Giant ragweed is a very competitive weed in row crop production and has been found to drastically reduce soybean yield. In 2008, giant ragweed was the first weed species with confirmed resistance to glyphosate in Canada. As of 2010 there were 48 locations with confirmed glyphosate resistant giant ragweed in Essex, Kent and Lambton counties. In addition, there was suspected resistance to cloransulam-methyl. The objectives of this research were 1) to conduct an expanded field survey on the distribution of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed in Ontario, 2) to determine the distribution of cloransulam-methyl resistant giant ragweed in Ontario, and 3) to determine the distribution of multiple resistant (glyphosate and cloransulam-methyl) giant ragweed in Ontario. In 2011 and 2012 giant ragweed seed was collected from 85 field sites in Essex (16), Kent (34), Lambton (23), Elgin (3), Middlesex (6), Lennox & Addington (1), Huron (1) and Brant (1) counties. In total there are 34 additional locations confirmed with glyphosate resistant giant ragweed in Ontario. There are 11 locations confirmed with cloransulam-methyl resistant giant ragweed and 5 locations with multiple resistance to both glyphosate and cloransulam-methyl. Glyphosate resistant giant ragweed has been found in 4 additional counties.
Giant ragweed was the first glyphosate resistant weed identified in Canada. It is a very competetive weed in row crop production and has been found to drastically reduce yields of soybean; therefore, control of this competitive weed is essential. The objective of this study was to determine effective control options for glyphosate resistant giant ragweed in soybean with herbicides applied preplant. Eighteen herbicide combinations were evaluated in field studies conducted in 2011 and 2012 at five locations with confirmed glyphosate resistant giant ragweed. Glyphosate plus 2,4-D ester or amitrole provided the best control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed 4 WAA. Glyphosate plus 2,4-D ester provided 98 to 99% control and was equivalent to the weed free check at all locations. Glyphosate plus amitrole provided 90% to 93% control and was equivalent to the weed free check at 4 of 5 locations. Herbicides providing residual activity provided variable control across all locations. Of the herbicides with residual activity evaluated, glyphosate plus linuron provided the best control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed; however, control was inconsistent across locations and years. Glyphosate plus linuron provided 23% to 99% control and was equal to the weed free check at one location 8 WAA.
Glyphosate resistant giant ragweed is an increasing problem in glyphosate resistant cropping systems in southwestern Ontario. The postemergence herbicides registered for use in soybean in Ontario do not provide consistent control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed. There is limited research on the lowest effective rate of 2,4-D for the control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed. Consequently, the objectives of this study were a) to determine the efficacy of herbicides applied postemergence for the control of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed in glyphosate resistant soybean, and b) to determine the lowest effective rate of 2,4-D for the control of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed. Ten postemergence herbicide combinations and seven rates of 2,4-D were evaluated in field studies conducted in 2011 and 2012 at six locations confirmed with glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed. The post emergence herbicides evaluated did not provide acceptable/consistent control. Of the herbicides evaluated, glyphosate plus cloransulam-methyl provided 26% to 70% control 8 WAA of glyphosate resistant giant ragweed, which was the best of the herbicides combinations evaluated. The doses of 2,4-D required to reduce giant ragweed shoot dry weight by 50, 80 and 95% were 142, 310 and 1048 g a.e. ha -1 , respectively
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.