Reduced Herbicide Rates—A Canadian Perspective

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1157-1165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Doyle ◽  
Marian Stypa

Identification of the appropriate use rate is a critical first step in the herbicide development process because use rates affect product utility, market value, and the various risk assessments within the regulatory review process prior to registration. For a given herbicide to be commercially successful, it must provide consistent and sustained efficacy based on a use rate structure that meets customer requirements over a wide range of conditions. Recently, recommendations have been made that advocate the use of herbicide use rates below those outlined on registered product label text. Such advice tends to be based on field work and predictive models designed to identify specific conditions where reduced herbicide use rates are theoretically optimized as dictated by threshold values with assumed levels of commercially acceptable weed control. Unfortunately, many other studies indicate that the use of reduced herbicide rates is not without variability of herbicide efficacy and economic risk. Consequently, reduced use rate theories and related predictive models are often of limited practical value to growers. Aside from inconsistent performance, weed control strategies based on reduced herbicide use rates are not a solution to prevent or even delay target site resistance. In fact, prolonged use of sublethal use rates may select for metabolic resistance and add future weed management challenges by replenishing the weed seed bank. Much effort in terms of development time and resources are invested before product commercialization to ensure that product labels are easily understood and provide value to growers. In this regard, every effort is made to identify the lowest effective use rate that will consistently control target weeds and lead to economic optimization for both the grower and manufacturer.

2004 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Kempenaar ◽  
L.A.P. Lotz

Highlights of a multidisciplinary research program on innovative weed control are presented and discussed in this paper. The program was carried out from 1999 to 2002, and dovetailed most fundamental-strategic and applied research aspects in The Netherlands in that period with respect to weed management. The program was focused on both developing and implementing sustainable weed control strategies for agricultural and non-agricultural areas. Some projects in the program were on (1) developing and improving weed preventive and non-chemical methods, (2) methods that allow the farmer to apply lower dosage of herbicides than indicated on the label, e.g. the so-called “Minimum Lethal Herbicide Dose method” (MLHD), and (3) rational weed control on hard surfaces. The main results of these projects are presented. A successful development and implementation of new methods and systems of weed control that use considerably less herbicides, is determined by many factors. The role that these success factors played in the aforementioned projects is shortly discussed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Marcelo L. Moretti

Abstract Italian ryegrass has become a problematic weed in hazelnut orchards of Oregon because of the presence of herbicide-resistant populations. Resistant and multiple-resistant Italian ryegrass populations are now the predominant biotypes in Oregon; there is no information on which herbicides effectively control Italian ryegrass in hazelnut orchards. Six field studies were conducted in commercial orchards to evaluate Italian ryegrass control with POST herbicides. Treatments included flazasulfuron, glufosinate, glyphosate, paraquat, rimsulfuron, and sethoxydim applied alone or in selected mixtures during early spring when plants were in the vegetative stage. Treatment efficacy was dependent on the experimental site. The observed range of weed control 28 d after treatment was 13 to 76 % for glyphosate, 1 to 72% for paraquat, 58 to 88% for glufosinate, 16 to 97 % for flazasulfuron, 8 to 94% for rimsulfuron, and 25 to 91% for sethoxydim. Herbicides in mixtures improved control of Italian ryegrass compared to single active ingredients based on contrast analysis. Herbicides in mixture increased control by 27% compared to glyphosate, 18% to rimsulfuron, 15% to flazasulfuron, 19% to sethoxydim, and 12% compared to glufosinate when averaged across all sites, but mixture not always improved ground coverage of biomass reduction. This complex site-specific response highlights the importance of record-keeping for efficient herbicide use. Glufosinate is an effective option to manage Italian ryegrass. However, the glufosinate-resistant biotypes documented in Oregon may jeopardize this practice. Non-chemical weed control options are needed for sustainable weed management in hazelnuts.


2006 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Werth ◽  
C. Preston ◽  
G. N. Roberts ◽  
I. N. Taylor

Forty growers in 4 major cotton-growing regions in Australia were surveyed in 2003 to investigate how the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Roundup Ready) had influenced herbicide use, weed management techniques, and whether changes to the weed spectrum could be identified. The 10 most common weeds reported on cotton fields were the same in glyphosate-tolerant and conventional fields in this survey. Herbicide use patterns were altered by the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant cotton with up to 6 times more glyphosate usage, but 21% fewer growers applying pre-emergence herbicides in glyphosate-tolerant fields. Other weed control practices such as the use of post-emergence herbicides, inter-row cultivation and hand hoeing were only reduced marginally. However, growers indicated that management practices are likely to change over time, especially with the introduction of enhanced glyphosate tolerance technology (Roundup Ready Flex), and anticipate a 32% decrease in the number of growers using alternative weed management practices. To date, management practices other than glyphosate use have not changed markedly in glyphosate-tolerant cotton indicating a conservative approach by growers adopting this technology and reflecting the narrow window of herbicide application. The range of weed control options still being employed in glyphosate-tolerant cotton would not increase the risk of glyphosate resistance development.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 538-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan C. Holmes ◽  
Christy L. Sprague

Field studies were conducted in 2010 and 2011 at two locations in Michigan to examine the effect of row width and herbicide combination on weed suppression and yield in the new Type II black bean variety ‘Zorro.' Black bean was planted in 38- and 76-cm rows. Six weed control strategies were examined:S-metolachlor + halosulfuron (PRE),S-metolachlor (PRE) followed by (fb) bentazon + fomesafen (POST), halosulfuron (PRE) fb clethodim (+ fomesafen at one site in one year) (POST), imazamox + bentazon (POST), a weed-free control, and a nontreated control. Weed control and crop injury were evaluated throughout the growing season. In addition, weeds were counted by species in late July, and weed biomass was harvested and weighed at the end of the season. Black bean yield was obtained by direct harvest. Narrow rows reduced weed populations in two of the four site–year combinations (referred to hereafter as site–years), reduced weed biomass in three of the four site–years, and often improved control of upright broadleaf weeds. All herbicide combinations generally reduced weed populations and biomass, but control of specific weeds was variable. Crop injury was generally slight and transient. Yield was greater in narrow rows in two of the four site–years. All herbicide combinations increased yield compared with the nontreated control and resulted in similar yields to one another. Yield and weed suppression was often maximized in narrow rows, while herbicide performance varied by year and weed spectrum.


Agronomy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donato Loddo ◽  
Laura Scarabel ◽  
Maurizio Sattin ◽  
Antonio Pederzoli ◽  
Chiara Morsiani ◽  
...  

Herbicides have facilitated weed management but their incorrect use can lead to environmental contamination. Reducing herbicide use by limiting their application to a band along the crop row can decrease their environmental impact. Three field experiments were conducted in North-eastern Italy to evaluate herbicide band application systems integrated with inter-row hoeing for silage maize. Post-emergence herbicide band application (sprayed area 50% of total field; herbicide dose 50% of that recommended, application with an inter-row cultivator prototype) was compared with pre-emergence band application (sprayed area 33% of total field; herbicide dose 33% of that recommended, application with a seeder) and pre-emergence broadcast application (sprayed area 100% of total field; full recommended herbicide dose, application with a boom sprayer) that is standard management for maize. Weed density and composition were evaluated before and after post-emergence herbicide application and at crop harvest. Crop yield was also recorded. Weed density in untreated areas ranged between 5 and 15 plants m−2 in the different experiments. Optimal weed control and good yields were achieved without significant differences between all treatments. Herbicide band application can provide optimal weed control in silage maize, at the same time allowing a relevant reduction of herbicide input.


2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. 491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Harries ◽  
Ken C. Flower ◽  
Craig A. Scanlan ◽  
Michael T. Rose ◽  
Michael Renton

Six years of survey data taken from 184 paddocks spanning 14 million ha of land used for crop and pasture production in south-west Western Australia were used to assess weed populations, herbicide resistance, integrated weed management (IWM) actions and herbicide use patterns in a dryland agricultural system. Key findings were that weed density within crops was low, with 72% of cropping paddocks containing fewer than 10 grass weeds/m2 at anthesis. Weed density and herbicide resistance were not correlated, despite the most abundant grass weed species (annual ryegrass, Lolium rigidum Gaudin) testing positive for resistance to at least one herbicide chemistry in 92% of monitored paddocks. A wide range of herbicides were used (369 unique combinations) suggesting that the diversity of herbicide modes of action may be beneficial for reducing further development of herbicide resistance. However, there was a heavy reliance on glyphosate, the most commonly applied active ingredient. Of concern, in respect to the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds, was that 45% of glyphosate applications to canola were applied as a single active ingredient and area sown to canola in Western Australia expanded from 0.4 to 1.4 million hectares from 2005 to 2015. In order to minimise the weed seed bank within crops, pastures were used infrequently in some regions and in 50% of cases pastures were actively managed to reduce weed seed set, by applying a non-selective herbicide in spring. The use of non-selective herbicides in this manner also kills pasture plants, consequently self-regenerating pastures were sparse and contained few legumes where cropping intensity was high. Overall, the study indicated that land use selection and utilisation of associated weed management actions were being used successfully to control weeds within the survey area. However, to successfully manage herbicide resistant weeds land use has become less diverse, with pastures utilised less and crops with efficacious weed control options utilised more. Further consideration needs to be given to the impacts of these changes in land use on other production factors, such as soil nutrient status and plant pathogens to assess sustainability of these weed management practices in a wider context.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Walsh ◽  
Peter Newman ◽  
Stephen Powles

The widespread evolution of multiple herbicide resistance in the most serious annual weeds infesting Australian cropping fields has forced the development of alternative, non-chemical weed control strategies, especially new techniques at grain harvest. Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems target weed seed during commercial grain harvest operations and act to minimize fresh seed inputs to the seedbank. These systems exploit two key biological weaknesses of targeted annual weed species: seed retention at maturity and a short-lived seedbank. HWSC systems, including chaff carts, narrow windrow burning, bale direct, and the Harrington Seed Destructor, target the weed seed bearing chaff material during commercial grain harvest. The destruction of these weed seeds at or after grain harvest facilitates weed seedbank decline, and when combined with conventional herbicide use, can drive weed populations to very low levels. Very low weed populations are key to sustainability of weed control practices. Here we introduce HWSC as a new paradigm for global agriculture and discuss how these techniques have aided Australian grain cropping and their potential utility in global agriculture.


2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corrado Ciaccia ◽  
Stefano Canali ◽  
Gabriele Campanelli ◽  
Elena Testani ◽  
Francesco Montemurro ◽  
...  

AbstractIntegrating cover crops into vegetable cropping systems can provide a wide range of ecological services, of which weed management is a key component. Cover crop effects on weed control, however, are dependent on termination methods and weed species present in specific cropping seasons. A 2-year weed management experiment with two cultivars of organic zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.) in central Italy was carried out to compare the effect of a barley (Hordeum distichum L.) cover crop terminated with a modified roller-crimper (RC) to incorporated barley as green manure (GM) and a tilled control left fallow (FA) in the off-season. The effects of cover-crop management on crop competitiveness, yields and weed populations were evaluated by direct measurement, visual estimation and competition index methods. Results showed a significant reduction in weed biomass (>80%) and weed abundance with the RC compared to the GM and FA treatments. Moreover, the RC barley mulch maintained weed control in zucchini plots even under high weed pressure, as determined by the agronomic tolerance to competition (ATC) value of 67% in the RC treatment compared to 40 and 34% in the FA and GM treatments, respectively, averaged over both years of the experiment. The competitive balance (Cb), which quantified the ability of the zucchini crop to compete with weed populations, was also greater (+0.37) in the RC treatment compared to FA (−0.87) and GM (−0.69) treatments over the same period. Zucchini crop biomass was greatest in the RC treatment in 2011. Zucchini fruit yields varied from an average over both years of 1.4 Mg ha−1 in the RC treatment to 0.7 Mg ha−1 in the GM treatment, but yields in the FA treatment, 1.2 Mg ha−1, did not differ from the RC treatment. No differences in yield between ‘Dietary’ and ‘Every’ zucchini, or any significant interactions between cultivar and cover management related to fruit biomass, were observed. Our findings suggested the viability of the modified RC in creating a barley cover-crop mulch to effectively manage weeds and enhance yields in transplanted zucchini.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-347
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ilyas

Experiments were conducted at the farm of the University of Agriculture Peshawar in 2012 and 2013 to evaluate the effect of different weed control methods in bitter gourd. The treatments comprised of four mulches (Rumex crispus, Silybum marianum, news papers, and saw-dust), a herbicide i.e. Stomp 330 EC (pendimethalin) applied as pre-emergence, a hand weeding and a control treatment (weedy check). Data were collected on weed biomass, number of plants ha-1 and fruit weight. The parameters were significantly affected by the applied treatments during both the years. Weed biomass in 2012 and 2013 was the highest (2971 and 3595 kg ha-1, respectively in the weedy check treatments and lowest in hand weeded plots (68 and 83 kg ha-1) in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Moreover the effect of the mulching treatments and the herbicide treatment were statistically at par with each other and different from the weedy check. The highest number of plants ha-1 (9773 and 8077) and fruit weight plant-1 (756 and 657 g) were recorded in the hand weeded treatments in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Hand weeding was followed by the treatment of Stomp 330 EC with the respective values in the two years as 8834 and 7301 plants ha-1, and 667 and 580 g plant-1 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Moreover, the performance of the mulching treatments was also significantly more effective than the weedy check plots. Mulches of S. marianum and R. crispus reduced the weed biomass to 1072 and 1615 kg in 2012 and 1297 and 1954 kg in 2013 as compared to the weedy control with weed biomass of 2971 and 3595 kg ha-1 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. The respective no. of plants ha-1 for the mulches of S. marianum and R. crispus were 8548 and 8489 in 2012 and 7065 and 7016 in 2013 whereas and the fruit weight plant-1 was 435 and 396 in 2012 and 378 and 344 g in 2013. Keeping in view the good performance of weed biomass as mulches, the cost of production and the environmental safety, the hand weeding and herbicide use cannot be preferred alone for use as weed management tools. Therefore, the herbicide use and hand weeding should be used only on casual basis or in emergency; and the mulching methods should be adopted in the long run as mulching method is not only good for weed control but also for maintaining the soil fertility, moisture conservation, and environmental safety.


1991 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 387 ◽  
Author(s):  
GW Charles

In 1989, 52 cotton growers from the 7 major cotton areas of New South Wales were surveyed regarding their weed-control costs, major weed problems and herbicide use. This paper presents and discusses the major results from this survey. On average, weed control costs the cotton grower $A187/ha annually, the major components being $76/ha for cotton herbicides and $67/ha for hand chipping. The major cotton weeds are Xanthium occidentale, X. spinosum, Cyperus spp., Physalis spp. and Ipomoea lonchophylla. Although these weeds affect a large proportion of the cotton-growing area, their incidence is generally stable or declining under the current management systems. However, Cyperus spp., which presently affect 15% of the cotton area, are escaping the weed management practices and rapidly becoming the major weed problem in many fields. Diplachne fusca is a major weed on irrigation channels and is not controlled by the registered herbicides. Trifluralin, diuron and fluometuron herbicides are used in cotton by over 60% of cotton growers. Glyphosate is used by 59% of growers in fallows prior to cotton, and atrazine, diuron and glyphosate are used on irrigation channels by over 60% of growers. Generally, cotton growers are dissatisfied with t h e high cost of weed control and the ineffectiveness of control of some problem weeds such as Cyperus spp.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document