Kevin Chandler

Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn

Abstract A plants ability to detect and adjust morphologically to changes in light quality (red–far-red [R:FR] ratio) is one mechanism by which a crop plant responds to weeds. To test this hypothesis, two experiments were conducted where corn was grown in growth cabinets under different light environments. First, to determine the effect of R:FR ratio on corn growth and development, treatments of high R:FR (1.37) and low R:FR (0.67) ratio were compared. These were established by planting corn in pots and then placing trays of either turface (a baked clay medium with high R:FR) or commercial grass sod (low R:FR) on each side of a row of corn pots. Grass sod was used to simulate low-growing weeds. The low R:FR sod treatment resulted in corn plants which were taller, had larger leaves, and greater shoot–root ratio than plants growing in the high R:FR turface treatment. In the second experiment, the effect of R:FR ratio on corn leaf azimuth position was examined. This was accomplished by adding a third treatment where each corn row had sod placed on one side and turface on the other. The proportion of leaves in four azimuthal classes was recorded. In the presence of sod, the proportion of leaves perpendicular to the corn row decreased, and this altered the proportion of leaves in other classes. Therefore, corn seedlings detected changes in light quality caused by the presence of sod (which simulated low-growing weeds) and responded by adjusting carbon allocation and leaf orientation to optimize the interception of light quantity and quality. These results support our hypothesis that low-lying vegetation can alter the growth of corn seedlings before competition for resources occurs. This change in growth may help explain the importance of early-season weed control in corn. Nomenclature: Corn, Zea mays L.

Integrated Weed Management: Knowledge-Based Weed Management Systems

Abstract The fundamental role of integrated weed management (IWM) is to provide a source of scientifically based knowledge from which growers can make informed weed-management decisions. The objectives of this article include (1) highlighting the essential knowledge base required for the success of an IWM cropping system, (2) identifying the barriers to acceptance of IWM, and (3) discussing the future research opportunities for IWM. The minimum knowledge base consists of four key components: the effect of tillage on weed population dynamics, the time of weed emergence relative to the crop, the critical period for weed control, and the concept of a harvest window. There are substantial barriers, however, that reduce the willingness of growers to adopt the components of an IWM cropping system. IWM systems can be perceived as unreliable resulting in increased risk to management. No direct economic benefit can be defined clearly nor has there been sustained support for the adoption of IWM. In the future, IWM must change from a descriptive to a predictive science. As new markets evolve for agricultural products, new quality issues will arise that may influence weed management. Environmental auditing of IWM systems in terms of ISO 14000 accreditation, total carbon credits, or energy use will provide an important template from which comparisons of alternative weed-control strategies can be assessed. IWM strategies must be developed to reduce the risk to management and to gain broader support from the crop-protection industry, growers, and government.

Fertilizer nitrogen rate and the response of weeds to herbicides

Abstract Differences in plant community composition have been attributed to abiotic field characteristics, crop type, localized predation, farm implement traffic, and natural dispersal mechanisms. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates and herbicides also are known to influence weed community structure, although their interaction has not been reported in the literature. A growth room experiment was conducted using three weed species (green foxtail, redroot pigweed, and velvetleaf) and five herbicides (nicosulfuron, atrazine, glufosinate, glyphosate, and mesotrione) differing in their mode of action and efficacy to the selected species. The experiment was conducted in growth chambers with two levels of N fertilization (low: 0.7 mM N and high: 7.7 mM N). Weeds were grown to the two- to five-leaf stage (depending on species), treated with the appropriate herbicide, and harvested approximately 2 wk after treatment. The herbicide dose at which a 50% reduction in biomass occurred (GR50) was determined using log-logistic analysis. Herbicide susceptibility of the different weed species was influenced by N level. Green foxtail grown under low N required approximately six times the dose of nicosulfuron compared with plants grown under high N. Similarly, higher doses of nicosulfuron, glufosinate, mesotrione, and glyphosate were required to achieve a 50% reduction in redroot pigweed biomass grown under low N. In contrast, N did not influence the efficacy of mesotrione, glufosinate, or atrazine when applied to velvetleaf. This indicated specificity among herbicide–species combinations. Differences in herbicide efficacy resulting from soil N levels may alter weed community structure and may potentially explain possible weed control failures on farm fields. Nomenclature: Atrazine; glufosinate; glyphosate; mesotrione; nicosulfuron; green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVI; redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE; velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTH.

Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays).

Abstract: The development of glufosinate-resistant corn represents a new weed management system for corn growers. Field experiments were conducted from 1995 to 1997 at four locations in southwestern Ontario. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of timing of weed control relative to the growth stage of corn with glufosinate applied alone or in combination with residual herbicides. Control of all species tested improved with the addition of atrazine plus dicamba to glufosinate, applied from the two- to eight-leaf stage of corn growth. Based on a 90% weed dry matter reduction, glufosinate with atrazine plus dicamba controlled common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and pigweed species at the three-leaf stage of corn and yellow foxtail, barnyardgrass, and large crabgrass at the two-, four-, and eight-leaf stage of corn, respectively. Weed control with glufosinate alone was improved when applied at the later growth stages of corn. Glufosinate applied alone at the four-leaf stage of corn controlled common ragweed and common lambsquarters, whereas pigweed species were controlled effectively at the eight-leaf stage of corn growth. Corn grain yield was consistently higher when glufosinate was applied in combination with residual herbicides, compared to glufosinate alone. Glufosinate in combination with residual herbicides applied to corn at the three- to five-leaf stage may represent the best timing for weed control. Our data suggested that a tank mixture of glufosinate with other postemergence residual herbicides or a split application of glufosinate in combination with cultivation may be required for weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn. Nomenclature: Atrazine; dicamba; SAN 582 (proposed name, dimethenamid), 2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethyl-thien-3-yl)-acetamide; glufosinate; metolachlor; redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. #3 AMARE; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL; yellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETGL; large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSA; barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCR; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL; corn, Zea mays L. Additional index words: Integrated weed management. Abbreviations: DAE, days after emergence; DM, dry matter; HRC, herbicide-resistant crops; IWM, integrated weed management; POST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence.

An economic assessment of weed control strategies in no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max).

Abstract: Applying glyphosate relative to the growth stage of soybean is important for maximizing weed control and profits in glyphosate-resistant soybean under no-till systems. A study was conducted in Ontario for 4 yr to evaluate the effectiveness and gross return on the timing and sequence of applications of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean. Percent control of various weed species varied among years due to environmental conditions. Timing of glyphosate was critical relative to weed emergence and determined the success of the treatment in terms of optimum soybean yield and gross return. Soybean yield and gross return approximated that the critical period for weed control in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean was the unifoliolate to the one- to three-trifoliolate stage. Sequential applications of glyphosate provided higher soybean yield and gross return than a single preplant application of glyphosate. Glyphosate applied preplant or at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage consistently provided maximum average soybean yield and gross return. Gross return of the sequential glyphosate treatments was also more consistent across variable soybean price scenarios. Competition from uncontrolled later emerging weeds resulted in soybean yield loss with the single preplant application of glyphosate. Competition from uncontrolled early-emerging weeds reduced soybean yields when glyphosate was applied only at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean. Overall, two weed control strategies were identified: (1) two applications of glyphosate, the first at preplant to the unifoliolate stage, followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean, (b) first application of glyphosate at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean if later emerging weeds exceeded threshold densities. Nomenclature: Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘S14-M7’. Additional index words: Critical period of weed control, integrated weed management. Abbreviations: DAE, days after emergence; IWM, integrated weed management; NT, no till; POST, postemergence.

Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation: weed densities, crop yield, and economics

Abstract A 9-yr (1990–1998) study was conducted at Woodstock, ON, Canada, to evaluate weed densities, crop yields, and gross returns in a modified no-tillage (no primary tillage) corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation under three weed management treatments: (1) minimum, preplant application of glyphosate followed by mechanical control; (2) integrated weed management (IWM), preplant application of glyphosate followed by band application of preemergence herbicides plus mechanical control; and (3) conventional, preplant application of glyphosate followed by broadcast application of preemergence herbicides in corn and soybean. In wheat the minimum and IWM treatments had no additional weed control measures other than the preplant application of glyphosate, whereas the conventional treatment had a broadcast application of a postemergence herbicide. Weed densities were assessed each year, (except in 1990) once during the growing season in corn and soybean and immediately after crop harvest in wheat. Adjusted gross return was calculated as the gross revenue minus the unique costs for weed control for each of the treatments. Weed densities were greater in the minimum treatment compared with the IWM or conventional treatment in all crops. Weed densities in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. There was no apparent “buildup” of weed density with time in the rotation resulting from weed escapes. Hence, these data challenge current thinking that weed densities increase with time if weed escapes are allowed to go to seed. Corn and soybean yields in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. However, the minimum treatment had the lowest corn and soybean yields. Winter wheat yield was not affected by the treatments. All weed management treatments provided similar gross returns for each crop and for the rotation. Thus, the minimum treatment consisting of glyphosate applied preplant followed by shallow interrow tillage appeared to be a viable option, especially if practiced in a farming system capable of ensuring adequate timing of cultivation operations. Nomenclature: Glyphosate; imazethapyr; linuron; metolachlor; MCPB and MCPA; corn, Zea mays L.; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.; winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.

An Integrated Weed Management Strategy for Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)1

Abstract: Early canopy closure and manipulation of crop row spacing or density can reduce the amount and frequency of herbicide use in corn. Field studies were conducted at Woodstock, ON from 1996 to 1999 to evaluate the effect of corn row spacing, plant density, and frequency of glufosinate application on weed biomass and corn yield in glufosinate-resistant corn. Treatments included row width, corn density, and herbicide. The effect of row width and corn density on weed biomass was variable among years. In a wet year (1996), narrow (38 cm) rows provided greater weed suppression than wide (76 cm) rows regardless of crop density. In a dry year (1998), narrow-row high-density (100,000 plants/ha) corn had the lowest weed biomass. In other years, either narrow row or high density was equally successful in suppressing weeds. Effectiveness of herbicides in reducing weed biomass was not influenced by row width or corn density. Corn yield was influenced by row width or corn density. Although weed biomass was lowered by two applications of glufosinate in comparison with a single application, corn grain yields were similar between the two treatments. Planting corn at higher densities may help in reducing early-season weed competition, whereas narrow rows may help in controlling later-emerging species. Nomenclature: Glufosinate; glyphosate; metolachlor; dicamba; corn, Zea mays L. Pride X2650LL. Additional index words: Corn row spacing, corn density. Abbreviations: EPOST, early postemergence; IWM, integrated weed management; LPOST, late postemergence; POST, postemergence.

Management in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–wheat rotation influences weed population and community dynamics

Abstract Conservation tillage systems, such as no-tillage, are ecologically advantageous because they reduce soil erosion; however, they rely heavily on herbicide use. Our goal was to determine how weed communities of no-tillage systems are affected when the system is modified to reduce herbicide use through a combination of banded herbicides and interrow cultivation. To this end, we conducted a 9-yr study in a no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation. All management systems had a preplant application of glyphosate, followed by either broadcast PRE herbicides (conventional no-tillage), interrow cultivation with banded PRE herbicides, or interrow cultivation alone. Aboveground weed densities were assessed each year and data were grouped into early (1991 to 1993) and late (1996 to 1998) time periods. Over time, weed communities became more distinct, showing a strong response to management and crop. In the early years, weed communities separated more in response to management than crop. In the late years, this was reversed. Weed communities in systems with interrow cultivation were more diverse than those in conventional no-tillage. The response to weed management system and crop was species specific. For example, the abundance of yellow foxtail was higher when interrow cultivation was employed, but abundance was equal in all crops. Dandelion was more abundant in conventional no-tillage of corn and soybean; however, it was equally abundant in all management systems in wheat. Seed bank species richness increased over time and was highest in systems with interrow cultivation. Herbicide use can be reduced in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–wheat rotation by incorporating interrow cultivation, with or without banded herbicides, into the management plan. The weed community trajectory changes, and the weed community becomes more diverse. A more diverse weed community will not necessarily alter how we manage weeds. Nomenclature: Glyphosate; yellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.; dandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber; corn, Zea mays L.; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.; wheat, Triticum aestivum L.

A Rationale for Atrazine Stewardship in Corn

Abstract In several European nations, including France and Germany, atrazine has been banned because of environmental concerns. However, in Canada, atrazine remains an important component of modern weed control in corn. The objectives of this study were to determine the value of atrazine to corn producers by examining weed control efficacy, yield of corn, adjusted gross return, and the variability associated with PRE and POST herbicides applied alone or in combination with atrazine. A randomized complete-block design experiment was conducted at two locations for 3 yr to evaluate the performance of selected PRE and POST herbicides with and without atrazine. The addition of atrazine to PRE herbicides increased weed control (25%), improved herbicide performance consistency, increased corn yields (8%), increased adjusted gross return (Can

Weed seed return as influenced by the critical weed-free period and row spacing of no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean

59 ha−1), and reduced risk (