Identification and Characterization Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT COMMON RAGWEED ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) A Thesis presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by JUSTIN MICHAEL POLLARD Dr. Reid J. Smeda, Thesis Supervisor May 2007 The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT COMMON RAGWEED ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) presented by Justin M. Pollard a candidate for the degree of Masters of Science and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Major Professor: Dr. Reid J. Smeda Associate Professor Thesis Committee: Dr. Wayne C. Bailey Associate Professor Dr. Kelly A. Nelson Research Assistant Professor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To start, I would to thank my advisor Dr. Reid J. Smeda for allowing me the opportunity to further my education and broaden my horizons. His willingness to provide guidance and support along with friendship has made the preparation of this manuscript possible. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Wayne C. Bailey and Kelly A. Nelson for all their wonderful guidance and impeccable knowledge. Thank you again. Special thanks to Dr. Brent Sellers for his guidance, knowledge, and friendship. I would also like to thank the Weed Science Department including Dr. Kevin Bradley and Jim Wait for their support. Special thanks are in order for Dr. Mark Ellersieck for all of his statistical guidance. I must also extend thanks to the staff of the Bradford Research and Extension Center for their willingness to lend a hand anytime it was needed and allowing me to conduct my field research. Now, I would like to thank all my fellow graduate students that I have had the honor of knowing including: Chad Smith, Chris Zwiener, Nick Monnig, Jim Heiser, Diego Bentivegna, Johnathan Dierking, Carl Woodard, and Travis Legleiter. You guys are the reason I was able to stay sane for the duration. I have met a lot of great people along the way and only hope I am that lucky for years to come. There were some great stories along the way with most being sworn to silence. Thanks guys. Finally I would like to thank my fiancé Suellen, my father Michael, my mother Jeanne Ann, and my sister Jessica. Through all the trials and tribulations you were my rock. All of my accomplishments past and present revolve around the hard work and principles you instilled in me at an early age. As I look back to appreciate and enjoy this awesome accomplishment, you too should know that there is a part of this with your name on it. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….........iv List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………....v Chapter I: Literature Review…………………………………………………………..1 Research Justification ……………………………………………………………..1 Glyphosate ………………………………………………………………………...3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia …………………………………………………………...7 Epiblema strenuana ……………………………………………………………...11 Summary and Objectives ………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………..15 Chapter II: Differential Response of Common Ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) to Glyphosate…………………………………………………………………....19 Abstract …………………………………………………………………………..19 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………....20 Materials and Methods …………………………………………………………...22 Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………..24 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………..27 Chapter III: Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) with Alternative Herbicides………………………………...33 Abstract …………………………………………………………………………..33 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………....34 Materials and Methods …………………………………………………………...37 Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………..39 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………..43 Chapter IV: Influence of Ragweed Borer ( Epiblema strenuana Walker) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) on Glyphosate Efficacy in Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.)….............................................................................47 Abstract ……………………………………………………………………...…...47 Introduction …………………………………………………………………...….48 Materials and Methods …………………………………………………………...50 Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………..52 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………..57 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Chapter II: 2.1 Regression parameters characterizing response of common ragweed biotypes to glyphosate ................................................................................29 Chapter III: 3.1 Average monthly air temperature and total monthly precipitation from April through October at Columbia, MO in 2004 and 2005 ……………..44 3.2 Mean visible control of glyphosate-susceptible common ragweed plants in soybean at Columbia, MO in 2004 and 2005. Plants were treated at 12 cm and data were recorded two and four weeks after treatment .....................45 3.3 Mean visible control of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed plants in soybean at Millersburg, MO in 2004 and 2005. Plants were treated at 12 cm and data were recorded two and four weeks after treatment ………....46 Chapter IV: 4.1 Average monthly air temperature and total monthly precipitation from April through October at Columbia, MO in 2004 and 2005…………….. 59 4.2 Mean plant biomass reduction of glyphosate-susceptible common ragweed plants at Columbia, MO in 2004 and 2005. Plants were treated at two stages of growth and data were recorded six weeks after treatment ……..60 4.3 Mean visible control of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed plants at Millersburg, MO in 2004 and 2005. Plants were treated at two stages of growth and data were recorded four weeks after treatment ……………...61 4.4 Mean plant biomass reduction of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed plants at Millersburg, MO in 2004 and 2005. Plants were treated at two stages of growth and data were recorded four weeks after treatment ……62 4.5 Soybean yield in response to glyphosate, common ragweed height at treatment, and insecticide treatment at Millersburg, MO in 2004 and 2005 …………………………………………………………....63 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Chapter II: 2.1a Control of Bradford plants 4 weeks after glyphosate (1X=0.75 kg ae/ha) treatment……... ….………………………………………………………30 2.1b Control JRW plants 4 weeks after glyphosate (1X=0.75 kg ae/ha) treatment …………………………………………………………………31 2.2 Dry weight and standard error bars for Bradford ( ▲) and JRW ( ) common ragweed plants in response to glyphosate. The predicted line is described by Y = f(x) = C + (D – C)/(1 + exp[b*log(X)-b*log(I 50 )]) (see text for description of the equation) ……………………………………...32 Chapter IV: 4.1 Diagram showing the split-block design. Plant height and glyphosate rate where randomized within each block ……………………………………64 v CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION Production practices in agriculture have continually changed, especially in row crops such as corn and soybean. For example, crop row spacing has decreased from wide rows of 96 cm to rows spaced 76 cm or even as close as 19 cm. Narrow row spacing has a positive effect on weed control because plants that are spaced closer together form a canopy more quickly. This allows the crop to be more competitive with emerging weeds. However, one limitation to narrow row spacing, especially in soybean production systems, is the elimination of cultivation for weed control. This shifts the burden of weed control onto other weed management techniques. Another trend in agriculture has been increased adoption of reduced tillage and no- tillage practices. No-tillage practices reduce soil erosion and increase water retention, while improving water infiltration and improving soil tilth. Costs associated with fuel and labor are also lowered due to fewer trips through a given field (Lal et al. 1994). However, reduced tillage systems tend to concentrate weed seed in the upper surface of the soil, which favors germination and emergence compared to conventional tillage (Cardina et al. 1991). In addition, reduced tillage practices also shift the burden of weed management from mechanical to other forms. By far the biggest changes in production agriculture have occurred over the past decade, with the development and use of herbicide-resistant crops. This technology represents a simple, efficient method for managing weeds in agronomic crops. Of particular note has been development and adoption of genetically modified crops with 1 resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is an effective broad spectrum herbicide that offers flexible application timing with minimal crop injury. These advantages, coupled with economical product pricing, have increased the number of glyphosate-resistant hectares in the United States (Shaner 2000). Since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant soybean in 1996, the number of glyphosate-resistant soybean hectares has increased to nearly 80% of all the soybean hectares that are currently grown in the United States (USDA 2005). A similar trend is forming among the corn hectares since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant corn in 1999. Hectares devoted to glyphosate-resistant corn have grown to over 2 million hectares in the United States (USDA 2005). Development of other glyphosate-resistant crops continues with glyphosate-resistant cotton and alfalfa now available. Due to the popularity of this technology and reduced tillage practices many of the hectares previously mentioned have been treated with one or more applications of glyphosate.