Read time: 5 minutes

Reducing the glyphosate resistant weed seeds in cotton fields

The Australian cotton industry has benefited enormously through widespread adoption of Roundup Ready technology, with close to 100 per cent adoption since 2010/11.

A downside of the uptake of this technology has been the shift in the weed spectrum found in cotton fields. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) researcher Dr Jeff Werth says growers have achieved better control of Cyperus sp. (nutgrass and other sedges), but surface germinating and glyphosate tolerant species, along with reduced control of vines and legumes have found the new cropping system favourable.

Jeff Werth (DAF) collecting data at the patch eradication trial at Hermitage Research Facility, Warwick. The dense patches of awnless barnyard grass seen in this image are the glyphosate-only treatments.

“This shift has taken years to occur and now we are seeing weedy patches establishing in cotton crops,” he said. “We have used crop modelling to show that managing these patches is effective in awnless barnyard grass and now we have field experimental results demonstrating that the industry’s best management practice weed control strategy works.”

Dr Werth and the DAF weed research team designed an experiment to field-test the 2+2&0 (2 non-glyphosate tactics in crop plus 2 non-glyphosate tactics in fallow and no survivors) strategy in a dryland cotton system.

They chose a dryland cotton field with a dense population of glyphosate-susceptible awnless barnyard grass (ABG) and used a low rate of glyphosate (250 g/ha Roundup Ready®) to simulate glyphosate-resistance with approximately 70% control of the barnyard grass each time glyphosate was used.

The treatments applied were designed to compare ‘glyphosate only’ with the ‘2+2&0 strategy’ to see the effect on ABG emergence and seed bank. They also tested a few ‘eradication’ tactics, which were applied at three different times in the cropping season – 1. Early (Oct to mid-Dec), 2. Mid (mid-Dec to mid-Feb) and 3. Late (mid-Feb to March). The experiment ran for a four-year cotton-fallow-fallow-cotton rotation.

Table 1.  Example of control tactics used on Awnless barnyard grass comparing glyphosate only, to BMP and additional eradication treatments.

Phase
Treatment 1. Early season 2. Mid-season 3. Late season
Glyphosate only Glyphosate (PRE) Glyphosate (OTT) Nil
Glyphosate (OTT) Glyphosate (OTT)
Best Management Practices (BMP or 2+2) Paraquat + Pendimethalin (PPPE) Diuron (Layby) Nil
(Treatments 2-9) (Treatments 2-9)
Additional Eradication tactics (Erad) Metolachlor (PRE) Metolachlor (PRE) Hand-hoeing
(Treatments 3, 6, 7 and 9) (Treatments 3, 6, 7 and 9) (Treatments 5, 7, 8 and 9)

“When glyphosate was used without applying any other weed control tactics, weed emergences were almost always higher than where multiple tactics were used,” said Jeff. “The most consistent tactic for reducing barnyard grass emergences was metolachlor applied six weeks prior to planting in the ‘Eradication phase 1’ treatments.”

Pendimethalin applied at planting seemed to have little effect on the major flush of weed germination that usually occurs in spring, but did have some effect on later germinations.

“Including residual herbicides in the weed control program can really reduce the number of weeds that emerge, and as a result, there is less pressure on post-emergence herbicides applied later in the crop,” he said.

This simulation experiment also demonstrated that the 2+2&0 strategy was effective in driving down the weed seed bank, which is the ultimate goal of any integrated weed management program.

Jeff said that it took three years to really see the differences between the two main treatments, so persistence is required if you don’t see immediate changes in weed numbers. Eradication treatments applied early in the crop season were also the most effective in driving down the weed seed bank.

Table 2.  Total Awnless barnyard grass emergence in each year of the experiment.  Means with the same letters are not significantly different.

Treatment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Cotton* Fallow* Fallow Cotton*
(plants m-2)
1.  Glyphosate only 1118  d 316  b 87  b 118  d
2.  BMP 176  bc 45  a 39  a 88  cd
3.  BMP + Erad (phase 1) 116  ab 56  a 18  a 23  ab
4.  BMP + Erad (phase 2) 257  c 27  a 34  a 26  ab
5.  BMP + Erad (phase 3) 324  c 44  a 40  a 60  bcd
6.  BMP + Erad (phase 1 and 2) 81  a 42  a 9  a 29  ab
7.  BMP + Erad (phase 1 and 3) 129  ab 54  a 6  a 32  abc
8.  BMP + Erad (phase 2 and 3) 191  bc 26  a 17  a 16  a
9.  BMP + Erad (phase 1,2 and 3) 108  ab 43  a 8  a 11  a
P-value <0.001 0.014 0.005 0.004

*Means back-transformed from Log(x+1)

The time taken to see a decline in weed populations is related to the longevity of the seed of different weed species. In a cotton farming system small seeded species such as feathertop Rhodes grass, windmill grass, fleabane and sowthistle generally last in the soil for 2–3 years; larger seeded species such as awnless barnyard grass and liverseed grass last about 4–6 years and harder seeded species like bladder ketmia and peachvine last 6–10 years.

Awnless barnyard grass produces a large quantity of seed if it escapes weed control tactics, resulting in patches of potentially resistant weeds in cotton fields.

“It is reasonable to expect that the longer the 2+2&0 strategy is applied, along with early season eradication tactics, the greater the difference there would be compared to a glyphosate-only approach,” he said. “In years with multiple rainfall events across the summer, there would be increased benefit from employing early eradication tactics to avoid a potential build-up of the weed population. It is critical to ensure that survivors are controlled to prevent potentially resistant seed re-entering the soil.”

The 2+2&0 strategy forms the basis of the Cotton Herbicide Resistance Management Strategy and is best applied in all cases to minimise the risks of resistance development. If a problem is detected early, the 2+2&0 can form the baseline response, and extra tactics can be incorporated to limit potential spread of the patch in the field, and drive down the seed bank.

Related Articles

View all
Article
News

Never cut the herbicide application rate

Scientific studies have demonstrated that resistance can rapidly evolve in weeds subjected to low doses of herbicide. Some weeds can develop resistance within a few generations. Full rates when mixing herbicides too! When mixing herbicides it is important that each product is still applied at the full label rate to ensure high mortality. Applying different chemicals in one mix can provide an additive advantage. It is important to understand the mode of action of each herbicide on the plant when preparing a herbicide mix. This is just as important for pre-emergent grass weed mixes as it is for post-emergent mixes aimed at broadleaf weed control. ALWAYS READ THE LABEL. Surrounding weed seeds with a combination of pre-emergent herbicides with different modes of action can give a high level of control and help extend the useful life of all the chemicals used. The high level of control must be supported with additional control measures for all survivors. All products with different modes of action must be applied at full label rates for this to be an effective strategy.   Mixing two chemicals with the same mode of action can achieve some additional efficacy, however, the mix should deliver the combined full rate to ensure a lethal dose. The amount of stubble present and crop safety are all important considerations when mixing chemicals. For example, when using a tank mix of Avadex® and trifluralin to control ryegrass in wheat, the rates used will vary depending on the sowing system and level of stubble retention. Be sure to get good advice. Many herbicides on the market are a combination of two or more modes of action within the one product. These products must be applied at the full label rate to be effective. Having dual action does not negate the need to change herbicide products and rotate modes of action. Repeated use of any single strategy will reduce the effectiveness of that strategy over time.  
Article
News

Spray well – correct nozzles, adjuvants and water rates

Spray application is a technical field and growers need to make sure their equipment and application techniques are spot-on. The GRDC Spray Application GrowNote provides detailed information and about 80 videos to demonstrate key skills. Prevent spray-drift The focus of spraying herbicide needs to be on doing the job right so the weeds receive the correct dose and die, and this includes reducing the air borne fraction to a bare minimum. Bill Gordon’s 10 Tips for Reducing Spray Drift Choose all products in the tank mix carefully. Understand the product mode of action and coverage requirements. Select (and check) the coarsest spray quality that will provide effective control. Expect that surface temperature inversions will form as sunset approaches and will likely persist overnight and even beyond sunrise on many occasions. DO NOT SPRAY. Use weather forecasts to inform your spray decisions. Only start spraying when the sun is about 20 degrees above the horizon and when the wind speed has been above 4–5 km/hr for more than 20–30 minutes, and clearly blowing away from any adjacent sensitive crops or areas. Set the boom height to achieve a double overlap of the spray patterns. Avoid higher spraying speeds. Leave buffers unsprayed if necessary and come back. Continue to monitor conditions, particularly wind speed, at the site during the spray operation High water rates don’t have to slow you down Some growers are concerned that increasing the water rate when applying herbicide will slow down their spray operation and cost them money. However, the biggest financial loss during spraying usually comes from a failed spray job. To keep your spray operation as time efficient as possible when using more effective and reliable application volumes, you can: Use nurse tanks around the farm to reduce the time spent travelling back to a central re-fill point. Use a larger pump, e.g. 2.5 inch, to make re-filling quicker. Pre-mix the batch while the sprayer is operating. Many mixes can be held in the mixing tank for up to 6 hours. However, wettable granules and suspension concentrates will need agitation to keep them in solution. For pre-emergent herbicides in high stubble situations, carrier volume has a large effect on the level of control achieved. Across four trial sites Dr Borger’s research demonstrated that ryegrass control with trifluralin or Sakura® increased from 53% control when the carrier volume was 30 L/ha to 78% control when the carrier volume was increased to 150 L water/ha in high Water quality and mixing order Water quality is often overlooked as a possible contributor to herbicide failure and can lead to confusion over the herbicide resistance status of weeds on a property. Water should be considered as one of the chemicals in any mix, given that water quality varies markedly depending on its source. Getting the mixing order right is essential for effective spray results. Don’t start mixing until the water quality is right Podcast – Mixing herbicides Adjuvants Sometimes adding an adjuvant is beneficial and sometimes it is detrimental; and there is an art to knowing how to best deploy these additives. When weeds are susceptible to the applied herbicides, the effectiveness of adjuvants generally goes un-noticed. Correctly applied adjuvants can reduce the impact of low level herbicide resistance by helping to maximise the amount of herbicide taken up by the plant.
Article
News

Clean borders – avoid evolving resistance on the fence line

About one-quarter of glyphosate-resistant populations within broadacre cropping situations across Australia come from fencelines and other non-cropping areas of the farm. Along paddock borders, where there is no crop competition, weeds can flourish and, if not controlled, set lots of seed. The traditional approach has been to treat these weeds with glyphosate to keep borders clean but after 20-odd years this option is now failing and paddock borders are becoming a significant source of glyphosate-resistant weed seed. Weed researcher Eric Koetz said the limited options for managing weeds along irrigation infrastructure and other non-crop areas is a problem and is putting additional pressure on knock-down herbicides in irrigated systems. In some situations, cultivation can be used to kill the weeds and provide a firebreak, but on light soils this may pose an erosion risk and mowing or slashing may be safer options. Another possible tactic is to continue using herbicides but to ensure that a clean-up operation is carried out before any survivors can set seed. Some growers are choosing to increase the heat on weeds along the borders by planting the crop right to the fence and then baling the outside lap and spraying with a knockdown herbicide to kill any weeds and provide a firebreak. Another good option in some situations is to maintain a healthy border of vegetation using non-invasive grasses. In Queensland, buffel grass is a good example of a grass that can outcompete other weeds while not invading crop lands. If only herbicides are used on fencelines, resistance is inevitable. Surviving weeds on fencelines have no competition and access to plenty of soil moisture, so they set a lot of seed and resistance can easily flow into neighbouring paddocks. Other resources It’s time for a glyphosate intervention Farm hygiene cottons on – Cleave Rogan, St George What’s new in management of herbicide resistant weeds on fencelines? Keeping the farm clean – Graham Clapham, Norwin Don’t jeopardise glyphosate for clean fencelines Keeping fencelines clean Resistance risk to knock-down herbicides on irrigated cotton farms

Subscribe to the WeedSmart Newsletter