Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:12:16.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ALS-resistant Helianthus annuus interference in Glycine max

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jayla R. Allen ,
William G. Johnson ,
Reid J. Smeda  and
Robert J. Kremer
Jayla R. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Robert J. Kremer
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research Unit, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the effect of early-season and early- plus late-season acetolactate synthase–resistant Helianthus annuus interference on Glycine max and H. annuus growth and yield at two sites in Missouri. Helianthus annuus densities of 3 plants m−2 were established shortly after G. max emergence in all plots except the weed-free check. To study early-season interference, H. annuus were removed with postemergence glyphosate (0.84 kg ae ha−1) 2, 4, 6, and 8 wk after planting (WAP) and kept weed-free for the rest of the growing season. Glycine max yields were not different with 2, 4, 6, or 8 wk of early-season interference at either location. To study early- plus late-season interference, H. annuus densities were established at 3 plants m−2. They were then removed 2, 4, 6, or 8 WAP with glyphosate and subsequently reestablished at the same density within 2 wk after removal by newly emerging and transplanted H. annuus. These H. annuus were allowed to remain in the field for the remainder of the growing season. This provided a weed-free period of approximately 2 wk during the growing season beginning 2, 4, 6, or 8 WAP. Season-long interference and no-interference treatments were also included. Glycine max yields were reduced 47 to 72% with season-long interference. Helianthus annuus vegetative dry matter was approximately 56% lower at Columbia than at Miami. Glycine max yields tended to increase as the weed-free period was delayed into the growing season. Early-season weed-free periods (2 to 4 and 4 to 6 WAP) allowed H. annuus to become re-established before G. max formed a canopy and resulted in larger amounts of H. annuus biomass and seed production as well as G. max yield losses of 15 to 80%. Re-establishment of H. annuus in 6 to 8 WAP and 8 to 10 WAP weed-free treatments generally resulted in the plants surviving for only a few weeks after establishment and not producing seed or reducing G. max yield.

Keywords

GlyphosateHelianthus annuus L. HELAN, common sunflowerGlycine max (L.) Merr ‘Asgrow 3601’, soybeanCarrying capacityweed competitioncritical weed-free period
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 461 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aldrich, R. J. and Kremer, R. J. 1997. Principles in Weed Management. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 55 p.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 46:403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. R. 1999. Management, Distribution, and Interference of ALS-Resistant Common Sunflower in Missouri Soybean. . University of Missouri-Columbia. 139 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 28 p.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J. R., Al-Khatib, K., Currie, R. S. 1997. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:162.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Maddux, L. D., Moshier, L. J., and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 10:317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. pp. 479–481.Google Scholar
Irons, S. M. and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Competitive and allelopathic effects of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 30:372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Miller, J. R., Holman, C. S., and Wait, J. D. 1997. ALS-resistant common sunflower in Missouri. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:132–133.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybean (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Friisoe, G. Y., and Bolick, M. R. 1994. Weeds of Nebraska and the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture, pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
White, A. D., Owen, D. K., Hartzler, R. G., and Cardina, J. 1997. Evaluation of common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:11.20.Google Scholar