Emergence (plants/m2)

100.0

40.0
5.0

20.0

0.0

La
te

Se
Ea pt.
rly
O
La ct.
te
Ea Oct
rly .
N
La ov.
te
N
Ea ov
rly .
D
La ec.
te
D
Ea ec.
rly
J
La an.
te
J
Ea an
rly .
F
La eb.
te
F
Ea eb
rly .
M
La ar.
te
M
Ea ar
rly .
A
La pr.
te
A
Ea pr.
rly
M
ay

0.0

Date

Figure 2.4. Horseweed emergence and average air temperature averaged across 3
locations in the Mississippi Delta from September 2004 to May 2005. Mean
horseweed emergence is plotted for the first and last half of each month and
the standard error of each mean is affixed as an indicator of variability for
each observation period.

31
Table 2.1. Impact of tillage and herbicide applied at various timings on horseweed control in
May at 3 locations in the Mississippi Delta.
Groundcoverb
Treatment/Timinga
Stoneville
Lamont I
Lamont II
Average
Densityc
_______________________________ ______________________________
___
%
Plants/m2 ___
Tillage/September
33
51
53
45
20
19
58
31
15
Tillage/November
18
5
11
8
6
Tillage/March
6
29
73
57
43
Herbicide/September
70
13
9
21
10
Herbicide/November
43
8
0
4
11
Herbicide/March
5
Tillage/September fb
0
0
0
0
0
Herbicide/March
Nontreated
73
23
73
56
33
20
26
12
16
LSD (0.05)
15
a
Tilled plots were disked once. Herbicide treatment was 0.56 kg ai/ha glufosinate. fb =
followed by. Studies were initiated in September 2004 and concluded May 2005.
b
Groundcover was visually assess using a rating scale of 0=no horseweed present to 100=soil
in plots completely covered with horseweed plants.
c
Data pooled because no treatment by location interactions occurred.

CHAPTER III
GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT HORSEWEED CONTROL USING GLYPHOSATE-,
PARAQUAT-, AND GLUFOSINATE-BASED HERBICIDE PROGRAMS
Abstract
Field studies were conducted in 2005 and 2006 to determine the most effective
chemical control options utilizing glyphosate-, paraquat- and glufosinate-based
burndowns for glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Mississippi. Burndown treatments were
applied April 5, 2005, and March 15, 2006, to horseweed plants 15 to 30 cm in height.
Glyphosate at 0.86 kg ae/ha alone provided 60 to 65% horseweed control 4 WAT.
Control 4 WAT ranged from 73 to 74% when the glyphosate rate was increased to 1.25
kg ae/ha. Glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba were the best glyphosate-based
treatments and provided 90% or better horseweed control 4 WAT both years. Soybean
yields with glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba were equal to the best
treatments both years. Control 4 WAT with paraquat alone ranged from 55 to 63% and
control was not improved by increasing the rate from 0.84 to 0.98 kg ai/ha. In 2005
paraquat + metribuzin provided 94% horseweed control 4 WAT and reduced horseweed
plant populations 96%. Horseweed control 4 WAT in 2006 with paraquat + 2,4-D and
paraquat + dicamba was 88 and 89%, respectively. Control with these treatments was
significantly better than with paraquat + metribuzin, which provided only 79% control in
2006 4 WAT. Glufosinate-based burndowns provided 81 to 97% horseweed control and
32

33
soybean yields were generally similar with all glufosinate-based programs. Soybean
yields were generally best with herbicide programs that provided that highest level of
horseweed control.
Nomenclature: Glyphosate, paraquat, glufosinate, 2,4-D, dicamba, metribuzin; Conyza
canadensis. # ERICA; soybean, Glycine max. (L.) Merr. DK 4763RR, AG 4801RR.
4

Additional index words: glyphosate resistance, weed resistance, burndown, herbicide


mixtures, herbicide efficacy, yield reduction.
Abbreviations: Weeks after treatment, (WAT).

Introduction
Horseweed is a robust, tap-rooted member of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family.
Horseweed is a winter annual (Brown and Whitwell 1988), and is a problem weed in notillage production systems (Barnes et al 2004; Bruce and Kells 1990). Most winter
annuals emerge in the fall of the year; however, research has shown that horseweed may
emerge from early fall through late spring (Bhowmik and Bekech 1993; Buhler and
Owen 1997) However, Saphangthong and Witt (2006) reported germination occurring
throughout the year. Horseweed has been documented in 70 countries, 40 different crops
around the world (Holm et al. 1997), and is listed as being a problematic weed in cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum L.), grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), corn (Zea mays
L.), and soybean (Glycine max. (L.) Merr.) (Brown and Whitwell 1988; Buhler and Owen
1997; Mueller 2003; Vencill and Banks 1994; Wiese et al 1997). Since 1993, horseweed

Letters following this symbol are a WSSA-approved computer code from Composite List of Weeds,
Revised 1989. Available only on computer disk from WSSA, 810 East 10th Street, KS 66044-8897.

34
in North America has developed resistance to photosystem II inhibitors, bipyridiliums,
acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, ureas, amides, and most recently, glycines (Heap
2006; Koger et al. 2004; Smisek et al. 1998; Trainer et al. 2005; VanGessel 2001;
Weaver et al. 2004). Horseweed is the first annual broadleaf documented as resistant to
glyphosate (VanGessel 2001), and is considered one of the top 10 worst weeds among
herbicide-resistant weeds (Heap 2006). Currently, glyphosate-resistant populations of
horseweed have been reported in several states across the United States, including
Mississippi (Heap 2006; Koger et al. 2004; VanGessel 2001).
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, such as cotton, soybean, and corn, allow
producers to control a broad spectrum of weed species with in-season applications of
glyphosate (Baylis 2000). The widespread adoption of GR crops has made glyphosate the
most utilized agrochemical worldwide with amounts ranging from 38 to 40 million kg
annually (EPA 2004). Chemical control of horseweed had been successful with
glyphosate prior to 2001. Studies by Wilson and Worsham (1988) found that 0.6 kg ae/ha
of glyphosate provided 75% control of 15 to 46 cm tall horseweed and 1.1 kg/ha provided
94% control 4 WAT. Similarly 0.4 kg/ha glyphosate controlled 10 to 15 cm tall
horseweed 83 to 100% 4 WAT (Keeling et al. 1989) and 87 to 93% control of 1 to 6 cm
tall horseweed 6 WAT (Bruce and Kells 1990 Scott et al. (1998) reported a minimum of
1.12 kg/ha glyphosate was required to control horseweed 20 to 25 cm tall horseweed
greater than 92%, and VanGessel et al. (2001) observed 100% control of 15 to 30 cm
horseweed with 0.8 kg ae/ha glyphosate in 1998.

35
Control of horseweed with paraquat alone has proven difficult. Bruce and Kells
(1990) reported paraquat at 0.56 kg ai/ha with a carrier volume of 210 L/ha controlled 6
to 8 cm tall horseweed 15 and 60% years one and two, respectively. Similar findings
were reported in a study by Keeling et al. (1989) where 0.6 kg/ha paraquat in 140 L/ha
provided controlled 3 to 4 cm diameter horseweed 67 and 53% 4 WAT, years one and
two, respectively; however, control dropped to 40 and 30% at 12 WAT.
A broadleaf herbicide that has shown excellent activity on horseweed is 2,4-D
(Bruce and Kells 1990; Keeling et al. 1989; Moseley and Hagood 1990). A study by
Wiese et al. (1995) found that 2,4-D ester at 0.56 kg ai/ha provided 100% control of 30
cm tall horseweed, but only 47% control of plants in rosette stage at 5 cm in height. The
addition of 2,4-D to paraquat to aid in the control of horseweed has proven erratic.
Wilson and Worsham (1988) found 0.6 kg/ha paraquat controlled 18 cm tall horseweed
74%, but the addition of 0.6 kg/ha 2,4-D improved control to 92%. When the same
treatments were applied to 15 to 46 cm tall horseweed, controls were 58% and 61%,
respectively. Moseley and Hagood (1990) found that the addition of 2,4-D amine did not
improve control over paraquat alone.
Glufosinate is a non-selective herbicide that has shown potential as an alternative
to glyphosate for the control of horseweed. Glufosinate is considered a contact herbicide
with limited systemic activity and typically performs better in warmer temperatures
(WSSA 2002). Control of horseweed with glufosinate has been inconsistent (Talbert et al.
2004) and little data is available relative to the control of horseweed with glufosinate.

36
The objective of this study was to determine the most effective chemical control
options for glyphosate-resistant horseweed populations in Mississippi using glyphosate-,
paraquat-,and glufosinate-based herbicide programs.

Materials and Methods


Experiments were conducted at two locations in the Mississippi Delta at sites
known to have horseweed populations that were no longer controlled with glyphosate.
Studies were conducted near Lamont, MS, in 2005 and near Leland, MS, in 2006. Sites
were located approximately 29 kilometers apart. The soil type at both locations was a
Dundee very fine sandy loam (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs) with
the Lamont location having a pH of 6.2 and organic matter content of 1.2% and Leland
location having a pH of 6.1 and organic matter content of 1.2%. Plots at Lamont were
established following three years of no-tillage glyphosate-resistant soybean and were
naturally infested with glyphosate-resistant horseweed as documented by Koger et al.
(2004). Plots at Leland were established following five years of no-tillage glyphosateresistant soybean and were naturally infested with horseweed which the grower had
reported having trouble controlling with glyphosate the previous season. The
experimental design was a randomized complete block design with four replications.
Plots were 3 x 12 m, and herbicide treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted
compressed-air sprayer calibrated to deliver 140 L/ha at a pressure of 207 kPa using flat
fan nozzles5. Treatments at Lamont were applied to 25 to 30 cm tall horseweed on April
5, 2005, with an ambient air temperature of 19 C, 53% relative humidity, and adequate
5

TeeJet XR 11002VS. Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL 60189.

37
soil moisture. Ambient air temperature increased to 27 C the day of application. For the
interval of seven days prior to application to seven days after application in 2005,
maximum and minimum air temperatures averaged 22 and 11 C, respectively, with the
application date being one of the three warmest days of the 15-day interval (Table 3.1).
Relative humidity averaged 61% for this 15-day interval. The period prior to application
was marked by mostly sunny skies and adequate soil moisture. Conditions following
applications were marked by average relative humidity of 82%, partly cloudy skies, and
excessive soil moisture. Treatments at the Leland location in 2006 were applied to 15 to
20 cm tall horseweed on March 15 with an ambient air temperature of 17 C, 55% relative
humidity and adequate soil moisture. For the interval of seven days prior to application to
seven days after application in 2006, maximum and minimum air temperatures averaged
21 and 9 C, respectively, with the application date being one of the three coolest days of
the 15-day interval (Table 3.1). Air temperature did not increase further the day of
application. Leading up to application, relative humidity averaged 58%. Mostly sunny
skies prevailed, and adequate soil moisture was noted. Following application cold and
wet conditions occurred with 16 C for an average high and 6 C for an average low.
Relative humidity averaged 74%. Skies were mostly cloudy and soil moisture was
excessive (Table 3.1).
Glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs were evaluated
in separate but adjacent experiments. Non-selective herbicides rates were glyphosate,
0.86 kg/ha and 1.25 kg/ha; paraquat, 0.84 kg/ha and 0.98 kg/ha; and glufosinate, 0.47 and
0.59 kg/ha, applied alone and in combination with various tank-mix partners. Tank-mix

38
herbicides and their respective rates were 2,4-D ester, 0.84 kg/ha; dicamba, 0.28 kg/ha;
flumioxazin, 0.07 kg/ha; oxyfluorfen, 0.28 kg/ha; linuron, 0.56 kg/ha; metribuzin, 0.42
kg/ha; carfentrazone, 0.014 kg/ha; sulfentrazone, 0.36 kg/ha; sulfentrazone +
chlorimuron, 0.13 and 0.03 kg/ha, respectively; and thifensulfuron + tribenuron, 0.013
and 0.006 kg/ha, respectively. A nontreated control was also included. A nonionic
surfactant6 (NIS) was added to all paraquat-based treatments at 0.5% v/v. No at-planting
burndown applications were applied. Delta King DK 4763RR soybean was seeded April
25, 2005, and Asgrow AG 4801 soybean was seeded April 12, 2006. Soybean was
allowed to compete with weeds that remained following preplant burndowns for
approximately four weeks before in-season herbicides were applied. For in-season weed
management, plots received postemergence applications of 2.2 kg ai/ha Sequence and
0.86 kg/ha glyphosate 4 and 7 wk after planting, respectively. Visual control ratings were
collected at 2 and 4 WAT and horseweed plant counts were recorded 7 WAT,
approximately 3 wk after soybean planting. Yields were determined at each location by
harvesting the interior five rows of a 7-row plot using a small-plot combine. Yields were
adjusted for 13% moisture. All data were subjected to ANOVA and means separated
using Fishers Protected LSD at the alpha = 0.05 level.
Results and Discussion
Significant treatment by year interactions were detected for all variables;
therefore, data are presented separately by year. Glyphosate at 0.86 kg/ha alone provided
60 and 65% horseweed control 4 WAT in 2005 and 2006, respectively (Table 3.2).
6

Induce. Helena Chemical Co., Collierville, TN 38017.

39
Control ratings increased to only 74 and 73% 4 WAT in 2005 and 2006, respectively,
when glyphosate rates were increased to 1.25 kg ae/ha. However, horseweed density was
reduced 91% with 1.25 kg ae/ha glyphosate in 2006, compared to only 67% in 2005
which may suggest a higher percentage of glyphosate-susceptible plants at the Leland
location or a slightly lower level of tolerance to glyphosate. Further studies are needed to
confirm differential tolerance to glyphosate between these locations. Based on visual
ratings and reductions in plant density, glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba
were the only treatments that provided 90% horseweed control 4 WAT both years.
Control levels, based on visual ratings, were higher with the addition of 2,4-D or dicamba
to glyphosate than with any other glyphosate-based program.
Horseweed control was reduced both years when carfentrazone was mixed with
glyphosate. Similar reductions in plant density occurred with glyphosate alone and
glyphosate + carfentrazone compared to glyphosate alone. However, plants treated with
glyphosate + carfentrazone recovered faster following treatment compared to plants
treated with only glyphosate. The reduction in control of horseweed with glyphosate +
carfentrazone may be the result of reduced glyphosate absorption compared to glyphosate
alone. Reduced glyphosate absorption associated with mixing contact herbicides with
glyphosate is well documented (Hydrick and Shaw 1994; Norris et al. 2001; Starke and
Oliver 1998), but further studies are needed to determine if reduced glyphosate
absorption is occurring with the glyphosate + carfentrazone mixture.
Soybean yields with glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba were equal to
the best treatments both years. In 2005, however, soybean yields with four other

40
treatments produced similar yields. Yields with 0.86 and 1.25 kg/ha glyphosate were
equal to yields with glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba, which provided the
highest levels of horseweed control. Although glyphosate alone resulted in only 59 to
74% control based on visual ratings, plants remained stunted and chlorotic for several
weeks following treatment and were apparently not substantially competitive with
narrow-row soybean planted at the Lamont location in 2005.
Glyphosate + flumioxazin and glyphosate + chlorimuron + sulfentrazone also had
yields similar to the glyphosate + 2,4-D and glyphosate + dicamba in 2005. In 2006,
soybean yields with glyphosate + 2,4-D were 3121 kg/ha and only glyphosate +
oxyfluorfen, and glyphosate + dicamba were the only other treatments to produce similar
yields. Glyphosate alone failed to produce soybean yields similar to the best treatments
despite the fact that glyphosate at 1.25 kg/ha reduced horseweed density 91% compared
to the nontreated control. However, horseweed densities were much higher at Leland in
2006 than at Lamont in 2005, and 26 plants/m2 still remained following treatment with
1.25 kg/ha glyphosate compared to only 12 plants/m2 following the same treatment in
2005. In addition, drier soil conditions were more prevalent in 2006 than in 2005.
Consequently, weed competition likely had a more detrimental effect on soybean yields.
These data suggests that narrow-row soybean yields might be sustained with glyphosateonly weed control systems providing horseweed plant densities are relatively low, and
moisture is not extremely limited. However, further selection of glyphosate-resistant
horseweed will only lead to higher plant densities in subsequent years, and other
management strategies will have to be utilized for long-term sustainability.

41
Control 4 WAT with paraquat alone ranged from 55 to 63% regardless of year,
and control was not improved by increasing the rate from 0.84 to 0.98 kg ai/ha (Table
3.3). Paraquat + metribuzin provided 94% horseweed control 4 WAT in 2005. Control
with paraquat + 2,4-D and paraquat + dicamba was better than with paraquat alone but
not equal to paraquat + metribuzin. Horseweed control 4 WAT in 2006 with paraquat +
2,4-D and paraquat + dicamba was 88 and 89%, respectively. Control with paraquat +
2,4-D and paraquat + dicamba treatments were better than with paraquat + metribuzin,
which provided only 79% control 4 WAT in 2006. Paraquat + metribuzin reduced
horseweed plant populations 96% in 2005 and paraquat + dicamba was the only other
treatment in 2005 that produced similar yields. Soybean yield in 2006 with paraquat +
dicamba was 1774 kg/ha. Paraquat + 2,4-D, paraquat + metribuzin, and paraquat +
chlorimuron + sulfentrazone produced comparable yields. These four treatments reduced
horseweed populations 40 to 58%. Paraquat + 2,4-D, paraquat + dicamba, paraquat +
metribuzin, and paraquat + chlorimuron + sulfentrazone were the only treatments in 2006
to provide greater than 70% horseweed control 4 WAT. Because the apical meristem of
horseweed is densely covered with pubescence and leaf tissues, control of horseweed
with a contact herbicide such as paraquat may be limited due to poor coverage. Bruce and
Kells (1990) noted that paraquat-treated horseweed plants, although completely
desiccated, would recover and reinitiate new terminal growth.
The addition of metribuzin to paraquat improved control over paraquat alone both
years. Initially plants appeared unaffected by paraquat + metribuzin treatments and only
after several days did plants begin to show signs of treatment resulting in nearly complete

42
desiccation. Cool and cloudy conditions in 2006 may have contributed to reduction in the
activity of paraquat + metribuzin compared to 2005, when conditions where warm and
sunny. The synergistic interactions between photosystem I and photosystem II
chemistries have long been accepted by the weed science community. However, current
literature on these interactions is limited, and additional research is needed to further
evaluate the physiological and biochemical processes that may be involved in this
phenomenon. .
Horseweed control 4 WAT ranged from 81 to 97% with all glufosinate-based
treatments both years (Table 3.4). All treatments in 2005 reduced horseweed populations
compared to the nontreated control, and yields were similar with all treatments except
glufosinate + flumioxazin. Most glufosinate treatments in 2006 reduced horseweed
populations by at least 87% except for glufosinate alone. Plant populations were reduced
61 and 77% with 0.47 and 0.59 kg/ha glufosinate, respectively. Horseweed densities were
very high at Leland in 2006, with 175 plants/m2 in nontreated plots. Glufosinate is
considered a contact herbicide with limited systemic activity (WSSA 2002). The higher
plant densities in 2006 may have resulted in a lack of control due to poor spray coverage
by the glufosinate alone treatments. Steckel et al. (1997) and Tharp and Kells (2002) have
also reported similar findings where glufosinate activity was reduced due to high plant
populations at application. An average of 28 plants/m2 were allowed to escape when
horseweed control ratings were between 88 and 90% 4 WAT with glufosinate-based
treatments in 2006. However, soybean yields were similar in all herbicide treated plots.

43
The tank-mix additions of 2,4-D or dicamba were the only treatments that
improved horseweed control with glyphosate-based burndowns both years. Control of
horseweed was reduced with the addition of carfentrazone to glyphosate. The addition of
2,4-D, dicamba, or metribuzin to paraquat improved control of horseweed both years, as
did the tank-mix of paraquat + sulfentrazone + chlorimuron in 2006. Control of
horseweed was reduced with the addition of carfentrazone to paraquat in 2005.
Glufosinate alone provided 88 to 96% horseweed control. Tank mixtures were no better
than glufosinate alone in 2005 when applications were made when warm temperatures
prevailed. When cool and cloudy conditions prevailed in 2006, however, horseweed
control with glufosinate alone 4 WAT was improved with the addition of 2,4-D, dicamba,
metribuzin, sulfentrazone, and sulfentrazone + chlorimuron.

LITERATURE CITED
Barnes, J., B. Johnson, K. Gibson, and S. Weller. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system
influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean.
Online. Crop Management doi:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR.
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses, and
prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:299-308.
Bhowmik, P. C. and M. M. Bekech. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed
production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn
(Zea mays). Agronomy (Trends in Agricultural Science) 1:67-71.
Brown, S. M. and T. Whitwell. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza
canadensis. Weed Technol. 2:269-270.
Bruce, J. A. and J. J. Kells. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage
soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol.
4:642-647.
Buhler, D. D. and M. D. K. Owen. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98-101.
Heap, I. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.
www.weedscience.com
Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq. (syn. Erigeron canadensis L.) in World Weeds: Natural Histories and
Distributions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 226-235 p.
Hydrick, D. E. and D. R. Shaw. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective
foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol.
8:129-133.
Keeling, J. W., C. G. Henniger, and J. R. Abernathy. 1989. Horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed
Technol. 3:399-401.
Koger, C. H., D. H. Poston, R. M. Hayes, and R. F. Montgomery. 2004. Glyphosateresistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820-825.
Moseley, C. M., and E. S. Hagood. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in fullseason no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:814-818.
44

45
Mueller, T. C., J. H. Massey, R. M. Hayes, C. L. Main, and C. N. Stewart. 2003.
Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant
horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680-684.
Norris, J. L. D. R. Shaw, and C. E. Snipes. 2001. Weed control from herbicide
combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:552-558.
Saphangthong, T. and W. W. Witt. 2006. Germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis
L.) under field conditions. In W. Vencill (ed.) 59th Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc., San
Antonio, TX. 23 25 Jan. 2006. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.
Scott, R., D. R. Shaw, and W. L. Barrentine. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN
582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean
(Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23-26.
Smisek, A., C. Doucet, M. Jones, and S. Weaver. 1998. Paraquat resistance in horseweed
(Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex
County, Ontario. Weed Sci. 46:200-204.
Starke, R. J. and L. R. Oliver. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron,
fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46:652-660.
Steckel, G. J., L. M. Wax, F. W. Simmons, and W. H. Phillips. 1997. Glufosinate
efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol.
11:484-488.
Talbert, R. E., M. R. McClelland, J. L. Barrentine, K. L. Smith, and M. B. Kelley. 2004.
Managing glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Arkansas cotton. Fayetteville, AR.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Research Series 530.
Tharp, B. E., and J. J. Kells. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with
glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274-281.
Trainer, G. D., M. M. Loux, S. K. Harrison, and E. Regnier. 2005. Response of
horseweed biotypes to foliar applications of cloransulam-methyl and glyphosate.
Weed Technol. 19:231-236.
[EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7503C) EPA-733-R-04-001.
www.epa.gov/pesticides. May.
VanGessel, M. J., A. O. Ayeni, and B. A. Majek. 2001. Glyphosate in double-crop no-till
glyphosate-resistant soybean: Role of preplant applications and residual herbicides.
Weed Technol. 15:703-713.

46
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Rapid Publication. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from
Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703-705.
Vencill, W. K. and P. A. Banks. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management
on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541-547.
Weaver, S., M. Downs, and B. Neufeld. 2004. Response of paraquat-resistant and
susceptible horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to diquat, linuron, and oxyfluorfen. Weed
Sci. 52:549-553.
Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. W. K. Vencill, ed.
Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 229 p.
Wiese, A. F., C. D. Salisbury, and B. W. Bean. 1995. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum),
jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) and horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in
fallow. Weed Technol. 9:249-254.
Wilson, J. S. and A. D. Worsham. 1988. Combinations of nonselective herbicides for
difficult to control weeds in no-till corn, Zea mays, and soybeans, Glycine max. Weed
Sci. 36:648-652.
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting
from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. 20:301-307.

47
Table 3.1. Air temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation for 7 d prior and 7 d after
postemergence herbicide applications in 2005 and 2006.

Date
2005
3/29
3/30
3/31
4/01
4/02
4/03
4/04
4/05a
4/06
4/07
4/08
4/09
4/10
4/11
4/12
a

Air Temp. Max.


(oC)

Air Temp. Min.


(oC)

Relative Humidity
________ ________
%

Precip.
(cm)

23
26
24
16
17
25
22
27
21
18
17
25
28
19
19

7
16
11
9
6
5
11
13
14
13
12
9
15
15
12

63
75
48
71
54
55
62
62
81
90
90
77
69
89
76

0.00
0.15
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.31
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.98
0.03

Date of herbicide application at Lamont, 2005.

Date
2006
3/08
3/09
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15b
3/16
3/17
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/21
3/22
b

Air Temp. Max.


(oC)

Air Temp. Min.


(oC)

Relative Humidity
________ ________
%

Precip.
(cm)

21
27
24
26
29
30
26
16
19
23
18
16
11
14
12

7
13
7
10
19
21
5
2
4
9
7
7
7
8
2

56
65
78
60
70
68
64
58
49
73
63
72
94
86
80

0.00
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
2.54
4.75
3.45
0.03

Date of herbicide application at Leland, 2006.

48

49

50

51

APPENDIX B
Running footer: Glyphosate-tolerant Mississippi Italian ryegrass

Differential Response to Glyphosate in Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)


Populations from Mississippi7

VIJAY K. NANDULA, DANIEL H. POSTON, THOMAS W. EUBANK, CLIFFORD


H. KOGER, AND KRISHNA N. REDDY8

Abstract: Two Italian ryegrass populations from Mississippi, Tribbett and Fratesi, were
suspected to be tolerant to glyphosate. A third population from Mississippi, Elizabeth,
known to be susceptible to glyphosate, was included for comparison. Plants were treated
with the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate at 0, 0.11, 0.21, 0.42, 0.84, 1.68, 3.36, and
6.72 kg ae/ha. GR50 (herbicide dose required to cause a 50% reduction in plant growth)
values for the Tribbett, Fratesi, and Elizabeth populations were 0.66, 0.66, and 0.22
kg/ha, respectively, indicating that the Tribbett and Fratesi populations were 3-fold more
tolerant to glyphosate compared to the Elizabeth population. These three populations
were also treated with diclofop at 0, 0.13, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 2 kg ai/ha. Diclofop
GR50 values for the Tribbett, Fratesi, and Elizabeth populations were 0.25, 0.28, 0.21
kg/ha, respectively, indicating similar tolerance to diclofop in the three populations.
7

Received for publication


and in revised form
.
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Associate Research and Extension Professor, and Research Associate,
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776; Research
Agronomist, USDA-ARS Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776; and
Research Plant Physiologist, USDA-ARS Southern Weed Science Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776.
Corresponding authors email: vknandula@yahoo.com.
8

51

52
Response of all three populations to clethodim rate (0, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06, 0.08, 0.09,
and 0.13 kg ai/ha) was measured. Clethodim GR50 values for the Tribbett, Fratesi, and
Elizabeth populations at the small growth stages were 0.016, 0.023, 0.014 kg/ha,
respectively, and at the large growth stage were 0.04, 0.034, 0.02 kg/ha, respectively.
Nomenclature: Clethodim; diclofop; glyphosate; Italian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum
Lam. LOLMU.
Key words: Alternative control options, glyphosate resistance, herbicide resistance,
resistance management, weed resistance.

52

53
INTRODUCTION
Glyphosate is a non-selective, post-emergence herbicide used extensively
throughout the world during the past three decades. Because of its lack of selectivity,
glyphosate use was initially limited to preplant, post-directed, and post-harvest
applications for weed control (Franz et al. 1997). With the introduction of glyphosateresistant (GR) crops in the mid 1990s, glyphosate is now widely used for weed control in
GR crops. Due to rapid adoption of GR crops by US farmers (Duke 2003) and glyphosate
price reduction in recent years has increased glyphosate use dramatically (Nandula et al.
2005). The intensive use of glyphosate and continued adoption of GR crops without
rotation to with non-GR crops has increased the selection pressure to evolve resistance in
certain weed populations. To date, eleven weed species have evolved resistance to
glyphosate (Heap 2006; Nandula et al. 2005). They are rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum L.)
in Australia (Powles et al. 1998; Pratley et al. 1999) and the US (Simarmata et al. 2003),
goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.] in Malaysia (Tran et al. 1999; Lee and Ngim
2000), horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.] in the US (Koger et al. 2004; Mueller
et al. 2003; VanGessel 2001), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.) in Chile (Prez
and Kogan 2003) and the US (Perez-Jones et al. 2005), common waterhemp (Amaranthus
rudis Sauer) in the US (Heap 2006; Owen and Zelaya 2005), common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) in the US (Sellers et al. 2005), Palmer amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in the US (Culpepper et al. 2006), hairy fleabane (Conyza
bonariensis L.) in South Africa and Spain (Heap 2006), buckhorn plantain (Plantago
lanceolata L.) in South Africa (Heap 2006), wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla L.)
in Brazil (Heap 2006), and Johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] in Argentina

53

54
(Heap 2006). Among the eleven species, common ragweed, common waterhemp,
horseweed, Johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, rigid ryegrass, and wild poinsettia have
evolved resistance to glyphosate in row crops.
The first evidence of evolved resistance to glyphosate in a weed species was
reported by Powles et al. (1998). A rigid ryegrass population from an orchard in Australia
receiving two or three glyphosate applications per yr for 15 yr exhibited a 7- to 11-fold
resistance compared to a susceptible population. In a second report on GR rigid ryegrass
from Australia, a ryegrass biotype selected from a population exposed to glyphosate
applications for 15 yr was nearly 10-fold more resistant compared to a susceptible
biotype (Pratley et al. 1999). Italian ryegrass populations from a fruit orchard in Chile
exposed to three glyphosate applications annually for 8 to 10 yr, evolved 2- to 4-fold
resistance compared to a susceptible population (Prez and Kogan 2003). An Italian
ryegrass population selected from an orchard in Oregon, where glyphosate effectively
controlled weeds during the previous 15 yr, exhibited a 5-fold tolerance to glyphosate
compared to a susceptible population (Perez-Jones et al. 2005). This population was
previously reported to survive glyphosate at 1.68 kg ae/ha (Perez-Jones et al. 2004).
Italian ryegrass is an erect winter annual with a biennial-like growth habit. It
grows vigorously in winter and early spring and is highly competitive. Recently,
unacceptable control of Italian ryegrass with glyphosate has been observed in selected
populations in Mississippi. Glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations could
jeopardize preplant burndown options in reduced tillage crop production systems. The
objectives of this study were to determine if the Italian ryegrass populations were tolerant
to glyphosate, and if so, the level of tolerance. Field observations indicated tolerance of

54

55
the Italian ryegrass populations to diclofop. Hence the Italian ryegrass populations were
also examined for tolerance to diclofop as well as clethodim, another herbicide with a
similar mode of action to diclofop. An additional objective was to evaluate nonglyphosate herbicide treatments for Italian ryegrass control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS


Seed Selection, Storage, Germination, Planting, Growth, and Treatment Conditions.
Three Italian ryegrass populations, Tribbett and Fratesi suspected to be tolerant to
glyphosate, and Elizabeth, a glyphosate-susceptible (GS) population with no known prior
exposure to glyphosate were selected for comparisons. The Fratesi population was
collected from a field where GR soybean was grown from 2002 to 2005. This field was
treated with glyphosate or glyphosate + 2, 4-D as a preplant burndown treatment
followed by glyphosate for in-season weed control from 2002 to 2005. The Tribbett
population was collected from a field planted to GR cotton in 2001 to 2003 and planted to
GR soybean in 2004 and 2005. Reduced control of Italian ryegrass has been observed
since 2002 at the Tribbett population site. The Elizabeth population was collected from
an abandoned home garden site with no history of herbicide applications. All three sites
are located near Stoneville (N33 22' 30" W90 52' 30"), Washington County, MS.
Italian ryegrass seed was collected in summer of 2005, air-dried in the greenhouse (28/20
C day/night) for 48 h, and stored in a freezer at 0 C until further use. Italian ryegrass
seeds were planted at 1-cm-depth in 50-cm by 20-cm by 6-cm plastic trays containing a
commercial potting mix9. Plants were grown in a growth chamber maintained at 12/6 C

Jiffy Products of America Inc. Batavia, IL 60510.

55

56
day/night temperatures with 13-h photoperiod. Fluorescent and incandescent lamps were
utilized to produce a photosynthetic photon flux density of 600 mol/m2/s. Two weeks
after emergence Italian ryegrass plants were transplanted into 6-cm by 6-cm by 6-cm pots
containing the soil mix mentioned before and placed in a greenhouse under natural
sunlight conditions. Temperatures during day and night were 20 4 and 15 2 C,
respectively. Day length averaged 12 h through the duration of the experiments. Plants
were fertilized once with a nutrient solution10 containing 200 mg/L each of N, P2O5, and
K2O at one week after transplanting and sub-irrigated as needed. Herbicide treatments
were applied to Italian ryegrass plants at selected growth stages with a moving-nozzle
sprayer equipped with 8002E11 nozzles delivering 140 L/ha at 280 kPa. Italian ryegrass
injury was estimated on a scale of 0 (no injury) to 100% (plant death) at 4 wk after
treatment (WAT). Treated plants from were also evaluated for survival based on
live/dead growing point and tillers. Percent survival of Italian ryegrass populations are
reported to estimate the potential of the plant to reaching maturity and produce seed.

Glyphosate Dose Response Experiment. Plants at the 10- to 15-cm-tall (3 to 6 leaves, 2


to 3 tillers) stage were treated with glyphosate (0, 0.11, 0.21, 0.42, 0.84, 1.68, 3.36, 6.72
kg ae/ha) using an isopropylamine (IPA) formulation12. The IPA formulation does not
contain surfactant, so adjuvant overload would be avoided in the spray mix at higher rates
of glyphosate. The 0.84 kg/ha rate corresponds to the 1X labeled rate for preplant

10

Peters Fertilizer Products, W. R. Grace and Co., Fogelsville, PA 18051.


Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL 60189.
12
Rodeo, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167.
11

56

57
burndown applications. A nonionic surfactant (NIS) at 0.25% v/v was added to all
treatments.

Diclofop Dose Response Experiment. Field observations and anecdotal reports have
indicated less than satisfactory control with diclofop of certain Italian ryegrass
populations. Response of the three Italian ryegrass populations to diclofop rate at two
growth stages, small (8- to 10-cm-tall, 2 to 3 leaves, 2 to 3 tillers) and large (15- to 20cm-tall, 4 to 5 leaves, 10 to 12 tillers) was evaluated. Preliminary evaluations indicated
no difference between the levels of Italian ryegrass control at the two growth stages by
diclofop. Hence, dose response experiments are reported with only the small growth
stage. Diclofop was applied at 0, 0.13, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 2 kg ai/ha.

Clethodim Dose Response. In addition to diclofop, clethodim was evaluated. Mode of


action of clethodim is similar to diclofop, i.e., inhibition of the enzyme acetyl coenzyme
A carboxylase (ACCase). Italian ryegrass plants from the three populations were treated
with clethodim at 0, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06, 0.08, 0.09, and 0.13 kg ai/ha at both small and
large growth stages described previously. A crop oil concentrate (COC) at 1.7% v/v was
added to all the clethodim treatments.

Alternative Herbicide Options Experiment. Alternative, non-glyphosate herbicides


were also evaluated for efficacy on the three Italian ryegrass populations. Diclofop at
0.56 and 1.12 kg ai/ha, mesosulfuron at 0.015 kg ai/ha, clethodim at 0.11 and 0.14 kg
ai/ha, nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron at 0.027 + 0.013 kg ai/ha, glufosinate at 0.47 and 0.58

57

58
kg ai/ha, and paraquat at 0.7 and 0.98 kg ai/ha were applied to Italian ryegrass plants at
the two growth stages as described in diclofop dose response experiment. Glyphosate at
0.84 and 1.68 kg ae/ha was also included for comparison. A NIS at 0.25% v/v with
glyphosate, ammonium sulfate (AMS) at 3.4 kg/ha with mesosulfuron, methylated
soybean oil (MSO) at 1.3% v/v with nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron, and COC at 1.7% v/v
with clethodim was included.

Statistical Analysis. All experiments were conducted using a completely randomized


design and experiments were repeated once. There were six replications per treatment in
the glyphosate dose response experiment and four replications per treatment in all other
experiments. All data were analyzed by ANOVA. No significant experiment effect was
observed in all experiments; therefore, data from experiments were pooled. Nonlinear
regression analysis determined the effect of glyphosate, diclofop, and clethodim rate on
control of each Italian ryegrass population. A sigmoidal log-logistic model (Seber and
Wild 1989) was used to relate percent control (Y) to herbicide rate (x).

In this equation, a is the difference of the upper and lower response limits
(asymptotes), X0 is the herbicide rate that results in a 50% reduction in biomass (GR50),
and b is the slope of the curve around X0. The regression parameters from the response
curves of the Italian ryegrass populations were computed using Sigma Plot13 and
compared for significant differences with a sum of squares reduction test. Means from the
alternative herbicide treatments study were separated using Fishers Protected LSD test at
13

Sigma Plot, version 9.0, Systat Software Inc. Point Richmond, CA 94804.

58

59
P = 0.05. Survival data from glyphosate and diclofop dose response experiments were
analyzed by Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test for significance of slope assuming a linear
association between herbicide dose and survival. Survival data from clethodim dose
response experiments were analyzed by regression analysis using Fishers Exact test
assuming normal distribution.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Glyphosate Dose Response. Response of the Italian ryegrass populations to glyphosate
rate is shown in Figure 1. The Tribbett, Fratesi, and Elizabeth populations had GR50
values of 0.66, 0.66, and 0.22 kg/ha, respectively. Both Tribbett and Fratesi populations
were 3-fold more tolerant to glyphosate compared to the Elizabeth population. The level
of glyphosate tolerance we report is lower than the 5-fold tolerance level observed in
Italian ryegrass in Chile (Perez and Kogan 2003) and Oregon (Perez-Jones et al. 2005),
and in rigid ryegrass in Australia (Powles et al. 1998; Pratley et al. 1999), which was 7to 11-fold. It should be noted, however, that plants from another known susceptible
population appeared to be more susceptible to glyphosate than the Elizabeth population,
which could have increased the level of tolerance. This population was not included in
our analysis due to prior exposure to herbicides. Italian ryegrass plants from the Elizabeth
population did not survive when treated with glyphosate at 0.84 kg/ha or higher (Table
1). However, the Tribbett and Fratesi populations survived glyphosate rates up to 0.84
and 1.68 kg/ha, respectively, and plants that survived were not left to go to seed.
This report of reduced control of Italian ryegrass in a field crop situation is the
first of its kind. All of the previously documented cases of GR Italian ryegrass were

59

60
selections from orchards. It is believed that glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass is an
emerging problem in the midsouthern USA and there is potential for development of
tolerance to glyphosate to levels higher than reported here.

Diclofop Dose Response. Response of the Italian ryegrass populations to diclofop rate is
shown in Figure 2. The Elizabeth, Tribbett, and Fratesi populations had GR50 values of
0.25, 0.28, 0.21 kg/ha, respectively. All three populations were somewhat similar in their
tolerance to diclofop, with the most tolerant being Tribbett, followed by Elizabeth and
Fratesi in decreasing order. Increased tolerance of Italian ryegrass to diclofop is troubling
due to the possibility of cross resistance to clethodim. At least 50% of Italian ryegrass
plants survived diclofop treatment regardless of rate or population (Table 1).

Clethodim Dose Response. Response of the Italian ryegrass populations to clethodim


rate is shown in Figures 3 and 4. The Elizabeth, Tribbett, and Fratesi populations had
GR50 values of 0.016, 0.023, 0.014 kg/ha, respectively, at the small growth stage and
0.04, 0.034, 0.02 kg/ha, respectively, at the large growth stage. The above results indicate
that as plant size increased, a higher rate of clethodim was required to cause a 50%
reduction in Italian ryegrass plant growth. Comparison of GR50 values of clethodim for
the three populations indicates that the Fratesi population was the most susceptible to
clethodim irrespective of the plant size, whereas Tribbett was least susceptible at the
small growth stage and Elizabeth was least susceptible at the large growth stage. Thus, it
is evident that neither Tribbett nor Fratesi are clearly tolerant to clethodim. However, a

60

61
percentage of plants from all three populations survived regardless of clethodim rate or
plant growth stage (Table 1).

Alternative Herbicide Options. Glyphosate controlled the Elizabeth population 91 to


99% regardless of plant size (Table 2). Control of Tribbett and Fratesi plants with
glyphosate was higher in small plants (60 to 91%) than in large plants (40 to 73%).
Diclofop at 0.56 kg/ha was ineffective on Italian ryegrass in this study regardless of
population or plant size (43 to 71% control). Effective control (87 to 94%) of small
Italian ryegrass plants was obtained with diclofop at 1.12 kg/ha. However, it was not
effective on larger sized plants of all three populations providing only 46 to 64% control.
Mesosulfuron provided excellent control of small plants (96 %) of all three populations,
but only 77 to 85% control of larger plants. Glufosinate at 0.47 kg/ha controlled small
Italian ryegrass plants 66 to 81%, and larger plants 69 to 86%. Only the Elizabeth
population was less susceptible to glufosinate when plants were larger. Similar results
were observed when glufosinate rate was 0.58 kg/ha. While uniform foliar coverage is
critical for consistent control of weeds from postemergence herbicide treatments,
prevailing weather conditions had a greater impact on performance of glufosinate. Italian
ryegrass being a winter annual, thrives in cool conditions. Temperatures of 20 C or less in
these studies may have limited the effectiveness of glufosinate. The days immediately
following glufosinate application were cloudy and cool. All three populations were
susceptible (88% control) to clethodim, nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron, and paraquat,
regardless of herbicide rate or growth, except larger sized Fratesi plants treated with
clethodim at 0.11 kg/ha. However, it should be noted that this level of Italian ryegrass

61

62
control with paraquat is uncommon in the field. None of the Italian ryegrass plants,
regardless of population or growth stage, survived when treated with clethodim at 0.14
kg/ha or paraquat at 0.98 kg/ha (data not shown).
In summary, we characterized two Italian ryegrass populations that are 3-fold
more tolerant to glyphosate compared to a susceptible population. These populations
were also tolerant to diclofop, but not clethodim. Alternative chemical control options
exist for managing these populations. Effective management of Italian ryegrass
populations, however, is determined by timing, economics, and prevailing weather
conditions. This is the first report of glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations from
GR cotton and GR soybean crop situations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Ms. Debbie Boykin for help with statistical analysis.

62

63
LITERATURE CITED
Culpepper A. S., T. L. Grey, W. K. Vencill, J. M. Kichler, T. M. Webster, S. M. Brown, A. C. York, J. W.
Davis, and W. W. Hannai. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)
confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620-626.

Duke, S. O., S. R. Baerson, and A. M. Rimando. 2003. Herbicides: Glyphosate. In, J. R.


Plimmer, D. W. Gammon, and N. N. Ragsdale, eds. Encyclopedia of
Agrochemicals. New York: Wiley. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/
eoa/articles/agr119/frame.html.
Franz, J. E., M. K. Mao, and J. A. Sikorski. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global
Herbicide. ACS monograph 189, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
653 pp.
Heap I. 2006. Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science Society of America: Web page:
http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: October 10, 2006.
Koger, C. H., D. H. Poston, R. M. Hayes, and R. F. Montgomery. 2004. Glyphosateresistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820825.
Lee L. J. and J. Ngim. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass [Eleusine
indica (L.) Gaertn] in Malaysia. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:336339.
Mueller T. C., J. H. Massey, R. M. Hayes, C. L. Main, and C. N. Stewart Jr. 2003.
Shikimate accumulation in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant
horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680684.
Nandula, V. K., K. N. Reddy, S. O. Duke, and D. H. Poston. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant
weeds: current status and future outlook. Outlooks Pest Mngt. 16:183-187.

63

64
Owen, M. D. K. and I. A. Zelaya. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to
herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61: 301311.
Perez A. and M. Kogan. 2003. Glyphosate-resistant Lolium multiflorum in Chilean
orchards. Weed Res. 43:1219.
Perez-Jones A., K. Park, and C. Mallory-Smith. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant Lolium
multiflorum in Oregon. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 57:27.
Perez-Jones A., K. Park, J. Colquhoun, C. Mallory-Smith, and D. L. Shaner. 2005.
Identification of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in
Oregon. Weed Sci. 53:775-779.
Powles S. B., D. F. Lorraine-Colwill, J. J. Dellow, and C. Preston. 1998. Evolved
resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed
Sci. 16:604607.
Pratley J., N. Urwin, R. Stanton, P. Baines, J. Broster, K. Cullis, D. Schafer, J. Bohn, and
R. Kruger. 1999. Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum. I. Bioevaluation.
Weed Sci. 47:405411.
Seber G.A.F. and C. J. Wild. 1989. Nonlinear Regression. New York: J. Wiley. 768 p.
Sellers B. A., J. M. Pollard, and R. J. Smeda. 2005. Two common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia) biotypes differ in biology and response to glyphosate. Weed Sci.
Soc. Am. Abstr. 44:156.
Simarmata M., J. E. Kaufmann, and D. Penner. 2003. Potential basis of glyphosate
resistance in California rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 51:678682.
Tran M., S. Baerson, R. Brinker, L. Casagrande, M. Faletti, Y. Feng, M. Nemeth, T.
Reynolds, D. Rodriguez, D. Shaffer, D. Stalker, N. Taylor, Y. Teng, and G. Dill.

64

65
1999. Characterization of glyphosate resistant Eleusine indica biotypes from
Malaysia. Pages 527536 in Proceedings of the 17th Asian-Pacific Weed Science
Society Conference. Bangkok: Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society.
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci.
49:703-705.

65

66
Figure 1. Response of two glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations (Tribbett and
Fratesi) and one susceptible population (Elizabeth) at the 10 to 15-cm-tall (3 to 6 leaves,
2 to 3 tillers) growth stage to glyphosate 4 wk after treatment. Mean values are plotted.
Log-logistic dose-response curves:
Elizabeth

Y=

Tribbett

Y=

Fratesi

Y=

98
1+ e

 ( x  0.06 ) / 0.27

1+ e

 ( x  0.65 ) / 0.22

1+ e

 ( x  0.64 ) / 0.27

97

97

R2 = 0.81, I50 = 0.22 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.86, I50 = 0.66 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.81, I50 = 0.66 kg ae/ha

Figure 2. Response of two glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations (Tribbett and


Fratesi) and one susceptible population (Elizabeth) at the 8- to 10-cm-tall (2 to 3 leaves, 2
to 3 tillers) growth stage to diclofop 4 wk after treatment. Mean values are plotted. Loglogistic dose-response curves:
Elizabeth

Y=

Tribbett

Y=

Fratesi

Y=

82
1+ e

 ( x  0.19 ) / 0.12

1+ e

 ( x  0.26 ) / 0.24

1+ e

 ( x  0.18 ) / 0.10

81

85

R2 = 0.89, I50 = 0.25 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.83, I50 = 0.28 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.96, I50 = 0.21 kg ae/ha

Figure 3. Response of two glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations (Tribbett and


Fratesi) and one susceptible population (Elizabeth) at the 8- to 10-cm-tall (2 to 3 leaves, 2
to 3 tillers) growth stage to clethodim 4 wk after treatment. Mean values are plotted. Loglogistic dose-response curves:

66

67

Elizabeth

Y=

Tribbett

Y=

Fratesi

Y=

95
1+ e

 ( x  0.01) / 0.002

1+ e

 ( x  0.02 ) / 0.010

1+ e

 ( x  0.01) / 0.003

94

95

R2 = 0.99, I50 = 0.016 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.97, I50 = 0.023 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.99, I50 = 0.014 kg ae/ha

Figure 4. Response of two suspected glyphosate-tolerant Italian ryegrass populations


(Tribbett and Fratesi) and one susceptible population (Elizabeth) at the 15- to 20-cm-tall
(4 to 5 leaves, 10 to 12 tillers) growth stage to clethodim 4 wk after treatment. Mean
values are plotted. Log-logistic dose-response curves:
Elizabeth

Y=

Tribbett

Y=

Fratesi

Y=

80
1+ e

 ( x  0.03) / 0.02

1+ e

 ( x  0.03) / 0.01

1+ e

 ( x  0.02 ) / 0.01

87

85

R2 = 0.95, I50 = 0.04 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.97, I50 = 0.034 kg ae/ha

R2 = 0.92, I50 = 0.020 kg ae/ha

67

68

100

80

60

Elizabeth
Tribbett
Fratesi

40

20

0
0

Glyphosate (kg ae/ha)

Figure 1

68

69
Table 1. Survival of three Italian ryegrass populations from Mississippi based on ratings taken 4 wk after
treatment with glyphosate, diclofop and clethodim.
Herbicidea
Glyphosate

Rate
kg/hab
0.11
0.21
0.42
0.84
1.68
3.36
6.72

Significance
Diclofop

Population
Tribbett
Fratesi
______________
___________
% survived
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
50
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
*c
Elizabeth

0.13
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
2.0

50
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
50
100
100
50
*c

100
100
50
50
50
50

0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.13

63
50
38
13
38
38
25

90
63
40
63
13
25
38

63
50
13
50
25
13
13

0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.13

100
100
100
100
100
100
90

Significance
Clethodim (small)

Significance
Clethodim (large)

*d

100
100
100
100
100
75
90
63
50
75
63
50
50
13
Significance
*d
a
Italian ryegrass plant size treated with glyphosate was 10 to 15-cm-tall (3 to 6 leaves, 2 to 3 tillers), with

diclofop and clethodim (small) was 8 to 10-cm-tall (2 to 3 leaves, 2 to 3 tillers), and with clethodim (large)
was 15 to 20-cm-tall (4 to 5 leaves, 10 to 12 tillers).
b

Glyphosate in kg ae/ha; diclofop and clethodim in kg ai/ha.

* indicates that Italian ryegrass survival is associated with applied herbicide dose in case of glyphosate

and diclofop according to Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test at 5% level of significance.

69

70
d

* indicates that Italian ryegrass survival is affected by clethodim dose and slopes of response of the three

populations as well as between susceptible (Elizabeth) and tolerant (averaged across Tribett and Fratesi)
populations are different according to Fishers Exact Test at 5% level of significance.

70

71

100

80

60

40
Elizabeth
Tribbett
Fratesi

20

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Diclofop (kg ai/ha)

Figure 2

71

72

120

100

80

60

Elizabeth
Tribbett
Fratesi

40

20

0
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Clethodim (kg ai/ha)

Figure 3

72

73

100

80

60

40

Elizabeth
Tribbett
Fratesi

20

0
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Clethodim (kg ai/ha)

Figure 4

73

74
Table 2. Control of three Italian ryegrass populations 4 wk after treatment with several postemergence
herbicide treatments.
Growth stagea
Treatmentb

Rate
kg/hac
0.84
1.62
0.56
1.12
0.02
0.11
0.14
0.04

Large
Fratesi
Elizabeth Tribett Fratesi
___________________
___________________
% control
60
69
94
40
60
77
91
91
63
73
48
71
46
47
43
64
55
46
87
94
96
98
77
82
85
99
99
95
94
85
99
99
99
98
98
90
88
94
96
99

Elizabeth

Small
Tribett

Glyphosate + NIS
98
Glyphosate + NIS
99
Diclofop
67
Diclofop
93
Mesosulfuron + MSO + AMS
97
Clethodim + COC
99
Clethodim + COC
99
Nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron MSO
99
+ AMS
69
70
86
Glufosinate
0.47
81
66
79
Glufosinate
0.58
82
82
92
89
74
86
Paraquat + NIS
0.70
99
99
99
98
99
99
Paraquat + NIS
0.98
99
99
99
99
99
99
LSD (0.05)
Within growth stage &
10
18
9
10
15
13
population
7
Within growth stage, across
7
populations
Across growth stages and
5
populations
a
Italian ryegrass growth stages: small, 8 to 10-cm-tall (2 to 3 leaves, 2 to 3 tillers); large, 15 to 20-cm-tall
(4 to 5 leaves, 10 to 12 tillers).
b

Abbreviations: AMS, ammonium sulfate added at 3.4 kg/ha; COC, crop oil concentrate added at 1.7%

v/v; MSO, methylated soybean oil added at 1.3%; NIS, nonionic surfactant added at 0.25% v/v.
c

Glyphosate in kg ae/ha; all other herbicides in kg ai/ha.