Control of Herbicide-resistant Volunteer Corn in Herbicide-resistant Soybean PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Control of Herbicide-resistant Volunteer Corn in Herbicide-resistant Soybean PDF full book. Access full book title Control of Herbicide-resistant Volunteer Corn in Herbicide-resistant Soybean by Parminder Chahal. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Parminder Chahal Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 118
Book Description
Volunteer corn is a problem weed in soybean fields because it reduces yield and seed quality, and potentially harbors insects, pests, and diseases. Several pre-packaged herbicides have been registered in soybean in recent years, but response of volunteer corn to these herbicides has not yet been documented. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to evaluate the response of glufosinate-, glyphosate-, and imidazolinone-resistant volunteer corn to 20 pre-emergence (PRE) and 17 post-emergence (POST) soybean herbicides. The results indicated that PRE soybean herbicides partially controlled (
Author: Parminder Chahal Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 118
Book Description
Volunteer corn is a problem weed in soybean fields because it reduces yield and seed quality, and potentially harbors insects, pests, and diseases. Several pre-packaged herbicides have been registered in soybean in recent years, but response of volunteer corn to these herbicides has not yet been documented. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to evaluate the response of glufosinate-, glyphosate-, and imidazolinone-resistant volunteer corn to 20 pre-emergence (PRE) and 17 post-emergence (POST) soybean herbicides. The results indicated that PRE soybean herbicides partially controlled (
Author: Adam Michael Striegel Publisher: ISBN: Category : Corn Languages : en Pages : 92
Book Description
With commercialization of multiple herbicide-resistant corn and soybean cultivars, producers have new management options for controlling herbicide-resistant weeds and volunteer corn. Corn-on-corn production systems are common in irrigated fields in southcentral Nebraska which can create issues with volunteer corn management in corn fields. Enlist corn contains a new multiple herbicide-resistant trait providing resistance to 2,4-D choline, glyphosate, and the aryloxyphenoxypropionate (FOPs). Field experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 at South Central Agricultural Laboratory near Clay Center, Nebraska with the objective to evaluate ACCase-inhibiting herbicides and herbicide application timing on volunteer corn control, Enlist corn injury, and yield. Glyphosate/glufosinate-resistant corn harvested the year prior was cross-planted at 49,000 seeds ha-1 to mimic volunteer corn in Enlist corn. Application timing of FOP herbicides had no effect on Enlist corn injury or yield, and provided 97-99% control of volunteer corn at 28 d after treatment (DAT). Clethodim and sethoxydim and pinoxaden provided 84-98% and 65-71% control of volunteer corn at 28 DAT, respectively; ii however, resulting in 62-96% Enlist corn injury and 69-98% yield reduction. While all FOP herbicides evaluated did not cause crop injury or yield loss, quizalofop is the only labeled product as of 2020 for control of volunteer corn in Enlist corn. Despite widespread adoption of dicamba/glyphosate-resistant soybean by producers in the United States, economic information comparing herbicide programs in glufosinateresistant and conventional soybean is not available. Field experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 at five locations across Nebraska to evaluate weed control, crop safety, gross profit margin, and benefit-cost ratios of herbicide programs with three unique sites of action in multiple herbicide-resistant and conventional soybean. Herbicides applied pre-emergence (PRE) that included provided 85-99% control for all weed species, and 72-96% weed biomass reductions at all locations. Herbicides applied POST provided 93- 99% control for all weed species, and 89-98% weed biomass reduction 28 DAT. For individual site-years, yield was similar for many herbicide programs in herbicideresistant and conventional systems. Gross profit margins and benefit-cost ratios were higher in herbicide-resistant systems than conventional systems, although price premiums for conventional soybean can help compensate increased herbicide costs.
Author: Terry Griffin Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
The use of herbicide weed control has been an integral part of farm management for several decades due to being an efficient and cost-effective alternative to mechanical weed control management. However, repeated use of broad spectrum herbicides has resulted in herbicide resistance in several weed species (Norsworthy et al., 2012). Although the indiscriminate use of herbicides has been linked to the quick and widespread adoption of herbicide resistant crop species (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014), research indicates that herbicide resistance predated the introduction of bio-tech crops by several decades (WSSA, 2016). By the time that USDA began tracking the adoption of biotech soybean production in 2000, over half of US acreage were planted to herbicide-tolerant varieties and reached over 90% within 7 years (USDA NASS) (Figure 1). By 2013, 90% of corn and soybean acreage were planted to bio-tech cultivars including herbicide-tolerate only and stacked genes (Figure 1). Currently, 470 unique cases of herbicide resistance have been documented (Heap, 2016). Multiple herbicide-resistant weed species causes additional concern due to reduced herbicide options and increased weed control costs. Multiple herbicide resistance has been confirmed in economically important weeds including Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) (Nandula et al. 2012), waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus Sauer) (Bell et al., 2013), horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.) (Davis et al. 2009), rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaudim) (Owen et al. 2014), and kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) (Foes et al. 1999) (see Heap, 2016, for more details on herbicide resistance weeds).
Author: Stephen B. Powles Publisher: CRC Press ISBN: 1000611841 Category : Technology & Engineering Languages : en Pages : 264
Book Description
Written by experts from across the globe, Herbicide Resistance and World Grains evaluates the weed and herbicide management systems in major world grain crops such as soybean, maize, rice, and canola. The book examines the impact of transgenic crops and new technology on resistance management. It provides background information and offers practical
Author: Chad Joseph Lammers Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
Integrated weed management and herbicide application practices were assessed in field and greenhouse studies to improve weed control in herbicide-resistant soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) grown in Kansas. The field study was conducted to evaluate weed control, soybean yield, and profitability in two herbicide-resistant soybean systems and two row spacings. 2,4-D-, glyphosate-, and glufosinate- resistant (Enlist E3) and isoxaflutole-, glyphosate-, and glufosinate- resistant (LLGT27) soybeans were planted in 38- and 76-cm row spacing for four site-years. Three herbicide treatments were evaluated in each system: pre-emergence herbicide only (PRE), PRE followed by early post-emergence (POST), and POST plus overlapping residual (POR). Weed control was evaluated every 2 weeks after PRE application through R7 soybean. Weed biomass was collected before POST applications and at R7 soybean. Soybean yield was recorded at harvest. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and means separation. In Ottawa during 2020, POST and POR treatments resulted in ≥ 99% control for all species four WAT, while PRE resulted in ≥ 84% control. Similarly, control at Ashland Bottoms was ≥ 90% for POST and POR treatments, while PRE resulted in 7% for isoxaflutole- 62% for 2,4-D-resistant soybeans. All treatments resulted in ≥ 95% control at Scandia in 2021. Row spacing had a minimal effect on weed control and mixed results for yield. In the greenhouse study, the objective was to determine the effect of herbicide combination, optimize carrier volume, and evaluate weed height on weed control. Co-applications of combinations of 2,4-D choline, glyphosate, and glufosinate were applied in carrier volumes of 93-, 140-, and 187- L ha−1to 5-, 10-, and 20-cm Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis L.). Visual ratings and above ground biomass were collected four weeks after treatment. Water-sensitive paper was also sprayed with the same herbicide combinations and carrier volumes to evaluate differences in spray coverage. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and means separation. Carrier volume did not affect Palmer amaranth or large crabgrass control. Control of 5-, 10-, and 20-cm Palmer amaranth was 100%, ≥ 91%, and 6.7 to 79%, respectively, and variation was caused by the herbicide combinations. 2,4-D plus glyphosate provided the greatest Palmer amaranth control. Large crabgrass control pooled for both experiments was ≥ 82% when treatments were applied at 5 cm, but control of 10- or 20-cm large crabgrass was reduced to 51 to 56%. There was a carrier volume by herbicide co-application interaction for the number of droplets deposited and percent area covered on water-sensitive paper. Co-applications containing glufosinate had more droplets than those not containing glufosinate. 2,4-D plus glyphosate had the smallest percent area covered, compared to the other herbicide co-applications. Data from the field study confirms that two-pass herbicide programs are superior to PRE- only programs, regardless of the inclusion of a layered residual herbicide. However, this research did not evaluate the impact of layered residual herbicides on weed seed production, which is crucial for long-term weed management. Results from the greenhouse study suggest that under ideal conditions, carrier volume is less important than herbicide combination and weed size for control of Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass.
Author: Jess Marie Bunchek Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
Widespread adoption of genetically-engineered, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops have simplified crop rotation diversity and the use of single-tactic, herbicide-based weed management programs. These practices have resulted in an HR weed epidemic, where glyphosate-resistant weeds are especially problematic. Glyphosate-resistant weeds like horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.)] and pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.) threaten grower productivity and long-term efficacy of common agronomic herbicides. Thus, integrated weed management (IWM) programs that implement both ecological- and herbicide-based tactics are needed in no-till annual grain systems to (1) manage current HR weeds, (2) reduce HR selection pressure for evolution of resistance to other herbicides, (3) preserve effective herbicide technology, (4) enhance environmental stewardship, (5) safeguard soil conservation gains, and (6) maintain farm profits and productivity. To address these goals, we established three field studies at two sites in the Mid-Atlantic and identified combinations of cover crop and herbicide tactics that achieve effective season-long annual weed management, minimize HR selection pressure, and increase sustainability by reducing herbicide inputs. The first two studies assessed the complementarity of cover crops treatments and herbicide programs in corn and soybean, where integrating a cover crop treatment combined with applying a spring, pre-plant burndown herbicide application as well as a POST-emergent application provided the most effective season-long annual weed control. The third study assessed cover crop treatments and varied management practices, such as planting and termination dates, on HR selection pressure reduction at the time of herbicide applications. While cover crops intercepted a portion of the burndown herbicide application from reaching the soil surface, weeds were effectively controlled by the cover crops before the application, thus reducing the HR selection pressure.
Author: Vijay K. Nandula Publisher: John Wiley & Sons ISBN: 1118043545 Category : Science Languages : en Pages : 258
Book Description
New technologies are becoming available for managing glyphosate resistant (GR) weeds and reducing their spread. GR crop technology has revolutionized crop production in the developed world and the benefits are gradually spilling over to the developing world. In order to sustain an effective, environmentally safe herbicide such as glyphosate and the GR crop technology well in to the future, it is imperative that the issue of GR weeds be comprehensively understood. This book provides such an essential, up-to-date source of information on glyphosate resistance for researchers, extension workers, land managers, government personnel, and other decision makers. Provides comprehensive coverage of the intensely studied topic of glyphosate resistant (GR) in crops Details the development of glyphosate resistance and how to detect and manage the problem in crops Helps standardize global approaches to glyphosate resistance Encompasses interdisciplinary approaches in chemistry, weed science, biochemistry, plant physiology, plant biotechnology, genetics, ecology Includes a chapter on economic analysis of GR impact on crops
Author: Parminder Chahal
Author: Parminder Chahal
Author: Adam Michael Striegel
Author: 
Author: Terry Griffin
Author: Justin Lee Norris
Author: Stephen B. Powles
Author: Chad Joseph Lammers
Author: 
Author: Jess Marie Bunchek
Author: Vijay K. Nandula