Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:07:07.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management Impacts on the Population Dynamics of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeff A. Werth ,
Christopher Preston ,
Grant N. Roberts  and
Ian N. Taylor
Jeff A. Werth*
Affiliation:
School of Wine and Agriculture, University of Adelaide and CRC for Australian Weed Management, PMB 1, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond, Australia 5064 and Cotton Catchment Communities CRC, Locked Bag 1001, Narrabri, Australia 2390
Christopher Preston
Affiliation:
School of Wine and Agriculture, University of Adelaide and CRC for Australian Weed Management, PMB 1, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond, Australia 5064 and Cotton Catchment Communities CRC, Locked Bag 1001, Narrabri, Australia 2390
Grant N. Roberts
Affiliation:
CSIRO Plant Industry, Locked Bag 1001, Narrabri, Australia 2390
Ian N. Taylor
Affiliation:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, P.O. Box 282, Narrabri, Australia 2390
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the population dynamics of barnyardgrass under a range of weed management treatments in glyphosate-resistant (GR) cotton in Australia. These treatments consisted of glyphosate herbicide only (Glyphosate only), glyphosate herbicide plus a combination of conventional or integrated weed management practices (Glyphosate + IWM), glyphosate herbicide plus a reduced residual herbicide program (Glyphosate + Res.), glyphosate herbicide plus a grass herbicide (Glyphosate + Grass), and a combination of conventional weed management practices (IWM only). The experiment investigated the effects of weed management on the weed seed bank, weed emergence patterns, and weed populations. After three years, all treatments resulted in commercially acceptable control of barnyardgrass. However, treatments containing soil-applied residual herbicides proved more effective over the period of the experiment. Seed bank reductions were in the order of 100-fold over the period of the experiment for treatments that received residual herbicides compared to 10- to 20-fold reductions for treatments that did not. The experiment highlighted the importance of early-season weed control, as well as the importance of an integrated approach to weed management with residual herbicides to control later-emerging weeds in GR cotton.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Integrated weed managementpopulation dynamicsthresholdsweed seed bank
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 190 - 194
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

Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. Influence of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 1997. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Charles, G. W., Constable, G. A., and Kennedy, I. R. McLean, G. D. and Evans, G., editors. Current and future weed control practices in cotton: the potential use of transgenic herbicide resistance. Herbicide-resistant Crops and Pastures in Australian Farming Systems. 1995. Canberra, ACT, Australia Bureau of Resource Sciences. 89–100. in.Google Scholar
Charles, G. W. and Taylor, I. N. Herbicide resistance and species shift in cotton using an integrated weed management (IWM) approach. Proceedings of the 3rd World Cotton Research Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. 2003. Pretoria, South Africa Agricultural Research Council—Institute for Industrial Crops. 817–828. in.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cot. Sci. 1998. 2:174–185.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. and Bruns, V. F. Emergence of barnyard grass, green foxtail, and yellow foxtail seedlings from various soil depths. Weeds 1962. 10:136–139.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton. Weed Technol. 2001. 15:544–551.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L., Wicks, G. A., and Welsby, S. M. A survey of fallow practices and weed floras in wheat stubble and grain sorghum in northern New South Wales. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1994. 34:229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., and Minton, B. W. 2004. Using soil-applied herbicides in combination with glyphosate in a glyphosate-resistant cotton herbicide program. Crop Protec. 23:1007–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isgett, T. D., Murdock, E. C., and Keeton, A. 1997. Weed control in Roundup Ready® cotton. Pages 782. in. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Madison, WI Omnipress.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cot. Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Influence of planting date on growth of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci. 37:557–561.Google Scholar
Keeton, A. and Murdock, E. C. 1997. Weed control in Roundup Ready® conservation tillage cotton. Pages 781. in. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Madison, WI: Omnipress.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., and Vidrine, P. R. 1993. Influence of residual herbicides on rate of paraquat and glyphosate in stale seedbed soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7:960–965.Google Scholar
May, O. L., Culpepper, A. S., Cerny, R. E., Coots, C. B., Corken, C. B., Cothren, J. T., Croon, K. A., Ferreira, K. L., Hart, J. L., Hayes, R. M., Huber, S. A., Martens, A. B., McCloskey, W. B., Oppenhuizen, M. E., Patterson, M. G., Reynolds, D. B., Shappley, Z. W., Subramani, J., Witten, T. K., York, A. C., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2004. Transgenic cotton with improved resistance to glyphosate herbicide. Crop Sci. 44:234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsanto 2000. Roundup Ready® cotton technical manual. Version 1. Melbourne, VIC, Australia Monsanto Australia Ltd. 58.Google Scholar
Norris, J. L., Shaw, R. S., and Snipes, C. E. 2001. Weed control from herbicide combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:552–558.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1991. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 6:220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol. 20:282–289.Google Scholar
Roberts, G. N. 1999. Herbicide tolerant cotton—preparing for change. Pages 618–622. in. Proceedings of the 12th Australian Weeds Conference. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: Tasmanian Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R., Taylor, I. N., Milne, G., Osten, V. A., Hoque, Z., and Farquharson, R. J. 2005. A survey of management and economic impact of weeds in dryland cotton cropping systems of subtropical Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 45:79–91.Google Scholar
Werth, J. A., Preston, C., Roberts, G. N., and Taylor, I. N. 2006. Weed management in glyphosate tolerant and conventional cotton fields in Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46:1177–1183.Google Scholar