Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:12:32.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Efficacy on Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) is Affected by Stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jingkai Zhou ,
Bo Tao ,
Calvin G. Messersmith  and
John D. Nalewaja
Jingkai Zhou*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Bo Tao
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China 150030
Calvin G. Messersmith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
John D. Nalewaja
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and growth chamber studies were conducted to determine the effect of drought, flooding, and cold stress on the efficacy of glyphosate for velvetleaf control, and the interaction between these stresses and adjuvant and posttreatment temperature. Glyphosate activity on velvetleaf decreased when plants were stressed with drought ≥ flooding > cold. Leaf blades of environmentally stressed velvetleaf angled downward, which increased tolerance to glyphosate but was not as great a cause of tolerance as the stress effects. Glyphosate applied to 6- and 12-leaf velvetleaf was two and eight times more phytotoxic on nonstressed compared with drought-stressed plants, respectively. Glyphosate was most effective on nonstressed plants, followed by plants recovering from stress, and least effective on plants still under stress. None of the adjuvants completely overcame the adverse affects of stress on glyphosate efficacy; use of a nonionic surfactant and ammonium sulfate resulted in a 9–13 percentage point improvement in control of stressed plants compared with glyphosate applied without an adjuvant. Low temperatures (5 or 12 C) maintained for 48 h after herbicide treatment enhanced glyphosate phytotoxicity to stressed and nonstressed velvetleaf. Glyphosate at a low rate stressed velvetleaf, which made them more tolerant to subsequent glyphosate application compared with velvetleaf not pretreated with glyphosate.

Keywords

Glyphosatevelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHAdjuvantdroughtfloodingglyphosate efficacy
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 240 - 244
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

Adkins, S. W., Tanpipat, S., Swarbrick, J. T., and Boersma, M. 1998. Influence of environmental factors on glyphosate when applied to Avena fatua or Urochloa panicoides . Weed Res. 38:129–138.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Doll, J. D. 1982. Corn and soybean response to allelopathic effects of weed and crop residues. Agron. J. 74:601–606.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2001. Response of velvetleaf demographic processes to herbicide rate. Weed Sci. 49:22–30.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C. 1972. The effect of environmental factors on the performance of glyphosate against Agropyron repens . Pages 641–647. in Proceedings of the 11th British Weed Control Conference. London: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Hall, G. J., Hart, C. A., and Jones, C. A. 2000. Plants as sources of cations antagonistic to glyphosate activity. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:351–358.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2001. Reduced fitness of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) surviving glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:492–496.Google Scholar
Leaper, C. and Holloway, P. J. 2000. Adjuvants and glyphosate activity. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:313–319.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J., Swanton, C. J., and Hall, J. C. 2006. Physiological basis of decreased weed sensitivity to glyphosate under low nitrogen condition. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 46:145.Google Scholar
Mohr, J. K. and Smeda, R. J. 2001. Time and day effect on glyphosate efficacy. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:60.Google Scholar
Monsanto, , 2007. History of Monsanto's Glyphosate Herbicides. http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/productivity/roundup/back_history.pdf. Accessed: February 2, 2007.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992. Species differ in response to adjuvants with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6:561–566.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvant to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1991. Sugarbeet tolerance and weed control efficacy with split applications of phenmedipham and desmedipham. Weed Res. 31:317–331.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.Google Scholar
Parker, R. and Boydston, R. A. 2005. Weed Management and Herbicide Performance During Drought Conditions. Prosser, WA Washington State University Extension Service EM4929E.Google Scholar
Pratt, D., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 2003. Substitutes for ammonium sulfate as additives with glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 17:576–581.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2002. Low-rate split-applied herbicide treatments for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 16:149–155.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2000. Factors affecting toxicity, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate in redvine (Brunnichia ovata). Weed Technol. 14:457–462.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:97–102.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2003. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol. 17:302–306.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Malvaceae history and economic impact in the USA. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Tanpipat, S., Adkins, S. W., Swarbrick, J. T., and Boersma, M. 1997. Influence of selected environmental factors on glyphosate efficacy when applied to awnless barnyardgrass (Echinochloa colona (L.) Link). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 48:695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, A. L., Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., and Lindquist, J. L. 2004. Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf varies with application time of day. Weed Technol. 18:931–939.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. 2nd ed. New York Academic. 347–354.Google Scholar