Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:33:00.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Herbicides on Field Violet (Viola arvensis) in Four Direct-Seeded Canola Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rory F. Degenhardt ,
K. Neil Harker ,
A. Keith Topinka ,
William R. McGregor  and
Linda M. Hall
Rory F. Degenhardt*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5E2
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
A. Keith Topinka
Affiliation:
Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development (AAFRD), Crop Diversification Centre North, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5Y 6H3
William R. McGregor
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6E 5Z8
Linda M. Hall
Affiliation:
University of Alberta/ AAFRD, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2P5
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field violet is a winter or summer annual plant that is a serious weed of canola crops in Europe. It is a weed of increasing concern within reduced tillage fields in central Alberta, where its response to registered herbicides has not been evaluated. Two commercial fields within the Aspen Parkland ecoregion of Alberta were used to evaluate the efficacy of postemergence (POST) herbicides against field violet in conventional, imidazolinone-resistant (IMI-resistant) and glufosinate-resistant canola cultivars, as well as to evaluate the plant's response to various timings and rates of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant canola. Control of field violet was lower in field experiments conducted in 2002 compared with 2003, probably because of abnormally low rainfall in 2002. The POST herbicides evaluated provided inadequate control of field violet in conventional canola. Glufosinate control at 500 g ai/ha was unacceptable unless the crop canopy closed shortly after application. In IMI-resistant canola, thifensulfuron did not significantly reduce plant density and biomass under the extremely dry conditions experienced in 2002, but in 2003, it conferred respective reductions of 79 and 86% relative to nontreated controls. Imazamox plus imazethapyr did not affect plant growth. Field violet was controlled by pre- and postcrop emergence glyphosate at 445 g ae/ha. Postharvest application of glyphosate provided good control throughout the following growing season when spring emergence was minimal. Herbicide activity was also evaluated on two- to four-leaf seedlings in a greenhouse experiment. Dose– response curves reflected the activity observed in field experiments. Strategies for effective field violet control with herbicides are dependent on cultivar selection and the management system, but are improved by timing application to young, actively growing plants.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosateimazamoximazethapyrthifensulfuronfield violet, Viola arvensis Murr. # VIOARcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘45A77’, ‘DKL34-55’, ‘Invigor 2663’, ‘Q2’Canola management systemsherbicide evaluationweed controlclopyralidethametsulfuronED50, effective herbicide dose necessary to cause 50% reduction in weed dry weightED85, effective herbicide dose necessary to cause 85% reduction in weed dry weightPH, postharvest, IMI-resistant, imidazolinone-resistantPREPLANT, precrop emergencePOST, postemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 608 - 622
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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ecological Stratification Working Group, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch.Google Scholar
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1999. Canadian Ecodistrict Climate Normals 1961–1990. Web page: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/district/climate.html. Accessed: January 11, 2003.Google Scholar
Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development. 1999. Winter Annual Weed Control in Direct Seeding Systems. Agdex 519-5. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Print Media Branch. 5 p.Google Scholar
Alex, J. F. and Switzer, C. M. 1976. Ontario Weeds: Descriptions, Illustrations and Keys to their Identification. Guelph, ON: Ontario Agricultural College. 200 p.Google Scholar
Ali, S. 2003. Crop Protection 2003. Agdex 606-1. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development. 520 p.Google Scholar
Bachthaler, V. G., Neuner, F., and Kees, H. 1986. Development of the field pansy (Viola arvensis Murr.) in dependence of soil conditions and agricultural management. Nachrichtenbl. Pflanzenschutz DDR 38:33–41.Google Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. C. 1995. Variation in the annual dormancy cycle in buried seeds of the weedy winter annual Viola arvensis . Weed Res. 35:353–362.Google Scholar
Becker, R., Ulrich, A., Hedtke, C., and Honermeier, B. 2001. Impact of transgenic herbicide resistant rape on the agroecosystem. Bundesgesundh.bl. Gesundh.forsch. Gesundh.schutz 44:159–167.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Anderson, G., and Dekker, J. 1987. Interference of Sinapsis arvensis L. and Chenopodium album L. in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L). Weed Res. 27:207–213.Google Scholar
Brierly, J. A., Martin, T. C., and Speiss, D. J. eds. 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (Version 3.0). Alberta Soil Information Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development: Web page: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sag6903? Accessed: January 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Boyd, J., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1996. Effect of growth stage and environment on foliar absorption, translocation, metabolism, and activity of nicosulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Sci. 44:447–454.Google Scholar
[CASCC] Canadian Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee. 1998. Research report ECW/EDI ID: 98FV31ET. Ottawa, ON: Expert Committee on Weeds, Eastern Section, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.Google Scholar
Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Baig, M. N., and Kidnie, M. J. 2002. Glyphosate timing and tillage system effects on glyphosate-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol. 16:124–130.Google Scholar
de St. Remy, E. A. and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1986. Duration of tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) interference in several crops. Weed Sci. 34: 381–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donn, G. 1982. Der einfluß von klimafaktoren auf die herbizide wirkung von ammonium-(3-amino-3-carboxy-propyl)-methylphosphinat (glufosinate). Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent. B47:105–110.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J. and Monaco, T. J. 1992. The biology of Canadian weeds. 99. Viola arvensis Murr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:187–201.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J., Monaco, T. J., and Sheets, T. J. 1991. Factors influencing germination of field violet (Viola arvensis). Weed Sci. 39:601–606.Google Scholar
Doran, J. W. and Smith, M. S. 1987. Organic matter management and utilization of soil and fertilizer nutrients. in Soil Fertility and Organic Matter as Critical Components of Production Systems. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 19. Pp. 53–72.Google Scholar
Downey, R. K. and Buth, J. 2003. Transgenic rapeseed—grower adoption and consumer acceptance. in Proceeding of the 11th International Rapeseed Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark: Narayana. Pp. 1190–1194.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. E., Hart, W. E., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2001. Effect of venturi-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol. 15:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, J. A. and Aebischer, N. J. 1999. Pesticide Use, Avian Food Resources and Bird Densities in Sussex. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee JNCC Report 296. 103 p.Google Scholar
Fogelfors, H. 1973. The development of some weed species under different conditions of light and their competitive ability in barley stands. in Reports of the Agricultural College of Sweden. Series B, Volume 19. Uppsala, Sweden: Lantbrukshögskolan. 233 p.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1987. Herbicide resistant crops: yield penalties and weed thresholds for oilseed rape (Brassica napus L). Weed Res. 27:31–34.Google Scholar
Froment, M. A. and Turley, D. 1998. Evaluation of herbicides for autumn broad-leaved weed control in winter linseed (Linum usitatissimum). Tests Agrochem. Cultiv. 19:28–29.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1984. The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:629–641.Google Scholar
Gummesson, G. 1983. Chemical and non-chemical control—changes in weed stand following different control measures. in Swedish Weed conference. Volume 24. Uppsala, Sweden: College of Agriculture, Department of Plant Husbandry and Research Information Centre. 239 p.Google Scholar
Hyvonen, T., Ketoja, E., and Salonen, J. 2003. Abundance of weeds in spring cereal fields in Finland. Weed Res. 43:348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakes, P. 1982. Genecological investigations on zinc plants. V. Barriers to gene flow limiting the introgression of Viola arvensis (Murr.) into Viola calaminaria Lej. Spp. Westfalica (Lej.) Ernst. Acta Bot. Neerl. 31:371–378.Google Scholar
Kenward, M. G. and Roger, J. H. 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. E. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to trimethylsulfonium and isopropylamine salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:745–749.Google Scholar
Lanclos, D. Y., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., and Linscombe, S. D. 2003. Response of glufosinate-resistant rice (Oryza sativa) to glufosinate application timings. Weed Technol. 17:157–160.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Hall, L. M. 2002. Alberta Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops in 2001. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre Weed Survey Series Publication 02-1.Google Scholar
Lundkvist, A. 1997. Predicting optimal application time for herbicides from estimated growth rate of weeds. Agric. Sys. 54:223–242.Google Scholar
Madsen, K. H. and Streibig, J. C. 1999. Modeling of Herbicide Use in Genetically Modified Herbicide Resistant Crops 2. Svendborg, Denmark: Ministry of Environment and Energy, Danish Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Project 450.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–619.Google Scholar
Marshall, G., Morrison, I. N., Friesen, L., and Rother, W. 1989. Effects of ‘volunteer’ wheat and barley on the growth and yield of rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. G., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci. 49:326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordmeyer, H. and Dunker, M. 1999. Variable weed densities and soil properties in a weed mapping concept for patchy weed control. in Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on Precision Agriculture. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic. Pp. 453–462.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1992. Seed yields of canola and volunteer barley as influenced by their relative times of emergence. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:263–267.Google Scholar
Odum, E. P. 1965. Germination of ancient seeds: floristical observations and experiments with archaeologically dated soil samples. Dansk Bot. Ark. 24:2.Google Scholar
Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. 2001. Influence of climatic conditions and plant physiology on glufosinate-ammonium efficacy. Weed Res. 41:31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilorg&eacute, E. and Mircovich, C. 1999. Weed control strategies using GMO herbicide tolerant oilseed rape. in Proceeding of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress: Web page: www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/2/325.htm. Accessed: January 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Norsworthy, J. K., and Raymer, P. A. 2003. Soybean (Glycine max) response to glyphosate, diflubenzuron, and boron combinations. Weed Technol. 17:186–189.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
Schroeder, D., Mueller-Schaerer, H., and Stinson, C. S. A. 1993. A European weed survey in 10 major crop systems to identify targets for biological control. Weed Res. 33:449–458.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2002. 2001. Census of Agriculture. Web page: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0301XIE/index.htm. Accessed: January 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 966 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Wise, R. F., Frick, B. L., and Juras, L. T. 1996. Saskatchewan Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops in 1995. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre Weed Survey Series Publication 96-1.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B. L., and Hall, L. M. 1998. Alberta Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 1997. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre Weed Survey Series Publication 98-2.Google Scholar
Wallsgrove, R. M., Keys, A. J., Lea, P. J., and Miflin, B. J. 1983. Photosynthesis, photorespiration and nitrogen metabolism. Plant Cell. Environ. 6:301–309.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A. and Hanson, G. E. 1995. Effect of rainfall on glyphosate plus 2,4-D performance on Echinochloa crus-galli . Weed Sci. 43:666–670.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Felton, W. L., and Welsby, S. M. 1993. Effect of rainfall on glyphosate performance on stressed grass weeds following wheat harvest. Plant Prot. Q. 8:2–6.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1997. Influence of drought on graminicide phytotoxicity in wild oat (Avena fatua) grown under different temperature and humidity conditions. J. Plant Growth Regul. 16:233–237.Google Scholar