Weed escapes and delayed weed emergence in glyphosate-resistant soybean

Scursoni, Julio A.; Forcella, Frank; Gunsolus, Jeffrey L.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.04.028

Cited by 36 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Culpepper et al reported that 52% of Palmer amaranth populations collected in Georgia in 2005 and 2006 were resistant to glyphosate, whereas 17% of the populations collected in North Carolina had resistance to glyphosate . Palmer amaranth escapes following glyphosate applications could be associated with the species biology, especially the extended germination period which poses a challenge for glyphosate application timing . It has been reported that glyphosate control is reduced when plants are sprayed at later growth stages .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution of glyphosate‐resistant Amaranthus spp. in Nebraska

Vieira

Samuelson

Alves

et al. 2018

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensive glyphosate selection pressure exerted in soybean (Glycine max) fields in eastern Nebraska is one of the major factors causing widespread occurrence of glyphosate resistance in common waterhemp in the state. The relatively low frequency of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the state highlights the importance of the application timing and the adoption of multiple modes of action in weed management practices to delay the evolution of glyphosate resistance. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution of glyphosate‐resistant Amaranthus spp. in Nebraska

Vieira

Samuelson

Alves

et al. 2018

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As razões ecológicas para justificar os "escapes" de plantas daninhas a aplicações de glyphosate são diversas, como a proteção das plantas daninhas pelo dossel da cultura (efeito guarda-chuva), impedindo que o herbicida atinja o alvo; tolerância diferencial em função do estádio de desenvolvimento da planta daninha; condições ambientais; tecnologia de aplicação; tolerância individual; danos ocasionados por insetos, que dificultam a translocação do herbicida, etc (SCURSONI et al, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Foram desenvolvidos experimentos, em condições de campo, nos anos agrícolas 2005 e 2006/2007. Foram avaliadas duas cultivares de soja resistentes ao glyphosate (CD 214 RR e M-SOY 8008 RR), oito tratamentos de herbicidas (glyphosate, em aplicação única, nas doses de 0,48; 0,72; 0,96 e 1,20 kg ha -1 de equivalente ácido, associadas ou não a aplicação sequencial na dose de 0,48 kg ha -1 ), além de duas testemunhas, uma capinada e outra mantida infestada.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Controle de plantas daninhas na cultura de soja resistente ao glyphosate

Correia

Durigan

2010

Bragantia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOO objetivo da pesquisa foi avaliar o controle de plantas daninhas em área cultivada com soja resistente ao herbicida glyphosate, sem a utilização de práticas complementares de manejo de plantas daninhas. Foram desenvolvidos experimentos, em condições de campo, nos anos agrícolas 2005 e 2006/2007. Foram avaliadas duas cultivares de soja resistentes ao glyphosate (CD 214 RR e M-SOY 8008 RR), oito tratamentos de herbicidas (glyphosate, em aplicação única, nas doses de 0,48; 0,72; 0,96 e 1,20 kg ha -1 de equivalente ácido, associadas ou não a aplicação sequencial na dose de 0,48 kg ha -1 ), além de duas testemunhas, uma capinada e outra mantida infestada. As cultivares de soja influenciaram na infestação das espécies de plantas daninhas na área. Sem a aplicação de glyphosate, houve o predomínio de X. strumarium na área, desfavorecendo a ocorrência de outras espécies. Quando utilizado glyphosate, independentemente da dose, a infestação contabilizada aos 35 e 40 dias após a primeira aplicação, no primeiro e segundo ano, respectivamente, foi baixa. O controle de plantas daninhas na cultura da soja transgênica é diretamente influenciado pela dose de glyphosate, havendo controle satisfatório com a aplicação única de 0,96 kg ha -1 ou a sequencial de 0,48 + 0,48 kg ha -1 de glyphosate. Em situação de menor infestação (2006/ 2007), a aplicação única de 0,48 kg ha -1 de glyphosate é suficiente para o controle das plantas daninhas. As cultivares de soja transgênica CD 214 RR e M-SOY 8008 RR influenciam diferencialmente a dinâmica das espécies de plantas daninhas, sendo o controle químico mais efetivo na situação de cultivo de M-SOY 8008 RR, em que houve menor diversidade e desenvolvimento das plantas daninhas.Palavras-chave: controle químico, soja transgênica, Xanthium strumarium. ABSTRACT WEED CONTROL IN GLYPHOSATE TOLERANT SOYBEAN CROPThis work evaluated the weed control in glyphosate tolerant soybean crop without additional management practices. Two experiments were carried out under field conditions in the agricultural years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 in Jaboticabal, São Paulo State, Brazil. It was tested two glyphosate-tolerant varieties (CD 214 RR and M-SOY 8008 RR), eight herbicide treatments (Roundup Ready, single spraying at rates of 0.48; 0.72; 0.96 and 1.20 kg ha -1 of glyphosate acid equivalent, associates or not to sequential spraying at 0.48 kg ha -1 ), and two controls (one under mechanical control and one untreated control). Soybean varieties influenced the infestation of weed species. Xanthium strumarium was predominant in control treatments, reducing the occurrence of other weeds species. Independently of the dose, glyphosate sprayings resulted in low infestations 35 and 40 days after the first spraying, in the first and second year, respectively. The weed control in transgenic soybean is directly influenced for the glyphosate rate, having satisfactory control with the single application at 0.96 kg ha -1 or sequential at 0.48 plus 0.48 kg ha -1 of glyphosate. Under lesser infestation conditions (2006/20...

show abstract

“…This might especially be true for weeds that are poorly controlled at the recommended dose rates, and/or for delayed applications of GLY or GLU, because weeds are larger at that stage of the season. Additionally, weeds may alter/differentiate their time of emergence profile: late-emerging cohorts might avoid contact with the herbicides as shown in GLY-resistant soybean fields in Minnesota (US) (Scursoni et al 2007). Such situations will inevitably occur in monocultures of maize, or when GMHR maize is rotated with other transgenic crops that are resistant to herbicides with the same modeof-action.…”

Section: Weed Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Environmental impact of herbicide regimes used with genetically modified herbicide-resistant maize

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the potential advent of genetically modified herbicide-resistant (GMHR) crops in the European Union, changes in patterns of herbicide use are predicted. Broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicides used with GMHR crops are expected to substitute for a set of currently used herbicides, which might alter the agro-environmental footprint from crop production. To test this hypothesis, the environmental impact of various herbicide regimes currently used with non-GMHR maize in Belgium was calculated and compared with that of possible herbicide regimes applied in GMHR maize. Impacts on human health and the environment were calculated through the pesticide occupational and environmental risk (POCER) indicator. Results showed that the environmental impact of herbicide regimes solely relying on the active ingredients glyphosate (GLY) or glufosinate-ammonium (GLU) is lower than that of herbicide regimes applied in non-GMHR maize. Due to the lower potential of GLY and GLU to contaminate ground water and their lower acute toxicity to aquatic organisms, the POCER exceedence factor values for the environment were reduced approximately by a sixth when GLY or GLU is used alone. However, the environmental impact of novel herbicide regimes tested may be underestimated due to the assumption that active ingredients used with GMHR maize would be used alone. Data retrieved from literature suggest that weed control efficacy is increased and resistance development delayed when GLY or GLU is used together with other herbicides in the GMHR system. Due to the partial instead of complete replacement of currently used herbicide regimes, the beneficial environmental impact of novel herbicide regimes might sometimes be reduced or counterbalanced. Despite the high weed control efficacy provided by the biotechnology-based weed management strategy, neither indirect harmful effects on farmland biodiversity through losses in food resources and shelter, nor shifts in weed communities have been demonstrated in GMHR maize yet. However, with the increasing adoption rate of GMHR maize and their associated novel herbicide regimes, this situation is expected to change in the short-term.

show abstract

Weed escapes and delayed weed emergence in glyphosate-resistant soybean

Cited by 36 publications

References 16 publications

Distribution of glyphosate‐resistant Amaranthus spp. in Nebraska

Distribution of glyphosate‐resistant Amaranthus spp. in Nebraska

Controle de plantas daninhas na cultura de soja resistente ao glyphosate

Environmental impact of herbicide regimes used with genetically modified herbicide-resistant maize

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About