Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T23:00:55.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Practices for Weed Resistance Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John D. Nalewaja
John D. Nalewaja*
Affiliation:
North Dakota State University, Fargo. ND 58105. E-mail: nalewaja@plains.nodak.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultural practices, such as delayed crop seeding, tillage, black fallow, crop rotation, hand weeding, and competitive crops, when used to replace herbicides, provide an opportunity to reduce the selection pressure that causes weeds to become resistant to herbicides. Herbicides on the other hand reduce the selection pressure that causes weeds to resist cultural practices. Rotation of the two systems should then delay resistance to both systems. Growers consider many factors in addition to weed resistance in selecting herbicide or cultural weed control, from associated convenience to economic potential. Rotation of different types of weed control practices would delay resistance, compared to a continuous single practice. The extent of the delay depends upon genetics of resistance, weed reproduction characteristics, weed seed survival, and fitness of resistant weed plants. An understanding of the basic aspects of weeds and herbicides, as well as their interaction with the environment, would help in predicting the delay in resistance to an herbicide from use of cultural practices in the rotation. A grower's final choice of a weed control practice will involve available equipment, time, markets, and soil erosion in addition to potential weed resistance. Weeds that develop resistance to a control practice still allow for reversion to preresistance practices, an important component of a grower's decision. The rate of resistance development is dependent upon the removal of susceptible genes from the population and fitness of the resistant plants. Resistance might be delayed for many years or be manageable when the resistance is genetically recessive or resistant weeds are poorly fit. Growers may not want to accept alternative cultural practices as long as there is the potential for development of another herbicide or reversion to cultural control after resistance occurs.

Keywords

Crop rotationdelayed seedinghand weedingtillageglobal positioning systemALS, acetolactate synthase
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 643 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bougeois, L., Kinkel, N. D., and Morrison, I. N. 1997. Characterization of cross-resistance patterns in acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor resistant wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 45:750–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1992. Investigations of diclofop-methyl resistant wild oat biotypes from Oregon. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 266. p. 89.Google Scholar
Klingman, G. G. 1961. Weed Control as a Science. San Diego: John Wiley and Sons. 421 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1985. Weed spectrum change and control in reduced-till wheat. North Dak. Farm Res. 43(1): 11–14.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. 1980. Energy returns from weed control. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 33:5–15.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. M. and Jana, S. 1976. Genetic adaptation for seed dormancy in Avena fatua. Canada J. Bot. 54:306–312.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Newman, J. D., and Feddema, H. 1992. Triallate resistant wild oats arc cross-resistant to difenzoquat. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 265. p. 89.Google Scholar
Robbins, W. W., Crafts, A. S., and Raynor, R. N. 1942. Weed Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. 543 p.Google Scholar
Schultz, G. E. 1977. Rye and wheal competition with wild oat. . Department of Agronomy, North Dakota Stale University, Fargo, ND. 67 p.Google Scholar
Somody, C. N., Fay, P. K., Nalewaja, J. D., and Miller, S. D. 1982. The wild oats pilot project. North Dak. Farm Res. 39(4): 25–30.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. N., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the corn belt. Weed Technol. 7:763–770.Google Scholar