Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:45:03.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Choice and Timing for Weed Control in Imidazolinone-Resistant Lentil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

L. K. Fedoruk  and
S. J. Shirtliffe
L. K. Fedoruk
Affiliation:
BASF Canada, 1-411 Downey Rd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 4L8, Canada
S. J. Shirtliffe*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional lentil, because it is relatively noncompetitive, requires effective weed control. In conventional lentil, metribuzin should be applied by the four-node stage to avoid crop injury. This is earlier than the critical period of weed control (CPWC) of lentil, which is between the five- and 10-node stage. However, imidazolinone herbicides potentially can be applied later in imidazolinone-resistant lentil, which might allow lentil to be kept weed-free for the CPWC. The objective of this experiment was to determine the best herbicide choice and application timing necessary to achieve the CPWC in lentil. To do this we tested herbicides differing in efficacy and residual control. The herbicides imazethapyr/imazamox, imazamox, and metribuzin + sethoxydim were applied at the two- and six-node lentil stage. Of the three herbicide treatments, metribuzin + sethoxydim resulted in grain yield that was on average 31% lower than the other herbicides. This occurred because of greater broadleaf biomass (composed primarily of wild mustard) in lentils treated with these herbicides regardless of application timing. Because of this, the CPWC was not attained with metribuzin + sethoxydim. Late applications of imazethapyr/imazamox or imazamox resulted in grain yields 30% higher than with early application of these herbicides. Early applications of the imidazolinone herbicides gave poor control of grass weeds (wild oat and green foxtail), but late applications resulted in grass weed control equivalent to metribuzin + sethoxydim. Imazethapyr/imazamox or imazamox should be applied at the five- to six-node stage of lentil to achieve the CPWC.

La lenteja convencional, debido a que es relativamente no competitiva, requiere un control de malezas efectivo. En este cultivo, el metribuzin debe ser aplicado en la etapa de cuatro nudos para evitar daños. Esto es más temprano que el período crítico del control de malezas para la lenteja, el cual ocurre entre la etapa de cinco a 10 nudos. Sin embargo, los herbicidas imidazolinonas potencialmente pueden ser aplicados más tarde a la lenteja resistente a este herbicida, que podría permitir que el cultivo se mantenga libre de malezas durante el período crítico del control de malezas. El objetivo de este experimento fue determinar la mejor opción de herbicida y el momento de la aplicación para alcanzar el período crítico del control de malezas en la lenteja. Para hacer esto, probamos herbicidas que difieren en eficacia y control residual. Los herbicidas imazethapyr/imazamox, imazamox, y metribuzin + sethoxydim fueron aplicados a la lenteja en las etapas de dos y seis nudos. De los tres tratamientos de herbicida, metribuzin + sethoxydim resultó en un rendimiento promedio del grano 31% más bajo que los otros herbicidas. Esto se debió a una mayor producción de biomasa de hoja ancha (compuesta principalmente de Sinapis arvensis) en lentejas tratadas con estos herbicidas, sin importar el momento de aplicación. Debido a esto, el período crítico del control de malezas no fue logrado con metribuzin + sethoxydim. Las aplicaciones tardías de imazethapyr/imazamox o imazamox resultaron en rendimientos del grano 30% más altos que las aplicaciones tempranas de estos herbicidas. Aplicaciones tempranas de los herbicidas imidazolinonas proporcionaron un pobre control de las malezas gramíneas (Avena fatua y Setaria viridis), pero las aplicaciones tardías resultaron en un control de estas malezas equivalente a las de metribuzin + sethoxydim. El imazethapyr/imazamox o imazamox deben ser aplicados en la etapa de cinco a seis nudos en la lenteja para alcanzar el período crítico del control de malezas.

Keywords

Imazamoximazethapyrmetribuzinsethoxydimgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauvwild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L.wild oat, Avena fatua L.lentil, Lens culinaris Medik. ‘CDC Impact’Critical weed-free periodcritical period of weed controlherbicide tolerantimidazolinone tolerant
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 620 - 625
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

Acton, D. F., Padbury, G. A., and Stushnoff, C. T. 1998. The Ecoregions of Saskatchewan. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada Canadian Plains Research Center. 204 p.Google Scholar
Alister, C. and Kogan, M. 2005. Efficacy of imidazolinone herbicides applied to imidazolinone resistant maize and their carryover effect on rotational crops. Crop Prot. 24:375–379.Google Scholar
Baird, J. M., Shirtliffe, S. J., and Walley, F. L. 2009. Optimal seeding rate for organic production of lentil in the northern Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89:1089–1097.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A., Yenish, J. P., and Alby, T. III. 2003. Effect of imazamox soil persistence on dryland rotational crops. Weed Technol. 17:161–165.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12:64–68.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., and Li, X. 2002. Beyond herbicides: new approaches to managing weeds. Pages 305–312 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture for Dry Areas. Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China. Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Dobing Enterprises.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor, and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci. 30:629–632.Google Scholar
Cessna, A. J. 1997. Metribuzin residues in lentil following postemergence application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78:167–169.Google Scholar
Chant, S. R. 2004. Imidazolinone tolerance in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). . Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada University of Saskatchewan. 95 p.Google Scholar
Environment Canada. 2004. Canadian Climate Normals 1971 to 2000. Saskatoon Diefenbaker Airport. http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/stnselect_e.html. Accessed: December 18, 2008.Google Scholar
Fedoruk, L. K., Johnson, E. N., and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2011. The critical period of weed control for lentil in Western Canada. Weed Sci. 59:517–526.Google Scholar
Hess, M., Barralis, G., Bleiholder, H., Buhrs, L., Eggers, T. H., Hack, H., and Stauss, R. 1997. Use of the extended BBCH-scale—general for the descriptions of the growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous weed species. Weed Res. 37:433–441.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J., Harker, K. N., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1989. Influence of metribuzin and cyanazine on the phytotoxicity of graminicides on wild oats and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:195–203.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blakenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Malik, N. and Townley-Smith, L. 1990. Performance of imazethapyr on pulse crops. Weed Technol. 4:791–798.Google Scholar
McDonald, G. K., Hollaway, K. L., and McMurray, L. 2007. Increasing plant density improves weed competition in lentil (Lens culinaris). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 47:48–56.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. J., Weller, S. C., and Ashton, F. M. 2002. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th ed. New York J. Wiley. 671 p.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10:100–106.Google Scholar
Royer, F. and Dickinson, R. 1999. Weeds of Canada and the Northern United States. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada The University of Alberta Press. 472 p.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc. XXXX p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Hornford, R. 2005. Soil interactions of imidazolinone herbicides used in Canada. Pages 23–30 in Van Acker, R. C., ed. Soil Residual Herbicides: Science and Management. Topics in Canadian Weed Science. 3. Sainte-Anne-de Bellevue, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada Canadian Weed Science Society–Societe Canadienne de Malherbologie.Google Scholar
[SMA] Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2008. Guide to Crop Protection. Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 418 p.Google Scholar
[SPG] Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. 2000. Lentils. Pulse Production Manual. 2nd ed. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. 18 p.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Harker, K. N., and Anderson, R. L. 1993. Crop losses due to weeds in Canada. Weed Technol. 7:537–542.Google Scholar
Tepe, I., Erman, M., Yazlik, A., Levent, R., and Ipek, K. 2004. Effect of different control methods on weeds, yield components and nodulation in the spring lentil. Turk. J. Agric. For. 28:49–56.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. and McMullan, P. M. 1994. Effectiveness of several new selective herbicides in lentils (Lens culinaris). Crop Prot. 13:553–557.Google Scholar