Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:05:11.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of a Glyphosate-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus L.) System with Traditional Herbicide Regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John T. O'Donovan ,
K. Neil Harker ,
George W. Clayton  and
Robert E. Blackshaw
John T. O'Donovan*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Beaverlodge Research Farm, Box 29, Beaverlodge, AB, Canada T0H 0C0
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author: John T. O'Donovan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide-resistant cultivars account for over 90% of the canola grown in western Canada and cultivars resistant to glyphosate dominate the market. Field experiments were conducted at three locations in Alberta to compare the glyphosate system with more traditional herbicide regimes. Glyphosate applied before seeding in spring resulted in better weed control, lower dockage, and higher canola yield and net return than 2,4-D applied in the fall. Glyphosate applied once (two- to four-leaf canola) or twice (two- to four-leaf followed by five- to six-leaf canola) in-crop provided similar weed control, dockage, and canola yield as ethalfluralin applied PRE in the fall followed by an in-crop mixture of sethoxydim, ethametsulfuron, and clopyralid; and superior weed control and canola yield and lower dockage than ethalfluralin alone or an in-crop mixture of sethoxydim and ethametsulfuron. The in-crop glyphosate applications resulted in higher net revenues than the other treatments. There was little or no advantage to applying glyphosate twice compared with once in-crop. The amount of active ingredient entering the environment varied with the herbicide regime but was lower with the glyphosate system than with most of the traditional regimes, especially when glyphosate was applied only once in-crop.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-Dethalfluralinethametsulfuronglyphosatesethoxydimcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘LG 3235’ and ‘DKL 3235’Conventional canoladockageeconomicsenvironmental impactGMOherbicide-resistant canolaweed biomass
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 494 - 501
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

Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., Légère, A., Kelner, D. J., Van Acker, R. C., and Meers, S. 1999. Nature, occurrence and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small grain production areas. Weed Technol. 13:612–625.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Hall, L. M., and Tardif, F. J. 2001. Herbicide resistance in Canada—Where are we today?. in Blackshaw, R. E. and Hall, L. M., eds. Integrated Weed Management: Explore the Potential. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC: Expert Committee on Weeds. Pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. Control of Cruciferae weeds in canola (Brassica napus) with DPX A7881. Weed Sci. 37:706–711.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1992. Combined postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol. 6:892–897.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 2001. An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola. Report prepared by Serecon Mgmt. Consulting Inc. and Koch Paul Association: Web page: http://www.canola-council.org/report_gmo.html. Accessed: June 20, 2005.Google Scholar
Chow, P. N. P., O'Sullivan, P. A., Hunter, J. H., and Kirkland, K. J. 1983. Control of barley and wheat in canola with BASF 9052. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63:1099–1102.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-tolerant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol. 16:124–130.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Harker, K. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1999. Herbicide tolerant crops and weed population dynamics in western Canada. in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection conference—Weeds. Omega Park, Alton, U.K.: British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 417–424.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Witt, W. M. 2002. Comparison of glyphosate with other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): efficacy and economics. Weed Technol. 16:701–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, H. A. and Bowren, K. E. 1973. Factors affecting the control of wild oats in rapeseed with trifluralin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:199–205.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1993. Herbicide comparisons on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) within different crop competition and tillage conditions. Weed Sci. 41:94–99.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., Kirkland, K. J., Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. 2000. Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada. Can J. Plant Sci. 80:647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Kirkland, K. J. 1995. Ethametsulfuron interactions with grass herbicides on canola (Brassica napus, B. rapa). Weed Technol. 9:91–98.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., and Stevenson, F. C. 2004. Herbicide timing and rate effects on weed management in three herbicide-resistant canola systems. Weed Technol. 18:1006–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 2004. Comparison of weed control strategies in glyphosate-resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in Atlantic Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:1199–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. N., Kirkland, K. J., and Stevenson, F. C. 2002. Timing of pre-seeding glyphosate application in direct-seeding systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 82:611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1989. Weed control in winter wheat. ERDA Winter Wheat Project. Final Report, 1985–1988. Pp. 898–985. Available from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 10, Scott, SK, Canada S0K 4A0.Google Scholar
Kniss, A. R., Wilson, R. G., Alex, M. R., Burgener, P. A., and Dillon, M. F. 2004. Economic evaluation of glyphosate-resistant and conventional sugar beet. Weed Technol. 18:388–396.Google Scholar
Lee, L. J. and Ngim, J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn] in Malaysia. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:336–339.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Alberta weed survey of cereal, oilseed and pulse crops in 2001. Weed Survey Series 02–1, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 263 p.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary NC: SAS Institute. 656 p.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. in Powles, S. and Holtum, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers–CRC Press. Pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A. and Kossatz, V. C. 1984. Selective control of Canada thistle in rapeseed with 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:989–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. K. D. and Hulting, A. G. 2004. A comparative ecological risk assessment for herbicides used on spring wheat: the effect of glyphosate when used within a glyphosate-tolerant wheat system. Weed Sci. 52:834–844.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid rye-grass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46:604–607.Google Scholar
Prately, J., Urwin, N., Stanton, R., Baines, P., Broster, J., Cullis, K., Schafer, D., Bohn, J., and Kruger, R. 1999. Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum . Weed Sci. 47:405–411.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Arnold, J. C., Snipes, C. E., Laughlin, D. H., and Mills, J. A. 2001. Comparison of glyphosate-resistant and nontransgenic soybean (Glycine max) herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 15:676–685.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Chandler, K. 1989. Control of wild mustard in canola with POST herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:889–896.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shreshta, A., Chandler, K., and Deen, W. 2000. An economic assessment of weed control strategies in no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:755–763.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate resistant horseweed in Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:586–593.Google Scholar