4.1 Article

Efficacy of Fall- and Spring-Applied Pyroxasulfone For Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Field Pea

Journal

WEED TECHNOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 351-360

Publisher

WEED SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1614/WT-D-13-00140.1

Keywords

PRE; ALS; VLCFA; organic matter; soil moisture; herbicide efficacy; application timing; crop tolerance

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Pulse Cluster
  2. FMC Agricultural Products
  3. NSERC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Field trials were initiated in fall 2011 to determine the potential of pyroxasulfone to control acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor-resistant weeds in field pea. Pyroxasulfone was applied in split-plot trials at five locations in western Canada using fall and PRE spring applications of 0 to 400 g ai ha(-1). Trial locations were chosen with a range of soil organic matter content: 2.9, 4.3, 5.5, 10.5; and 10.6% at Scott, Kernen, Kinsella, Melfort, and Ellerslie, respectively. The herbicide dose required to reduce biomass by 50% (ED50) in false cleavers ranged between 53 and 395 g ha(-1) at Scott and Ellerslie, respectively. Wild oat ED(50)s varied between 0.54 g ha(-1) at Scott in the fall and 410 g ai ha(-1) in the spring at Melfort. ED(50)s for wild oat and false cleavers varied by 7.4- and 746-fold, respectively, depending primarily on the organic matter content at the trial location. The effect of application timing was not consistent. Significant yield reductions and pea injury occurred at 150 and 100 g ha(-1) and higher at Kernen and Scott, respectively. Low organic matter and high precipitation levels at these locations indicates increased herbicide activity under these conditions. Pyroxasulfone may allow control of ALS inhibitor-resistant false cleavers and wild oat; however, locations with high soil organic matter will require higher rates than those with low organic matter for similar control levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available