Tiafenacil is a new nonselective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPO)–inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat. Early-season corn emergence and growth often coincides in the mid-South with preplant herbicide application in cotton and soybean, thereby increasing opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted in 2022 to identify the impacts of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha–1) applied to two- or four-leaf corn. Corn injury 1 wk after treatment (WAT) for the two- and four-leaf growth stages ranged from 31% to 6% and 37% to 9%, respectively, whereas at 2 WAT these respective ranges were 21.7% to 4% and 22.5% to 7.2%. By 4 WAT, visible injury following the two- and four-leaf exposure timing was no greater than 8% in all instances except the highest tiafenacil rate applied at the four-leaf growth stage (13%). Tiafenacil had no negative season-long impact, as the early-season injury observed was not manifested in a reduction in corn height 2 WAT or yield. Application of tiafenacil directly adjacent to corn in early vegetative stages of growth should be avoided. In cases where off-target movement does occur, however, affected corn should be expected to fully recover with no impact on growth and yield, assuming adequate growing conditions and agronomic/pest management practices are provided.

Tiafenacil is a new nonselective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase–inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat. Early season rice emergence and growth often coincide in the mid-southern United States with applications of preplant herbicides to cotton and soybean, thereby increasing the opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted to identify any deleterious effects of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha−1) applied to 1- or 3-leaf rice. Visual injury 1 wk after treatment (WAT) for the 1- and 3-leaf growth stages ranged from 50% to 7% and 20% to 2%, respectively, whereas at 2 WAT these respective ranges were 13% to 2%, and no injury was observed. Tiafenacil applied at those rates had no negative season-long effect because observed early season injury was not manifested as a reduction in rice height 2 WAT or rough rice yield. Application of tiafenacil to crops directly adjacent to rice in its early vegetative stages of growth should be avoided because visual injury will occur. When off-target movement does occur, however, the affected rice should be expected to fully recover with no effect on growth or yield, assuming adequate growing conditions and agronomic/pest management are provided.

Commercialization of 2,4-D–tolerant crops is a major concern for sweetpotato producers because of potential 2,4-D drift that can cause severe crop injury and yield reduction. A field study was initiated in 2014 and repeated in 2015 to assess impacts of reduced rates of 2,4-D, glyphosate, or a combination of 2,4-D with glyphosate on sweetpotato. In one study, 2,4-D and glyphosate were applied alone and in combination at 1/10, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/750, and 1/1,000 of anticipated field use rates (1.05 kg ha−1 for 2,4-D and 1.12 kg ha−1 for glyphosate) to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root formation (10 days after transplanting [DAP]). In a separate study, all these treatments were applied to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root development (30 DAP). Injury with 2,4-D alone or in combination with glyphosate was generally equal or greater than with glyphosate applied alone at equivalent herbicide rates, indicating that injury is attributable mostly to 2,4-D in the combination. There was a quadratic increase in crop injury and quadratic decrease in crop yield (with respect to most yield grades) with increased rate of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate applied at storage root development. However, neither the results of this relationship nor of the significance of herbicide rate were observed on crop injury or sweetpotato yield when herbicide application occurred at storage root formation, with a few exceptions. In general, crop injury and yield reduction were greatest at the highest rate (1/10×) of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, although injury observed at lower rates was also a concern after initial observation by sweetpotato producers. However, in some cases, yield reduction of U.S. no.1 and marketable grades was also observed after application of 1/250×, 1/100×, or 1/10× rates of 2,4-D alone or with glyphosate when applied at storage root development.

A major concern of sweetpotato producers is the potential negative effects from herbicide drift or sprayer contamination events when dicamba is applied to nearby dicamba-resistant crops. A field study was initiated in 2014 and repeated in 2015 to assess the effects of reduced rates of N,N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl)methylamine (BAPMA) or diglycloamine (DGA) salt of dicamba, glyphosate, or a combination of these individually in separate trials with glyphosate on sweetpotato. Reduced rates of 1/10, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/750, and 1/1,000 of the 1× use rate of each dicamba formulation at 0.56 kg ha−1, glyphosate at 1.12 kg ha−1, and a combination of the two at aforementioned rates were applied to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root formation (10 d after transplanting) in one trial and storage root development (30 d after transplanting) in a separate trial. Injury with each salt of dicamba (BAPMA or DGA) applied alone or with glyphosate was generally equal to or greater than glyphosate applied alone at equivalent rates, indicating that injury is most attributable to the dicamba in the combination. There was a quadratic increase in crop injury and a quadratic decrease in crop yield (with respect to most yield grades) observed with an increased herbicide rate of dicamba applied alone or in combination with glyphosate applied at storage root development. However, with a few exceptions, neither this relationship nor the significance of herbicide rate was observed on crop injury or sweetpotato yield when herbicide application occurred at the storage root formation stage. In general, crop injury and yield reduction were greatest at the highest rate (1/10×) of either salt of dicamba applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, although injury observed at lower rates would be cause for concern after initial observation by sweetpotato producers. However, in some cases yield reduction of No.1 and marketable grades was observed following 1/250×, 1/100×, or 1/10× application rates of dicamba alone or with glyphosate when applied at storage root development.

Field experiments were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to evaluate the effect of herbicide incorporation to various depths on common cocklebur control with imazaquin, a tank mix of imazaquin and metribuzin, and a preformulated mixture of chlorimuron and metribuzin in soybeans. Herbicide rates included were two-thirds and the full registered rate. All treatments, except chlorimuron plus metribuzin (50 plus 320 g ai/ha, respectively), controlled more common cocklebur when incorporated to depths of 2.5 to 7.6 cm than when left unincorporated. Also, imazaquin at 90 g ai/ha and the tank mix of imazaquin plus metribuzin at 90 plus 280 g ai/ha, when incorporated, controlled more common cocklebur than higher rates of the same combination when not incorporated. Common cocklebur control was similar with 2.5-, 5.0-, and 7.6-cm soil incorporation depths.

Eastern black nightshade is a problem weed in soybeans primarily due to interference with harvesting operations and reductions in crop quality. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 at Harrow, Ontario, to determine whether sublethal rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor could suppress growth and berry production by eastern black nightshade. In the greenhouse, plants treated with metolachlor PRE at 0.8 kg ai ha−1 or imazethapyr POST at 30 g ai ha−1 (1/3 to 1/2 the labelled rates) produced significantly fewer berries in the first flower cluster, with fewer seeds per berry, than untreated plants. When a surfactant was added to the imazethapyr, almost all flower buds in the first cluster were aborted. Treated plants recovered from the damage, however, and did not differ significantly from control plants in dry weight or berry production 110 DAP. In the field, application of 50 g ai ha−1 imazethapyr POST (2/3 of the lowest labelled rate), with or without a surfactant, resulted in delayed flowering, abortion of most of the flower buds in the first cluster, and greatly reduced growth and total berry production between soybean leaf abscision and harvest. Application of metolachlor + metribuzin PPI in the field at 2/3 of the labelled rate (1.6 + 0.25 kg ai ha−1) was not sufficient to reduce nightshade growth and berry production after soybean leaf abscision. Sublethal rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor did not reduce seed viability in either the greenhouse or the field.

A 3-yr study was conducted on nine farms across southern Ontario to evaluate the risks and benefits of different approaches to weed management in corn and soybean. Weed control decisions were based on field scouting and recommendations from the Ontario version of HADSS™, the herbicide application decision support system. Treatments were selected to maximize profit (economic threshold approach) or to maximize yield (highest treatment efficacy). Reduced rates of the high efficacy treatment for each field also were included. Weed density before and after treatment, crop yields, weed seed return, and the effect of weed control decisions on weed density 1 yr after treatment were assessed. Crop yield varied among years and farms but was not affected by weed control treatment. Weed control at 28 d after treatment (DAT) was often lower and weed density, biomass, and seed production 70 DAT were often higher with the profit maximization approach compared with the yield maximization approach. However, weed density 1 yr later, after each cooperator had applied a general weed control program, did not vary significantly among the previous year's weed control treatments. Reduced rates of the high efficacy treatments did not lead to increased weed problems the next year, despite lower weed control and increased weed seed production in some years. During the 3 yr of the study, weed control costs with the profit maximization approach were approximately Can$45/ha less than with the yield maximization approach.

Field trials were conducted in East Lansing, MI in 2004 and 2005 and in St. Charles, MI in 2004, 2005, and 2006 to compare weed control and sugarbeet tolerance from microrate herbicide treatments that included s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Treatments included the base microrate treatment alone and with full- and split-application rates of s-metolachlor at 1.4 kg/ha or dimethenamid-P at 0.84 kg/ha at the various microrate application timings. All treatments injured sugarbeet. In 2004 and 2006, full rates of both s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P applied PRE or in the first microrate application injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment. When s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P were split-applied between PRE and the third microrate application or between the first and the third microrate applications, injury was still greater than from the base microrate treatment. Furthermore, applying dimethenamid-P at one-fourth the full rate in all four microrate applications injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment. A full rate of s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P applied in either the third or fourth microrate applications or splitting the applications between the second and fourth microrate treatments did not increase sugarbeet injury compared with the base microrate treatment. Control of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail from all treatments containing s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P, regardless of the time of application, was greater than from the base microrate treatment at all locations. Pigweed spp. control was 94% or greater from all treatments. In 2004, late-season control of giant foxtail was greater from all treatments that included s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P compared with the base microrate treatment. In 2005, the only treatments that did not improve late-season giant foxtail control compared with the base microrate treatment were the treatments that included a full rate of s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P applied in the fourth microrate application. Even though some herbicide treatments that included s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment, recoverable sucrose per hectare was similar among treatments.

Reduced-rate zone herbicide application (ZHA) consists of banding reduced herbicide rates between crop rows (≤ full broadcast registered rate, 1×) and banding much reduced herbicide rates over crop rows (≪ 1×). The objective of this research was to compare the mechanically complicated dual-boom ZHA sprayer with a much simpler, single-boom ZHA sprayer for controlling giant foxtail and common waterhemp in field corn in 2003 and 2004 in Missouri. The dual-boom ZHA sprayer employed two different herbicide solutions, which were propelled through two booms on separate sprayer systems to apply different herbicide rates over in-row and between-row areas while maintaining similar carrier volumes and coverage through two booms. In contrast, the single-boom ZHA sprayer is a mechanically simpler system in which both herbicide rates and carrier volumes were varied across one boom over in-row (IR) and between-row (BR) areas. In single-boom ZHA, two different nozzle tips were alternated on one boom over in-row and between-row areas, the number of nozzles per boom was doubled, and the distance between nozzles was halved compared with a conventional sprayer boom. In a 2-yr study, these different ZHA sprayers were used to apply preemergence atrazine + S-metolachlor between and over crop rows at various reduced rates (1× = 2,240 + 1,750 g ai/ha, respectively). Among all single- and dual-boom ZHA sprayer treatments and the weed-free checks, corn yields and in-row total weed cover were statistically indistinguishable for both years and for between-row total weed cover in 1 of 2 yr. In both years, a single-boom ZHA system prevented yield loss from competing weeds as effectively as the dual-boom ZHA system. The new single-boom ZHA system is a mechanically simple, inexpensive, generic alternative for reducing herbicide rates and lowering input costs.

The objectives of this study were to model the influence of herbicides, wilt disease, and mechanical treatments on velvetleaf population dynamics, annualized net return (ANR), and economic optimum threshold (EOT) in a 20-yr rotation involving alternate years of corn and soybean. Mechanical treatments were interrow cultivation in corn and rotary hoeing in soybean. Herbicides at a quarter (¼×) rate or lower did not reduce velvetleaf seed banks without mechanical treatments in the absence of wilt. Herbicides at full (1×) and half (½×) rates decreased velvetleaf seed banks 95% within 6 and 20 yr, respectively, when there was no wilt. Herbicides at ½× rates with mechanical treatments reduced the seed bank 95% in only 10 yr, but mechanical treatments did not increase the rate of seed bank decline with 1× rates. Wilt infection had to occur annually to reduce velvetleaf seed banks as effectively as herbicides at 1× rates alone. ANR was maximized with herbicides at reduced rates, even though they were not as effective at reducing seed banks as were 1× rates. The herbicide rate required to maximize ANR increased as the initial velvetleaf seed bank density increased. Mechanical treatments and wilt decreased the herbicide rate required to maximize ANR. In fact, wilt infection increased the ANR of herbicides at reduced rates. The EOT was 0.55 and 0.4 seedlings m−2 when velvetleaf was managed with herbicides at 1× and ½× rates, respectively. Mechanical treatment had no effect on EOT, but wilt increased the EOT. Herbicides at reduced rates should only be used to manage velvetleaf in fields with a low seed bank density when integrated with mechanical treatments or when the field has a history of wilt. Herbicides should be used at 1× rates when fields have a large velvetleaf seed bank and when integrated management practices are not used.

Weed management systems used by sweet corn growers, including the role of atrazine, are poorly characterized. Management records of 175 fields throughout the major sweet corn production areas of the Midwest were surveyed from 2005 to 2007. Seventy-four percent of sweet corn fields in the Midwest were grown in rotation with soybean or corn. Interrow cultivation was used on 48% of fields, and atrazine use was higher in those fields without interrow cultivation. A majority of fields (54%) received both PRE and POST herbicide applications. Mesotrione was applied below the registered use rate in two-thirds of the fields in which it was used POST. Atrazine rates in sweet corn were highest when the preceding crops were other vegetables, compared to preceding crops of soybean or corn. Selective herbicides are used extensively in U.S. sweet corn production, accounting for 94% of total weed management expenditures which average $123/ha. Growers treated 66% of fields with one or more applications of atrazine at an average total use rate of 1.35 kg ai/ha. The estimated annual net cost to replace atrazine in U.S. sweet corn production with the broad spectrum broadleaf herbicide, mesotrione, is $9.2 million.

Injury to weeds from sublethal doses of POST herbicides may reduce the effect of weed interference on crop yield. Information on how herbicide dose influences weed mortality, growth, and seed production is needed to assess the potential benefit of applying reduced herbicide doses. Field experiments were conducted at Mead, NE, in 2001 and 2002 to quantify velvetleaf mortality, growth, and corn–velvetleaf interference in response to varying doses of three POST herbicides. Untreated velvetleaf at six densities (0, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 20 plants m−1 corn row) was grown in mixture with corn to establish a baseline corn–velvetleaf interference relationship. Treated velvetleaf at a density of 20 plants m−1 row received one of five doses of dicamba, halosulfuron, or flumiclorac. Untreated velvetleaf height, biomass, and seed capsule production were greater in 2002 than 2001 and declined with increasing velvetleaf density in both years. Corn yield was not affected by untreated velvetleaf in 2001, but yield loss increased with increasing velvetleaf density in 2002. Mortality of herbicide-treated velvetleaf was 56% greater in 2001 than 2002 and increased with increasing herbicide dose. Maximum height of treated velvetleaf was similar for all treatments in 2001 but declined with increasing herbicide dose in 2002. Biomass and seed production of treated velvetleaf varied among herbicides in 2002 and decreased with increasing dose. Corn yield was not influenced by velvetleaf in 2001, but yield loss in response to herbicide-treated velvetleaf declined with increasing herbicide dose in 2002. Results show that the assumption that weeds surviving herbicide application are as competitive as untreated weeds is incorrect. Reduction in growth and resource consumption by herbicide-damaged weeds reduced the negative effects of weeds on corn.