<b>HRAC Group 5</b> <font size='2'> (Legacy C1 C2) </font> resistant Polygonum pensylvanicum from United States, Iowa

International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds

LOGIN | REGISTER
Friday, April 19, 2024

HRAC GROUP 5 (LEGACY C1 C2) RESISTANT PENNSYLVANIA SMARTWEED
(Polygonum pensylvanicum)

PSII inhibitors - Serine 264 Binders HRAC Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2)

United States, Iowa

INTRODUCTION		PENNSYLVANIA SMARTWEED
Pennsylvania Smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) is a dicot weed in the Polygonaceae family. In Iowa this weed first evolved resistance to Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2) herbicides in 1990 and infests Corn (maize). Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2) herbicides are known as PSII inhibitors - Serine 264 Binders (Inhbition of Photosynthesis at PSll - Serine 264 Binders ). Research has shown that these particular biotypes are resistant to atrazine and they may be cross-resistant to other Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2) herbicides. The 'Group' letters/numbers that you see throughout this web site refer to the classification of herbicides by their site of action. To see a full list of herbicides and HRAC herbicide classifications click here.

QUIK STATS (last updated Sep 15, 2000 )
Common Name	Pennsylvania Smartweed
Species	Polygonum pensylvanicum
Group	PSII inhibitors - Serine 264 Binders HRAC Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2)
Herbicides	atrazine
Location	United States, Iowa
Year	1990
Situation(s)	Corn (maize)
Contributors - (Alphabetically)	Jack Dekker (Retired), and Micheal Owen
Edit this Case \| Add New Case of Resistance \| Add Note

NOTES ABOUT THIS BIOTYPE

AREAS FOUND

Jack Dekker (Retired)

Northeast Iowa

Edit this Note | Add New Note

ACADEMIC ASPECTS

Confirmation Tests

Field, and Laboratory trials comparing a known susceptible Pennsylvania Smartweed biotype with this Pennsylvania Smartweed biotype have been used to confirm resistance. For further information on the tests conducted please contact the local weed scientists that provided this information.

Genetics

Genetic studies on HRAC Group 5 resistant Pennsylvania Smartweed have not been reported to the site. There may be a note below or an article discussing the genetics of this biotype in the Fact Sheets and Other Literature

Mechanism of Resistance

The mechanism of resistance for this biotype is either unknown or has not been entered in the database. If you know anything about the mechanism of resistance for this biotype then please update the database.

Relative Fitness

There is no record of differences in fitness or competitiveness of these resistant biotypes when compared to that of normal susceptible biotypes. If you have any information pertaining to the fitness of Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2) resistant Pennsylvania Smartweed from Iowa please update the database.

Edit Case | Add Note | Add Article | Add New Case | Help

CONTRIBUTING WEED SCIENTISTS

JACK DEKKER (RETIRED)

Iowa State University Agronomy Dept. 6394 Grandview Road Ames, 50011, Iowa United States Email Jack Dekker (Retired)

MICHEAL OWEN

Associate Chair And Professor Iowa State University Agronomy Department 3218 Agronomy Hall Ames, 50011, Iowa United States Email Micheal Owen Web : Web Site Link

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, The Weed Science Society of America, and weed scientists in Iowa have been instrumental in providing you this information. Particular thanks is given to Jack Dekker (Retired), and Micheal Owen for providing detailed information.

Drag a column header and drop it here to group by that column

Herbicide Resistant Pennsylvania Smartweed Globally
(Polygonum pensylvanicum)

Country

FirstYear

Situation

Active Ingredients

Site of Action

United States (Iowa)

1990

Corn (maize)

atrazine

PSII inhibitors - Serine 264 Binders ( HRAC Group 5 (Legacy C1 C2)

United States (Arkansas)

2020

Rice

bispyribac-sodium, halosulfuron-methyl, and prosulfuron

Inhibition of Acetolactate Synthase ( HRAC Group 2 (Legacy B)

Literature about Similar Cases

1 2

Page size:

select

Page: of 2

Items 1 to 5 of 7

Fairbanks, D. E. ; Reynolds, D. B. ; Griffin, J. L. ; Jordan, D. L. ; Corkern, C. B. ; Vidrine, P. R. ; Crawford, S. H.. 2001. Cotton tolerance and weed control with preplant applications of thifensulfuron plus tribenuron. Journal of Cotton Science 5 : 259 - 267.

Successfully controlling weeds before planting cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in reduced tillage systems enables growers to prevent early-season weed interference. Research was conducted in Louisiana, USA, to determine cotton tolerance of thifensulfuron plus tribenuron (2:1 ratio based on weight) at combined rates of 13, 26, 53, and 105 g/ha applied 0, 7, 15, 30 and 45 days before planting. In additional experiments, efficacy of glyphosate and paraquat applied alone or with thifensulfuron pins tribenuron was evaluated for Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) control. When applied at 13 g/ha, thifensulfuron plus tribenuron did not injure cotton, regardless of the interval between application and planting. Thifensulfuron plus tribenuron at 26, 53 and 105 g/ha injured cotton when applied the day of planting, and the highest rate reduced seed cotton yield. Cotton was not injured and yield was not reduced when thifensulfuron plus tribenuron was applied 15 days or more before planting, regardless of rate. When applied at the rate recommended by the manufacturer (15-30 g/ha), thifensulfuron plus tribenuron did not affect cotton yield, even when applied the day of planting. Thifensulfuron plus tribenuron alone controlled only Pennsylvania smartweed 28 days after treatment (86-93%). Thifensulfuron plus tribenuron mixed with glyphosate or paraquat improved control of Carolina geranium, curly dock, and cutleaf eveningprimrose compared with glyphosate or paraquat alone. Paraquat reduced control of curly dock by thifensulfuron plus tribenuron..

Dirks, J. T. ; Johnson, W. G. ; Smeda, R. J. ; Wiebold, W. J. ; Massey, R. E.. 2000. Reduced rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max. Weed Science 48 : 618 - 627.

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 in Columbia, Missouri, USA, to evaluate crop response, weed control, soyabean yield, and economic returns of labelled (1×) and half labelled (1/2×) rates of early preplant (EPP) sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and post-emergence glyphosate, compared to glyphosate alone systems in no-tillage, narrow-row, glyphosate resistant soyabean. Treatments containing a 1× or 1/2× rate of EPP sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron with glyphosate followed by a postemergence treatment of glyphosate provided 80 to 100% control of Xanthium strumarium, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Polygonum pensylvanicum and 82 to 100% control of Setaria faberi and Amaranthus rudis if glyphosate was applied mid-postemergence (MPOST) or late postemergence (LPOST). Glyphosate alone EPP followed by glyphosate postemergence or sequential postemergence treatments of glyphosate provided 77 to 100% control of S. faberi, A. artemisiifolia, and P. pensylvanicum. Soyabean yield did not significantly differ between treatments that contained 1× or 1/2× rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron EPP with postemergence glyphosate or sequential glyphosate. Residual herbicides followed by glyphosate reduced overall weed control variability but did not reduce the overall yield variability compared to glyphosate alone. Greater weed control, Soyabean yield, net incomes, and lower coefficient of variation (CV) of net incomes were generally associated with treatments that included both EPP and post-emergence treatments vs. single herbicide applications. A greenhouse study was conducted to determine the optimum spray additive to maximize the foliar activity of sulfentrazone on three annual weeds. Sulfentrazone alone and in combination with a nonionic surfactant (NIS), methylated seed oil (MSO), crop oil concentrate (COC), and a silicone-based surfactant (SBS), with and without ammonium sulfate (AMS), were applied on two sizes of Abutilon theophrasti, P. pensylvanicum, and S. faberi. AMS provided little additional efficacy of sulfentrazone on S. faberi, but improved efficacy on A. theophrasti and P. pensylvanicum. SBS or MSO plus AMS with sulfentrazone generally provided the greatest efficacy on all species..

Dirks, J. T. ; Johnson, W. G. ; Smeda, R. J. ; Wiebold, W. J. ; Massey, R. E.. 2000. Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max. Weed Science 48 : 628 - 639.

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 in Columbia, Missouri, USA, to evaluate crop response, weed control, soyabean yield, and economic returns with sulfentrazone alone and tank-mixed with glyphosate, cloransulam, or chlorimuron at two preplant application timings in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soyabeans. No significant crop injury was observed. Setaria faberi and Polygonum pensylvanicum control 5 weeks after planting (WAP) was generally greater with sulfentrazone applied early preplant (EPP) than with sulfentrazone applied at planting (AP). When applied AP, glyphosate + sulfentrazone provided greater S. faberi control than sulfentrazone alone. Control of Amaranthus rudis, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Ipomoea hederacea [Pharbitis hederacea] was greater in 1998 than in 1999 because of more timely early-season precipitation. Sulfentrazone-based programs provided 80 to 100% control of A. rudis in 1998, but control in 1999 ranged from 72 to 95% at Columbia and 46 to 83% at Novelty. Cloransulam alone, at either application timing, was the only treatment that provided greater than 80% control of A. artemisiifolia at each site in each year. All sulfentrazone-based treatments provided greater than 80% control of P. hederacea in 1998, but control was less in 1999 and ranged from 54 to 91%. Xanthium strumarium control ranged from 5 to 94% with sulfentrazone alone. However, the addition of cloransulam or chlorimuron provided 75 to 99% control regardless of application timing. A blanket application of glyphosate was made 6 WAP over all preplant herbicide treatments, and weed control 5 weeks after this treatment was greater than 79% with all sulfentrazone-based treatments. Sulfentrazone + cloransulam or chlorimuron + glyphosate EPP or AP followed by glyphosate postemergence (POST) generally provided the greatest weed control. Overall weed control was generally greater with the use of residual herbicides vs. glyphosate alone, although yield and net returns were not always greater. A greenhouse study was conducted to determine if altering the preplant application timing reduced sulfentrazone injury to soyabean. Treatment variables included herbicide rate, temperature during a preplant incubation period, and application timing. Soyabean, maize, and sorghum were used as indicator species. Sulfentrazone caused less injury to soyabeans, maize, and sorghum in soils incubated at 30°C when applied 20 days before planting compared to 0 days before planting. Equivalent amounts of crop injury were noted with sulfentrazone applied 20 or 0 days before planting in soils incubated at 5°C with all indicator species..

Bradley, P. R. ; Johnson, W. G. ; Hart, S. E. ; Buesinger, M. L. ; Massey, R. E.. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technology 14 : 495 - 501.

Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Missouri and Illinois, USA to evaluate maize injury, weed control, maize yield, and estimated economic returns with weed management programmes in glufosinate-resistant maize. Herbicide programmes included acetochlor pre-emergence (PRE) followed by glufosinate alone or with atrazine post-emergence (POST) and total POST programmes consisting of single and sequential applications of glufosinate alone or tank-mixed with acetochlor, atrazine, or acetochlor plus atrazine. Metolachlor PRE followed by dicamba plus atrazine early POST (EPOST) and metolachlor plus atrazine PRE were included for comparison. In the total POST treatments, mid-POST applications controlled shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) and common cocklebur (Xanthum strumarium) better than EPOST applications. However, yield reductions as high as 23% occurred because of early-season weed interference, although weeds were controlled later in the season. Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), common cocklebur, morning glory (Ipomoea spp.), and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), or Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum). Maize yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88) and more strongly dependent on grass (r = 0.82) than broadleaf (r = 0.70) weed control. Net incomes were positively correlated to maize yield (r = 0.73). Four of the top 6 net income-producing treatments included 2 herbicide applications. Three of the treatments were PRE followed by POST programmes, and the fourth was a sequential POST treatment of glufosinate..

Steckel, G. J. ; Wax, L. M. ; Simmons, F. W. ; Phillips, W. H., II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technology 11 : 484 - 488.

Field experiments were conducted during 1993-95 in Urbana, Illinois, to determine the effects of glufosinate rate and application timing on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) control in the absence of a crop. Glufosinate at 140 g a.i. ha^-1 controlled <80% of the weed species evaluated. When the glufosinate rate was increased to 420 g a.i. ha^-1 and applied to 10-cm giant foxtail, control was >80% for all 3 years of the study. Applications made to 10-cm plants resulted in 80% or greater control for common cocklebur for all 3 years and Pennsylvania smartweed 2 of the 3 years with 420 and 560 g a.i. ha^-1, respectively. Common lambsquarters was the most tolerant species evaluated and was not consistently controlled acceptably (>80%), even with glufosinate at rates of 560 g a.i. ha^-1. Control with glufosinate at 420 or 560 g a.i. ha^-1 was most effective when applied at the 10-cm weed height when compared either to the 5- or 15-cm weed height..

1 2

Page size:

select

Page: of 2

Items 1 to 5 of 7

PERMISSION MUST BE OBTAINED FIRST if you intend to base a significant portion of a scientific paper on data derived from this site.
Cite this site as: Heap, I. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Online. Internet. Friday, April 19, 2024 . Available www.weedscience.org
Copyright © 1993- 2024 WeedScience.org All rights reserved. Fair use of this material is encouraged. Proper citation is requested.