Search

Green pigweed [Amaranthus powellii S. Wats.] is a competitive, annual, broadleaf weed that can significantly reduce soybean yield due to rapid early growth and biomass production. As a consequence of green pigweed's high competitiveness with crops, the weed species is generally managed with the use of herbicides; this may, however, lead to the selection of resistance. A green pigweed biotype with resistance to MCPA, mecoprop, dichlorprop-p, aminocyclopyrachlor (synthetic auxins), and imazethapyr (acetolactate synthase-(ALS)-inhibitor) was recently confirmed in Ontario, Canada. Research was conducted to identify alternative effective preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) herbicides for the control of multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) green pigweed in Ontario soybean production. Four field trials, two with PRE and two with POST herbicides were conducted near Dresden, Ontario in 2019 and 2020. Visible soybean injury, green pigweed control, density, aboveground biomass, and soybean yield were evaluated following application with 19 PRE herbicide treatments and 12 POST herbicide treatments in separate studies. At 8 wk after application (WAA), pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin applied PRE controlled green pigweed 95% and was the most effective soil-applied herbicide. In the POST study, glyphosate was the most effective herbicide, controlling green pigweed 94% at 8 WAA. Imazethapyr, applied PRE or POST did not control this green pigweed biotype as it is also resistant to ALS-inhibitors. Control with other ALS-inhibiting herbicides as well as with PPO-inhibiting herbicides was variable, and further research is needed to determine the reason for variable control with these herbicides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Glyphosate + dicamba has provided variable glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane (GRCF) control in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant (GDR) soybean. Previous research has indicated improved GRCF control when a third herbicide was added to glyphosate + dicamba, though research is limited. The objective of this research was to ascertain if the level and consistency of GRCF control can be improved when adding tiafenacil, metribuzin, bromoxynil, pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D, 2,4-D ester, halauxifen-methyl or saflufenacil to glyphosate + dicamba applied preplant (PP) in GDR soybean. Four field trials were conducted in 2020 and 2021 in commercial fields in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Glyphosate + dicamba controlled GRCF 57, 93 and 94% at 2, 4 and 8 WAA, respectively. Adding bromoxynil to glyphosate + dicamba improved GRCF control from 57 to 77% at 2 WAA; adding saflufenacil to glyphosate + dicamba improved GRCF control from 57 to 92, 93 to 99, and 94 to 99% at 2, 4 and 8 WAA, respectively. All three-way tank-mixtures improved the consistency of GRCF control, except for glyphosate + dicamba + 2,4-D ester at 2 WAA, glyphosate + dicamba + 2,4-D ester, tiafenacil or metribuzin at 4 WAA, and glyphosate + dicamba + tiafenacil or bromoxynil at 8 WAA. This study concludes that the level and consistency of GRCF control was improved when saflufenacil was added to a PP application of glyphosate + dicamba in soybean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Plant Science is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a study which sought to examine the efficacy of several preplant (PP) herbicides in controlling glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed or Ambrosia trifida L. prior to soybean planting in southwestern Ontario. The researchers conducted field trials using PP burndown and PP burndown plus residual herbicides in farms with GR giant ragweed. It was found out that residual control with glyphosate plus linuron led to soybean yield equivalent to the weed-free check.

The article discusses a survey that documented the distribution of glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed in southwestern Ontario. It cites the collection of giant ragweed seed from 102 sites in four counties during the autumn of 2009 and 2010 prior to soybean harvest. GR giant ragweed was confirmed at 47 new locations in Essex, Chatham-Kent and Lambton counties. The results indicate that GR giant ragweed biotypes occur across a greater area in southwestern Ontario than originally thought.

The article discusses field studies conducted in 2009 and 2010 at three Ontario locations to determine the biologically effective rate of saflufenacil/dimethenamid-p applied preemergence (PRE) for the control of annual weeds in soybean. Temperatures and precipitation influenced the rate of saflufenacil/dimethenamid-p needed for the control of annual weeds. The potential of saflufenacil/dimethenamid-p as a set-up treatment prior to a postemergence (POST) glyphosate application is also explored.

The article discusses results of a study that examines the ammonium sulfate (AMS) and water hardness effect on glyphosate and glufosinate activity in corn in fields near Harrow and Ridgetown, Ontario. The study showed that water hardness has no effect on control of velvetleaf, common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed and annual grasses green foxtail and barnyardgrass. It concludes that AMS and water hardness have little benefit on glyphosate efficacy in corn.