Weed Science Society Of America Research Articles

Biologically Effective Dose of Diflufenican for the Control of Multiple Herbicide-Resistant Waterhemp in Soybean

Waterhemp biotypes have evolved resistance to Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Herbicide Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27 in Ontario Canada, are present in 15 counties, spanning a distance of 800 km across southern Ontario, and cause an average soybean yield loss of 42%. Five field experiments were established in growers’ fields in southwestern Ontario to determine the biologically effective doses of diflufenican (Group 12) applied preemergence (PRE) to control multiple herbicide-resistant waterhemp in soybean. The calculated diflufenican doses to elicit 50, 80, and 95% control of MHR waterhemp were 71, 164, and 304 g ai ha-1 at 2 weeks after herbicide application (WAA); 50, 115, and 214 g ai ha-1 at 4 WAA; and 69, 158, and 294 g ai ha-1 at 8 WAA, respectively. The calculated diflufenican doses that caused a 50, 80, and 95% reduction in MHR waterhemp density were 28, 70, and Non-est. g ai ha-1 and the doses that caused a 50, 80, and 95% reduction in MHR waterhemp biomass were 44, 109, and Non-est. g ai ha-1, respectively. The calculated diflufenican doses that resulted in 50, 80, and 95% of the soybean yield of the industry standard herbicide (flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone) were 3, 12, and 57 g ai ha-1, respectively. Diflufenican (180 g ai ha-1) PRE controlled MHR waterhemp 89, 92, and 85%; metribuzin (300 g ai ha-1) PRE controlled MHR waterhemp 94, 84, and 69%; and flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone (105/134 g ai ha-1) PRE controlled MHR waterhemp 100, 99, and 98% at 2, 4, and 8 WAA, respectively. Diflufenican, metribuzin, and flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone applied PRE reduced MHR waterhemp density 96, 84, and 100% and biomass 93, 67, and 99%, respectively at 8 WAA. Diflufenican, metribuzin, and flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone applied PRE caused 9, 0, and 4% visible soybean injury, respectively but the injury was transient and caused no adverse effect on seed moisture content or seed yield of soybean. This study concludes that diflufenican and metribuzin applied PRE provide comparable MHR waterhemp control; however, control was lower than flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone.

How are weeds named: A committee review of the WSSA composite list of names

Abstract Plant names carry a significant amount of information without providing a lengthy description. This is an efficient shorthand for scientists and stakeholders to communicate about a plant, but only when the name is based on a common understanding. It is standard to think of each plant having just two names, a common name and a scientific name, yet both names can be a source of confusion. There are often many common names that refer to the same plant, or a single common name that refers to multiple different species, and some plants are without a common name at all. Scientific names are based upon international standards; however, when there is not agreement in the taxonomy, two scientific names may be used to describe the same species. Weed scientists and practitioners can easily memorize multiple plant names and know that they refer to the same species, but when we consider global communication and far-reaching databases, it becomes very relevant to consider two sides of this shift: 1) A need for greater standardization (due to database management and risk of lost data from dropped cross-referencing) and 2) the loss of local heritage which provides useful meaning through various common names. In addition, weed scientists can be resistant to changing names that they learned or frequently use. The developments in online databases and reclassification of plant taxonomy by phylogenetic relationships have changed the accessibility and role of the list of standardized plant names compiled by the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). As part of an attempt to reconcile WSSA and USDA common names for weedy plants, the WSSA Standardized Plant Names Committee recently concluded an extensive review of the Composite List of Weeds common names and had small changes approved to about 10% of the list of over 2800 distinct species.

Effects of Bipolaris yamadae strain HXDC-1-2 as a bioherbicide against Echinochloa crus-galli in rice and dry fields.

Barnyardgrass (Weed Science Society of America recommended) or Barnyard grass (Britannica recommended) (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) is one of the most problematic and dominant weeds in world agricultural systems, especially in paddy fields, where tillering and grain yield can be reduced by 50-70% because of its competitive pressure. The frequent use of chemical herbicides to control E. crus-galli has led to the evolution of herbicide resistance. Developing bioherbicides using pathogenic fungi to control E. crus-galli could be an alternative option. In a previous study we showed that a strain of Bipolaris yamadae (HXDC-1-2) was promising in controlling gramineous weeds. Here we present a study that evaluated this fungus as a mycoherbicide against E. crus-galli in greenhouse and paddy fields, characterized mycelium growth and conidial production, and examined the infection development. The median effective dose (ED50) and 90% effective dose (ED90) values of microcapsulated B. yamadae strain HXDC-1-2 on E. crus-galli in the greenhouse were 7.17 × 102 and 9.35 × 103 conidia mL-1, respectively. Conidial germination, mycelial growth, and attachment formation occurred on E. crus-galli leaves within 1 to 6 h. The hyphae directly invaded cells and stomata, primarily from the appressorium on the epidermis, and necrotic lesions were observed on the leaf surface within 20 to 24 h. Applied to E. crus-galli plants at 1 × 105 conidia mL-1, the fungus reduced the weed's fresh weight of 75%. B. yamadae strain HXDC-1-2 has the potential to be developed as a bioherbicide against E. crus-galli plants, especially in rice fields. © 2024 Society of Chemical Industry.

Agricultural Research Service Weed Science Research: Past, Present, and Future

AbstractThe U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) has been a leader in weed science research covering topics ranging from the development and use of integrated weed management (IWM) tactics to basic mechanistic studies, including biotic resistance of desirable plant communities and herbicide resistance. ARS weed scientists have worked in agricultural and natural ecosystems, including agronomic and horticultural crops, pastures, forests, wild lands, aquatic habitats, wetlands, and riparian areas. Through strong partnerships with academia, state agencies, private industry, and numerous federal programs, ARS weed scientists have made contributions to discoveries in the newest fields of robotics and genetics, as well as the traditional and fundamental subjects of weed–crop competition and physiology and integration of weed control tactics and practices. Weed science at ARS is often overshadowed by other research topics; thus, few are aware of the long history of ARS weed science and its important contributions. This review is the result of a symposium held at the Weed Science Society of America’s 62nd Annual Meeting in 2022 that included 10 separate presentations in a virtual Weed Science Webinar Series. The overarching themes of management tactics (IWM, biological control, and automation), basic mechanisms (competition, invasive plant genetics, and herbicide resistance), and ecosystem impacts (invasive plant spread, climate change, conservation, and restoration) represent core ARS weed science research that is dynamic and efficacious and has been a significant component of the agency’s national and international efforts. This review highlights current studies and future directions that exemplify the science and collaborative relationships both within and outside ARS. Given the constraints of weeds and invasive plants on all aspects of food, feed, and fiber systems, there is an acknowledged need to face new challenges, including agriculture and natural resources sustainability, economic resilience and reliability, and societal health and well-being.

Discovery, mode of action, resistance mechanisms, and plan of action for sustainable use of Group 14 herbicides

AbstractProtoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides remain an important and useful chemistry 60 yr after their first introduction. In this review, based on topics introduced at the Weed Science Society of America 2021 symposium titled “A History, Overview, and Plan of Action on PPO Inhibiting Herbicides,” we discuss the current state of PPO-inhibiting herbicides. Renewed interest in the PPO-inhibiting herbicides in recent years, due to increased use and increased cases of resistance, has led to refinements in knowledge regarding the mechanism of action of PPO inhibitors. Herein we discuss the importance of the two isoforms of PPO in plants, compile a current knowledge of target-site resistance mechanisms, examine non–target site resistance cases, and review crop selectivity mechanisms. Consistent and reproducible greenhouse screening and target-site mutation assays are necessary to effectively study and compare PPO-inhibitor resistance cases. To this end, we cover best practices in screening to accurately identify resistance ratios and properly interpret common screens for point mutations. The future of effective and sustainable PPO-inhibitor use relies on development of new chemistries that maintain activity on resistant biotypes and the promotion of responsible stewardship of PPO inhibitors both new and old. We present the biorational design of the new PPO inhibitor trifludimoxazin to highlight the future of PPO-inhibitor development and discuss the elements of sustainable weed control programs using PPO inhibitors, as well as how responsible stewardship can be incentivized. The sustained use of PPO inhibitors in future agriculture relies on the effective and timely communication from mode of action and resistance research to agronomists, Extension workers, and farmers.

Can relative sensitivity of cover crop species to chloroacetamide and pyrazole herbicides be exploited to design interseeding mixtures?

AbstractDrill-interseeding cover crops into standing corn (V3 to V5 growth stage) provides opportunities for increasing functional diversity in cropping systems by facilitating use of cover crop mixtures that include grass, legume, and brassica species. Designing herbicide-based weed control programs that negotiate tradeoffs between crop protection and environmental goals when interseeding mixtures remains a major challenge. The objective of this study was to use greenhouse-based dose-response assays to describe the relative sensitivity of 12 cover crop species that differ in traits, including taxonomic group and seed mass, to chloroacetamide (acetochlor, dimethenamid, S-metolachlor; Group 15 herbicides as categorized by the Weed Science Society of America) and pyrazole (pyroxasulfone; Group 15) herbicides. Nonlinear models were fit, and effective doses were estimated (ED50) to compare relative sensitivities of cover crop species to each herbicide. Brassica species (winter canola, Dwarf Essex rape, daikon radish) were less sensitive than small-seeded legumes (medium red clover, crimson clover) and grasses (annual ryegrass) in response to each chloroacetamide, but similar in response to pyroxasulfone. Austrian winter pea, a large-seeded legume, was less sensitive to each herbicide compared to other legumes (crimson clover, medium red clover, hairy vetch). Cereal rye and triticale were less sensitive to dimethenamid, S-metolachlor, and pyroxasulfone compared to annual ryegrass, but similar sensitivities were observed for acetochlor. These results suggest that relative differences in sensitivity to chloroacetamide and pyrazole herbicides could be exploited when designing cover crop mixtures for interseeding. It is imperative, however, to use these findings in conjunction with field-based observations of cover crop injury potential in interseeded systems.

Multiple-herbicide-resistant waterhemp control in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant soybean with one- and two-pass weed control programs

AbstractWaterhemp control in Ontario has increased in complexity due to the evolution of biotypes that are resistant to five herbicide modes of action (Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27 as categorized by the Weed Science Society of America). Four field trials were carried out over a 2-yr period in 2021 and 2022 to assess the control of multiple-herbicide-resistant (MHR) waterhemp biotypes in glyphosate/glufosinate/2,4-D-resistant (GG2R) soybean using one- and two-pass herbicide programs. S-metolachlor/metribuzin, pyroxasulfone/sulfentrazone, pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin, and pyroxasulfone + metribuzin applied preemergence (PRE) controlled MHR waterhemp similarly by 46%, 63%, 60%, and 69%, respectively, at 8 wk after postemergence (POST) application (WAA-B). A one-pass application of 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST provided greater control of MHR waterhemp than glufosinate. Two-pass herbicide programs of a PRE herbicide followed by (fb) a POST-applied herbicide resulted in greater MHR waterhemp control compared to a single PRE or POST herbicide application. PRE herbicides fb glufosinate or 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST controlled MHR waterhemp by 74% to 91% and by 84% to 96%, respectively, at 8 WAA-B. Two-pass herbicide applications of an effective PRE residual herbicide fb 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA POST in GG2R soybean can effectively manage waterhemp that is resistant to herbicides in Groups 2, 5, 9, 14, and 27.

Fall-applied residual herbicides improve broadleaf weed management in ultra-early wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production systems on the northern Great Plains

Ultra-early spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) planting systems based on soil temperature on the northern Great Plains have lower overall variability in grain yield, and can increase grain yield relative to current calendar date-based spring wheat planting systems used in the region. However, ultra-early planting when soils are cold (2 °C), and resulting early crop emergence, precludes most foliar pre-seeding weed control options. Field trials were conducted at three sites in western Canada from 2017 to 2019 to evaluate the crop safety, broadleaf weed efficacy, and growing system stability resulting from the inclusion of fall applications of soil-applied residual herbicides prior to planting wheat ultra-early the following spring. Flumioxazin (protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor; Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) group 14) and pyroxasulfone (very long chain fatty acid synthesis inhibitor; WSSA group 15) were applied alone and in combination at multiple rates in the late fall prior to ground freeze. The following spring, hexaploid spring wheat was planted ultra-early, based on a soil temperature trigger of 2 °C, and later, triggered by a soil temperature of 8 °C. When planting was completed ultra-early, grain yield was greater, and variability of grain yield was lower. Herbicide treatments increased broadleaf weed control, and in some environments further increased grain yield and reduced grain yield variability without resulting in phytotoxicity. The ability to safely incorporate fall-applied residual herbicides into ultra-early spring wheat planting systems provides an option for growers to adopt ultra-early planting without negatively impacting weed management on their farms.

Potential wheat yield loss due to weeds in the United States and Canada

AbstractYield losses due to weeds are a major threat to wheat production and economic well-being of farmers in the United States and Canada. The objective of this Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee report is to provide estimates of wheat yield and economic losses due to weeds. Weed scientists provided both weedy (best management practices but no weed control practices) and weed-free (best management practices providing >90% weed control) average yield from replicated research trials in both winter and spring wheat from 2007 to 2017. Winter wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 2.9% to 34.4%, with a weighted average (by production) of 25.6% for the United States, 2.9% for Canada, and 23.4% combined. Based on these yield loss estimates and total production, the potential winter wheat loss due to weeds is 10.5, 0.09, and 10.5 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$2.19, US$0.19, and US$2.19 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Spring wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 7.9% to 47.0%, with a weighted average (by production) of 33.2% for the United States, 8.0% for Canada, and 19.5% combined. Based on this yield loss estimate and total production, the potential spring wheat loss is 4.8, 1.6, and 6.6 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$1.14, US$0.37, and US$1.39 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Yield loss in this analysis is greater than some previous estimates, likely indicating an increasing threat from weeds. Climate is affecting yield loss in winter wheat in the Pacific Northwest, with percent yield loss being highest in wheat-fallow systems that receive less than 30 cm of annual precipitation. Continued investment in weed science research for wheat is critical for continued yield protection.

Herbicide resistance in the nursery crop production and landscape maintenance industries

AbstractWeed management is an important issue for nursery crop and Christmas tree producers, as well as for those maintaining turfgrass or ornamental species in landscape plantings. PRE and POST herbicides are important weed management tools for these industries. Reports of herbicide-resistant weeds increased from fewer than 100 cases in 1985 to nearly 500 cases globally in 2019, including ones found in turfgrass or ornamental systems. The evolution, persistence, and management of herbicide-resistant weeds are an ongoing educational process. We must keep our stakeholders aware of improved weed control technology and provide them information on resistant weeds. A symposium at the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting was conducted with presentations and discussions by invited speakers in relation to current research and potential management strategies for resistant weeds in turfgrass, landscape ornamental, and nursery crops. To prepare for the symposium, a survey was prepared for nursery producers and landscapers on the issues of herbicide-resistant weeds and offsite movement of herbicides used to control herbicide-resistant weeds. Overall, most respondents felt herbicide-resistant weeds are a serious problem and most had personally observed herbicide resistance on properties they maintain. Resistance to glyphosate was the herbicide cited by most respondents, followed by resistance to triazine herbicides. Most felt their weed-control costs had increased because of resistant weeds. Approximately 20% of respondents had their operation affected by drift of herbicides from nearby farm fields, with most reporting no damage from spray or vapor drift, but a few reported greater than 50% of the crop damaged.

Herbicide resistance in turfgrass: a chance to change the future?

AbstractHerbicide resistance has for decades been an increasing problem of agronomic crops such as corn and soybean. Several weed species have evolved herbicide resistance in turfgrass systems such as golf courses, sports fields, and sod production—particularly biotypes of annual bluegrass and goosegrass. Consequences of herbicide resistance in agronomic cropping systems indicate what could happen in turfgrass if herbicide resistance becomes broader in terms of species, distribution, and mechanisms of action. The turfgrass industry must take action to develop effective resistance management programs while this problem is still relatively small in scope. We propose that lessons learned from a series of national listening sessions conducted by the Herbicide Resistance Education Committee of the Weed Science Society of America to better understand the human dimensions affecting herbicide resistance in crop production provide tremendous insight into what themes to address when developing effective resistance management programs for the turfgrass industry.

Current situation regarding herbicide regulation and public perception in South America

AbstractSouth American countries are important agricultural players worldwide. Pesticides are key components of their production systems and, in some cases, complement environmentally sound systems, such as no-till, which contributes to preserving soil productivity. In this review, presented in the symposium Global Perspective on Herbicides Being Banned during the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting, we describe the regulatory framework and current situation of restricted and banned herbicides in South America. We also discuss where the pressure for herbicide bans is coming from and the opportunities for improving herbicide use and public perception. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were chosen as representative countries of the region. They all have regulatory systems in place for pesticide registration and reevaluation based on science. Glyphosate, paraquat, and some 2,4-D formulations are in the spotlight. Glyphosate is being reevaluated in Brazil and, although banned within the city limits in some cities in Argentina and Uruguay, it can still be used in agriculture. Paraquat is prohibited for aerial applications in Colombia and is the only herbicide that needs a professional prescription in Uruguay. It was reevaluated in Brazil, resulting in a use-restriction phase in effect until 2020, when it will be permanently banned. Ester formulations of 2,4-D have been banned in Brazil since the early 2000s and have restrictions in some provinces in Argentina, where 2,4-D butyl and isobutyl esters will be prohibited starting April 2021. In Uruguay, atrazine is the only herbicide banned for agricultural use. The regulatory frameworks ensure that herbicides on the market are effective and safe. Reevaluation is an important part of the system and is conducted when there are reasonable concerns. There are opportunities to continue training pesticide handlers and applicators and to communicate the importance of adopting the best management practices where herbicides are part of the production system.

Andropogon virginicus L.

<i>Andropogon virginicus</i> L.

Gymnocoronis spilanthoides

Gymnocoronis spilanthoides

Perspectives on Potential Soybean Yield Losses from Weeds in North America

Weeds are one of the most significant, and controllable, threats to crop production in North America. Monetary losses because of reduced soybean yield and decreased quality because of weed interference, as well as costs of controlling weeds, have a significant economic impact on net returns to producers. Previous Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee reports, as chaired by Chandler (1984) and Bridges (1992), provided snapshots of the comparative crop yield losses because of weeds across geographic regions and crops within these regions after the implementation of weed control tactics. This manuscript is a second report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on crop yield losses because of weeds, specifically in soybean. Yield loss estimates were determined from comparative observations of soybean yields between the weedy control and plots with greater than 95% weed control in studies conducted from 2007 to 2013. Researchers from each US state and Canadian province provided at least three and up to ten individual comparisons for each year, which were then averaged within a year, and then averaged over the seven years. These percent yield loss values were used to determine total soybean yield loss in t ha−1and bu acre−1based on average soybean yields for each state or province as well as current commodity prices for a given year as summarized by USDA-NASS (2014) and Statistics Canada (2015). Averaged across 2007 to 2013, weed interference in soybean caused a 52.1% yield loss. Based on 2012 census data in the US and Canada soybean was grown on 30,798,512 and 1,679,203 hectares with production of 80 million and 5 million tonnes, respectively. Using an average soybean price across 2007 to 2013 of US $389.81 t−1($10.61 bu−1), farm gate value would be reduced by US $16.2 billion in the US and $1.0 billion in Canada annually if no weed management tactics were employed.

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

The U.S. Witchweed Eradication Effort Turns 50: A Retrospective and Look-Ahead on Parasitic Weed Management

The U.S. Witchweed Eradication Effort Turns 50: A Retrospective and Look-Ahead on Parasitic Weed Management

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America

Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America