Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist response to pre-plant application of residual

herbicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)
Jason K. Norsworthy*, Marilyn McClelland, Griff M. Griffith
Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Glyphosate-resistant Conyza canadensis emerging in autumn and spring in the southern USA must be
Received 5 March 2008 controlled prior to establishment of spring-seeded glyphosate-resistant crops. Research was conducted
Received in revised form 20 August 2008 to evaluate C. canadensis control with residual herbicides labeled for pre-emergence use in cotton and to
Accepted 21 August 2008
determine the length of residual activity of each herbicide. Additionally, glufosinate and dicamba-based
pre-plant burndown programs were evaluated for control and reduction in C. canadensis emergence at
Keywords:
three locations in 2007 in Arkansas, USA, with two of these sites containing glyphosate-resistant
Conyza canadensis
C. canadensis. Fluometuron, oxyfluorfen, and norflurazon were the most consistent and efficacious
Dicamba
Glufosinate herbicides evaluated, providing at least 80% residual control of glyphosate-resistant C. canadensis
Herbicide resistance through 8 weeks after treatment. Glufosinate alone applied in early and late March (8 and 10 weeks
Horseweed before cotton sowing) usually provided less than complete control, resulting in C. canadensis regrowth
Residual weed control and subsequent seedling emergence. Addition of dicamba in a tank-mix with glufosinate generally
Weed emergence improved C. canadensis control in addition to providing some residual suppression of further emergence.
No C. canadensis emerged over a 10- to 12-week period in plots treated with glufosinate plus dicamba
plus flumioxazin. Although dicamba does provide short-lived residual C. canadensis control, this research
confirms that additional residual herbicides are needed with pre-plant burndown programs to prevent
subsequent emergence when conditions are conducive for C. canadensis germination.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Of the many weeds that can cause a problem in cotton (Gos-
sypium hirsutum) fields in Arkansas, USA, Conyza canadensis, also
known as horseweed or marestail, was not a concern until 2003.
Before conservation-tillage practices became the norm in cotton
production, C. canadensis was easily controlled with tillage (Brown
and Whitwell, 1988). Even with the elimination of primary tillage,
C. canadensis control with glyphosate, already used extensively for
burndown of winter and early spring weeds, negated the weed as
a noticeable problem. However, 16 states in the USA are now
reported to have the glyphosate-resistant biotype (Heap, 2008). In
a recent survey of consultants in Arkansas, C. canadensis was
considered the most important weed in cotton (Norsworthy et al.,
2007). Additionally, C. canadensis in some areas of the USA has
developed resistance not only to glyphosate but to acetolactate
synthase- (ALS), photosystem I-, and photosystem II-inhibiting
herbicides (Heap, 2008; Loux et al., 2006). Scattered C. canadensis
populations in Indiana, USA have been reported to be resistant to
both glyphosate and the ALS inhibitors chlorimuron and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 479 575 8740; fax: þ1 479 575 3975.
E-mail address: jnorswor@uark.edu (J.K. Norsworthy).
cloransulam (Loux et al., 2006). Ohio also has a population resistant
to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors (Heap, 2008). Resistance to more
than one herbicide group further limits the number of herbicide
options available for control of this weed in cotton and compro-
mises the use of conservation tillage.
C. canadensis occurs in more than 40 crops in 70 countries (Holm
et al., 1997). C. canadensis emergence can occur most of the year in
many locales (Buhler and Owen, 1997; Main et al., 2006; Steckel
et al., 2006). Although C. canadensis can emerge throughout the
year, the two main emergence periods are fall (September and
October) and spring (April, May, and June) in the southern USA.
Time of emergence differed among three Tennessee locations, with
primary emergence being in the fall at Jackson, in the spring at
Milan, and both fall and spring at Knoxville. Buhler and Owen
(1997) also reported that locale affected germination and emer-
gence, with greater spring emergence in Minnesota than in Iowa. In
addition to germination, spring C. canadensis infestation is influ-
enced by winter survival rate of seedlings. Buhler and Owen (1997)
reported winter survival rates of 59–91% of fall-emerged seedlings.
Hartzler (2001) estimated that 40% of the population present in
mid-April had emerged after mid-October in Iowa, and that
emergence continued into the season. Because of C. canadensis
emergence patterns, both pre-plant and in-crop control options are
needed.

0261-2194/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.08.012
 J.K. Norsworthy et al. / Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67
C. canadensis seed is dispersed by wind, and one plant can
produce 50,000–200,000 seeds (Holm et al., 1997). Although 99% of
the C. canadensis seed released were found within 100 m from
source plants, some seed can disperse to at least 500 m (Dauer
et al., 2007). Shields et al. (2006) estimated that some C. canadensis
seed disperse more than 500 km in the planetary boundary layer of
the atmosphere, allowing for inter-regional gene flow of the
resistant biotype.
Because C. canadensis is an early spring weed, pre-plant control
is needed in conservation-tillage cotton. With reduced effective-
ness of glyphosate for pre-plant burndown control of C. canadensis,
the non-selective herbicides paraquat and glufosinate were
thought to be possible replacements. However, plants treated with
paraquat usually recover quickly, and control is often variable
(Bruce and Kells, 1990; Poston, 2005; Steckel et al., 2005; Van-
Gessell et al., 2001; Weaver, 2001), dependent partly on plant size
at application (Steckel et al., 2005). Additionally, paraquat-resistant
C. canadensis has been reported (Smisek et al., 1998; Weaver et al.,
2004). Glufosinate can be used pre-plant burndown, but it can also
give inconsistent control of C. canadensis depending on tempera-
ture and size of the weed at application (Nandula et al., 2005;
Poston, 2005; Steckel et al., 2005, 2006). Neither paraquat nor
glufosinate has residual soil activity, so effective herbicides with
residual activity are often recommended for pre-plant burndown or
at planting along with a non-selective herbicide such as glyphosate
or glufosinate (Davis et al., 2007; Loux et al., 2006; Nandula et al.,
2005). Among the herbicides that have shown promise for residual
control of C. canadensis in the mid-South are prometryn (Holloway
et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2003; Steckel et al., 2006), diuron (Kelley
et al., 2005; McClelland et al., 2007; Steckel et al., 2006), flumiox-
azin (Mayhew et al., 2004; Nandula et al., 2005; Steckel et al., 2006),
and pendimethalin (Steckel et al., 2006). Because of some incon-
sistencies in efficacy, however, more evaluation of these herbicides
is needed.
Dicamba applied pre-plant is another option for C. canadensis
control and has become a ‘standard’ for control in Arkansas
(McClelland et al., 2007). Other researchers also report that
dicamba is needed to improve C. canadensis control over control
with pre-plant burndown herbicides (Everitt and Keeling, 2007;
Loux et al., 2006; Nandula et al., 2005; Steckel et al., 2005, 2006).
Glufosinate applied alone 3–4 weeks before planting cotton could
not prevent further emergence, and C. canadensis was present at
planting. However, applying glufosinate with dicamba 30 days
before planting overcame the inconsistencies in C. canadensis
control with glufosinate (Steckel et al., 2006).
One drawback of dicamba is that its use is restricted by timing of
rainfall or irrigation. For up to 0.28 kg a.e./ha of dicamba, cotton
cannot be planted until the fields have received a minimum accu-
mulation of 25 mm of rainfall or irrigation and planting is delayed
for 21 days after the rainfall or irrigation event (Anonymous,
2008a). However, Tennessee and Missouri have each been granted
a Section 24C registration that decreases the waiting period to
15 days (Anonymous, 2008b,c). Restrictions are set because
dicamba applied too close to planting can cause cotton injury
(Everitt and Keeling, 2007; York et al., 2004). Several researchers
have reported that cotton injury from dicamba is highly dependent
on rainfall (Ferguson, 1996; Guy and Ashcraft, 1996; York et al.,
2004). The half-life of dicamba is usually reported to range from 1
to 4 weeks (NPIC, 2002), although degradation is dependent on
environmental conditions and other conditions that affect biolog-
ical degradation. For example, half-life was 31 days in aerobic
conditions and 58 days in anaerobic conditions (Krueger et al.,
1991). Comfort et al. (1992) reported that half-life of dicamba is
highly correlated to temperature. Therefore, although dicamba
does have some soil residual activity, it may not extend into the
early cotton season.
63
Research was conducted to (a) evaluate C. canadensis control
with residual herbicides labeled for pre-emergence use in cotton,
(b) determine the length of residual activity of each herbicide, (c)
determine the effectiveness of glufosinate and dicamba-based
herbicide programs for control of C. canadensis, and (d) establish
whether spring applications of dicamba and other residual herbi-
cides reduce C. canadensis emergence.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Residual C. canadensis control
Herbicides evaluated in autumn 2004 and spring 2005 for
residual C. canadensis control included diuron at 1120 g a.i./ha,
prometryn at 1120 g a.i./ha, fluometuron at 1400 g a.i./ha, flu-
mioxazin at 71 g a.i./ha, oxyfluorfen at 420 g a.i./ha, pyrithiobac at
47 g a.i./ha, and norflurazon at 1680 g a.i./ha. The experimental
design was a 3  8 factorial arrangement of treatments (three
planting times and eight herbicides, including the non-treated
control) using a randomized complete block design with three
replications. Herbicides were applied to a Taloka silt loam soil (fine,
mixed thermic, Mollic Albaqualfs) in 7.5  15  30-cm trays, and
approximately 0.5 g of seeds from glyphosate-resistant C. cana-
densis collected from Marion, Arkansas, USA, were uniformly
sprinkled on a section of the soil surface (one-third of the flat per
planting time) and covered with paper until germination after
approximately four days. The spray applications were made inside
a stationary chamber with a two-nozzle boom with flat-fan nozzles
calibrated to deliver 187 L/ha. A portion of the flat was planted at
three planting dates, which corresponded to immediately after
herbicide application, 2 weeks after treatment (WAT), and 4 WAT.
During the second repetition (run) of the experiment, C. canadensis
was seeded at 0, 1, and 4 WAT.
Control of glyphosate-resistant C. canadensis was rated visually
on a 0–100% scale at 4 weeks after each planting, with 0 equal to no
control and 100 equal to complete control. Ratings were based on
reduction of germination or stand and growth reduction of seed-
lings compared to a non-treated control. Data were subjected to
analysis of variance (ANOVA) using PROC GLM of SAS (SAS, 2000) to
test the effects of time of application and herbicides on C. cana-
densis control. The non-treated control was not included in the
analysis. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at an alpha
of 0.05 was used to separate means.
2.2. C. canadensis control and emergence in the field
A dryland field experiment was conducted at Clarkedale,
Crawfordsville, and Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA, in 2007 to deter-
mine the efficacy of burndown herbicide programs on C. cana-
densis, and the length of residual control provided by these
herbicides. The soil type at Clarkedale was a Sharkey silty clay
(very-fine, montmorillonitic, nonacid, thermic Vertic Hapla-
quepts), at Crawfordsville a Dundee silt loam (fine-silty, mixed,
thermic Aeric Haplaquepts), and at Fayetteville a Taloka silt loam
(fine, mixed thermic, Mollic Albaqualfs). All sites contained
a natural infestation of C. canadensis. The populations at Clarkedale
and Crawfordsville were glyphosate-resistant, and the population
at Fayetteville was susceptible. The experimental design was a split
plot with application timing (early and late March) as the main-
plot factor and herbicide programs as the subplot factor. Plots were
2  9 m at all locations, and all treatments included four
replications.
Herbicides were applied March 8 (early) and March 21 (late) at
Clarkedale and Crawfordsville and March 14 (early) and March 30
(late) at Fayetteville. Treatments evaluated included glufosinate at
820 g a.i./ha, glufosinate at 820 g/ha plus dicamba at 280 g a.e./ha,
64 J.K. Norsworthy et al. / Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67

glufosinate at 820 g/ha plus dicamba at 280 g/ha plus flumioxazin 3. Results and discussion
at 71 g/ha, glufosinate at 820 g/ha plus dicamba at 280 g/ha plus
thifensulfuron-methyl at 17 g a.i./ha, and the potassium salt of 3.1. Residual C. canadensis control
glyphosate at 870 g a.e./ha plus dicamba at 280 g/ha, and a non-
treated control. Each herbicide was applied at the recommended Of the herbicides evaluated, only fluometuron, oxyfluorfen, and
pre-plant burndown dose for cotton. Ammonium sulfate at 2.8 kg/ norflurazon provided at least 80% control of glyphosate-resistant
ha was added to all glufosinate treatments. The formulated C. canadensis through 8 WAT in both experiments (Table 1). Notably,
glyphosate contained an adjuvant. All herbicides applications were C. canadensis was completely controlled by norflurazon throughout
applied using a hand-held boom calibrated to deliver 187 L/ha at the 8-week evaluation period. Pyrithiobac was the least effective
276 kPa and a speed of 5 km/h. herbicide, with control as low as 60% at 4 WAT. Diuron, prometryn,
Prior to applying the herbicide treatments, two 0.5-m2 quadrats and flumioxazin provided at least 98% control through 8 WAT in the
at Clarkedale and one 3-m2 quadrat at Crawfordsville and Fayet- first experimental run, but control in the second run declined
teville were established in each plot to monitor C. canadensis rapidly following 5 WAT. By 8 WAT in the second run, control was
emergence. Colored toothpicks were placed beside plants that only 20–35% for diuron, prometryn, and flumioxazin. Because
emerged in each quadrat, with each color representing a specific rainfall amount and soil temperature contribute to degradation of
emergence period. Toothpicks were first placed in plots immedi- residual herbicides (Vencill and Banks, 1994), it is possible that
ately prior to applying herbicides. Plots were rated for C. canadensis subtle differences in watering and environmental conditions
control at 2 and 6 WAT on a 0–100% scale, with 0 equal no control between runs of the experiment caused rapid loss of some residual
and 100 equal complete control. herbicides in the second run.
Glufosinate at 820 g/ha plus ammonium sulfate at 2.8 kg/ha
were applied to the entire test area on May 7, 2007, at Clarkedale 40
and Crawfordsville and May 14, 2007, at Fayetteville. Four rows of Clarkedale
cotton cultivar ‘Stoneville 4554 B2RF’ were seeded perpendicular to
the plots on May 21, 2007 and at Fayetteville on May 22, 2007. The 200
30
Crawfordsville site was in a producer’s field, and the producer
planted soybean into the test site. Cotton injury was visually rated 150
at 2 weeks after planting on a 0–100% scale, where 0 equals no
20
injury and 100 equals plant death.
Rainfall data were obtained from a weather station located 100
approximately 100 m from the test site at Fayetteville, 15 m from
10
the test site at Clarkedale, and 15 km from Crawfordsville. Soil 50
temperature and soil water potential at a 2.5-cm depth and air
temperature were recorded hourly with data loggers from March 8
0 0
through June 4 at Clarkedale, March 8 through May 22 at Craw-
Mar 12 Mar 26 Apr 9 Apr 23 May 7 May 21 Jun 4
fordsville, and March 14 through May 19 at Fayetteville. Data 40
loggers were removed from the test sites before planting cotton and
Max/min soil temperatures (C)

Crawfordsville

Soil water potential (-kPa)

were then immediately replaced afterward.
200
The effects of application timing and herbicide programs on 30
weed control were determined by subjecting data to ANOVA using
PROC GLM of SAS (SAS, 2000). Separate ANOVAs were performed 150
for each location. Cumulative emergence data following herbicide 20
treatment were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS, with the
100
density at the time of application serving as a covariate to minimize
variability in initial densities among plots. Fisher’s LSD test at a 5% 10
level of significance was used to separate C. canadensis control 50
means, and standard errors were calculated for C. canadensis
emergence. 0 0
Mar 12 Mar 26 Apr 9 Apr 23 May 7 May 21 Jun 4
40
Fayetteville
Table 1
200
Residual control of glyphosate-resistant Conyza canadensis through 8 weeks after 30
treatment (WAT) with seven herbicides in two runs of an experiment.

Herbicide Dose (g a.i./ha) Conyza canadensis control 150

Run 1 Run 2 20

4 WAT 6 WAT 8 WAT 4 WAT 5 WAT 8 WAT 100

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Diuron 1120 100 100 100 100 99 25 10
50
Prometryn 1120 100 99 100 100 98 20
Fluometuron 1400 98 100 98 100 99 80
Flumioxazin 71 100 99 98 100 99 35
0 0
Oxyfluorfen 420 100 100 95 100 99 99
Mar 12 Mar 26 Apr 9 Apr 23 May 7 May 21 Jun 4
Pyrithiobac 47 60 72 75 90 80 37
Norflurazon 1680 100 100 100 100 100 100 Date
S.E.M. 8.1 6.7 4.8 2.9 5.7 20.5
Fig. 1. Daily maximum and minimum soil temperature (solid lines) and soil water
D.F. 18 18 18 18 18 18
potential (dotted line) at 2.5-cm depth at Clarkedale, Crawfordsville, and Fayetteville,
L.S.D. (0.05) 17 14 10 6 12 43
Arkansas, USA.
 J.K. Norsworthy et al. / Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67 65

Our results are similar to findings from trials where flumioxazin,
prometryn, and diuron applied 30 days prior to planting G. hirsu-
tum provided effective residual control of glyphosate-resistant
C. canadensis (Steckel et al., 2005). Although flumioxazin does not
provide control of existing C. canadensis, it does provide up to 56
days of residual control of subsequent seedling emergence when
applied in the spring prior to planting cotton (Steckel et al., 2006).
In the Pacific Northwestern USA, norflurazon plus metribuzin
supplied complete residual control of C. canadensis for at least 3
months in a no-tillage system (Boydston, 1995), further evidence of
the effectiveness of norflurazon in providing residual control.
Additionally, C. canadensis was not a problem weed of cotton in the
USA from the 1970s through the mid-1990s (Webster and Coble,
1997) probably because of the extensive use of fluometuron and
norflurazon as well as reliance on pre-plant tillage.
3.2. C. canadensis emergence
C. canadensis germinates mainly in autumn and spring in the
southern USA when temperatures are near 20–25  C (Eubank et al.,
2006; Nandula et al., 2006). However, it can emerge at any time of
the year in the southern USA contingent upon soil and environ-
mental conditions being suitable for germination (Main et al., 2006;
Saphangthong and Witt, 2006). There were periods throughout the
spring at each site when conditions were conducive for germina-
tion (Fig. 1); however, emergence occurred at Clarkedale and
Crawfordsville but not at Fayetteville (Figs. 2 and 3). One possible
reason for lack of emergence in the spring at Fayetteville may be
that conditions were suitable for the previous autumn to allow all
non-dormant seeds to germinate.
At Clarkedale and Crawfordsville, C. canadensis emerged after
both application timings (Figs. 2 and 3). An average of 8.3 (2.6)
C. canadensis seedlings/m2 emerged between March 8 and May 7 at
Clarkedale in glufosinate-only plots (Fig. 2). At Crawfordsville, an
average of 1.8 (0.5) seedlings/m2 emerged between March 8 and
May 7 in glufosinate-only plots (Fig. 3).
3.3. C. canadensis control at Clarkedale and Crawfordsville
The interaction of application timing and herbicide program for
C. canadensis control was not significant at Clarkedale and Craw-
fordsville at 2 and 6 WAT. Averaged over application timings, glu-
fosinate alone did not provide complete C. canadensis control at
either location at 2 WAT (Table 2). Plants that were not controlled
regrew and new seedlings emerged by 6 WAT, resulting in no more
than 76% control from glufosinate.
The addition of dicamba to glufosinate generally improved
C. canadensis control over that of glufosinate alone at 2 and 6 WAT
(Table 2). This improved control was partially due to residual
suppression of C. canadensis emergence by dicamba (Figs. 1 and 2).
Dicamba whether mixed with glufosinate or glyphosate resulted in
30–36% reduction in C. canadensis emergence through 12 WAT
when applied in early March at Clarkedale. Applying dicamba
in late March at Clarkedale resulted in 66–76% reduction in
C. canadensis emergence through early June, a 10-week period. At

2.5
12
Early March
Cumulative Emergence (No./m2)

Early March
Cumulative Emergence (No./m2)

2.0 10

1.5 8

6
1.0

4
0.5
2

0.0
0
Mar 5 Mar 19 Apr 2 Apr 16 Apr 30 May 14 May 28
Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1

1.6 12
Late March Late March
Cumulative Emergence (No./m2)

Cumulative Emergence (No./m2)

1.4
10
1.2
8
1.0

0.8 6

0.6
4
0.4
2
0.2

0.0 0
Mar 5 Mar 19 Apr 2 Apr 16 Apr 30 May 14 May 28 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1

Fig. 2. Conyza canadensis cumulative emergence following herbicide applications on
March 8 (early) and March 22 (late) at Clarkedale, Arkansas, USA in 2007. Standard
error bars are shown. Herbicides treatments were glufosinate (-), glufosinate plus
dicamba (A), glufosinate plus dicamba plus flumioxazin (:), glufosinate plus dicamba
plus thifensulfuron-methyl (;), and glyphosate plus dicamba (C).
Fig. 3. Conyza canadensis cumulative emergence following herbicide applications on
March 8 (early) and March 21 (late) at Crawfordsville, Arkansas, USA in 2007. Standard
error bars are shown. Herbicides treatments were glufosinate (-), glufosinate plus
dicamba (A), glufosinate plus dicamba plus flumioxazin (:), glufosinate plus dicamba
plus thifensulfuron-methyl (;), and glyphosate plus dicamba (C).
66 J.K. Norsworthy et al. / Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67

Table 2
Conyza canadensis control at three locations in Arkansas, USA, at 2 and 6 weeks after treatment (WAT)a.

Herbicide Dosec (g a.i./ha) Clarkedaleb Crawfordsvilleb Fayetteville

Early Late Early Late

2 WAT 6 WAT 2 WAT 6 WAT 2 WAT 2 WAT 6 WAT 6 WAT

(% control) (% control) (% control) (% control) (% control) (% control) (% control) (% control)
Glufosinate 820 74 61 93 76 100 86 98 49

Glufosinate þ dicamba 820 95 96 97 91 100 88 100 61

280

Glufosinate þ dicamba þ 820 99 97 98 92 100 91 99 64

flumioxazin 280
71

Glufosinate þ dicamba þ 820 99 99 99 100 100 88 99 73

thifensulfuron-methyl 280
17

Glyphosate þ dicamba 870 81 99 76 97 100 96 100 93

280

S.E.M. 6.0 5.1 3.2 3.3 2.8 4.3

D.F. 12 12 12 12 12 12
L.S.D. (0.05) 13 11 7 7 6 9
a
Herbicides were applied on March 8 (early) and March 21 (late) at Clarkedale and Crawfordsville and March 14 (early) and March 30 (late) at Fayetteville.
b
Means for Clarkedale and Crawfordsville are the average of early and late herbicide application timings.
c
The glyphosate dose is reported in acid equivalents rather than active ingredient.

Crawfordsville, dicamba applied in early March reduced C. cana-
densis cumulative emergence through late May by 59–85% relative
to glufosinate alone. When applied in late March at Crawfordsville,
cumulative C. canadensis emergence in plots treated with dicamba
plus glufosinate or glyphosate was reduced 20–40% relative to
glufosinate alone.
The addition of flumioxazin to glufosinate plus dicamba did not
improve C. canadensis control over glufosinate plus dicamba
through 6 WAT at Clarkedale or Crawfordsville. Flumioxazin does
not control emerged C. canadensis, but does provide residual
control of C. canadensis (Hayes et al., 2003). If control ratings had
been taken later than 6 WAT, the benefits of residual C. canadensis
control would have been more evident. C. canadensis did not
emerge in flumioxazin-treated plots at Clarkedale and Crawfordsville
throughout the 10–12 weeks of the experiment, but emergence did
occur in glufosinate-only and glufosinate plus dicamba-treated
plots (Figs. 2 and 3). In other research, Steckel et al. (2006) reported
that glufosinate plus flumioxazin did not improve post-emergence
control of C. canadensis over glufosinate alone but did provide an
extended period of residual control.
Adding thifensulfuron-methyl to glufosinate plus dicamba
resulted in at least 99% C. canadensis control through 6 WAT at both
locations (Table 2). Thifensulfuron-methyl generally increased
residual C. canadensis control over that of dicamba, but the
consistency of thifensulfuron-methyl in providing residual control
was generally less than flumioxazin.
3.4. C. canadensis control at Fayetteville
The interaction of application timing and herbicide program for
C. canadensis control was significant at Fayetteville (Table 2). The
interaction was attributed to cool conditions following the late
March application, which reduced the effectiveness of glufosinate.
From April 1 through April 16, daily air temperature averaged 3  C
(data not shown). Air temperature strongly influences glufosinate
efficacy and consistency. For instance, in other research, Raphanus
raphanistrum L. control was less at 5/10  C than at 20/25  C
(Kumaratilake and Preston, 2005). Similarly, Eubank et al. (2006)
attributed inconsistency in C. canadensis control with glufosinate to
cool conditions.
The addition of dicamba or dicamba þ flumioxazin or thi-
fensulfuron-methyl to glufosinate increased control over glufosi-
nate alone. However, residual control could not be evaluated
because no emergence occurred, even in the non-treated control,
after herbicides were applied. All herbicide programs provided at
least 98% control through 6 WAT when applied in mid-March, but
cool conditions during early April reduced the effectiveness of the
late-applied herbicides to only 49–96% control (Table 2).
3.5. Crop tolerance
No herbicide treatment caused injury to cotton, which was
expected because all herbicides are labeled for use after appro-
priate pre-plant intervals prior to planting this crop. Dicamba at
280 g/ha must be applied at least 15 days prior to planting cotton,
and 2.5 cm of rainfall must occur during this period to ensure crop
safety (Anonymous, 2008a). Dicamba applied too close to planting
can cause cotton injury, including stand loss (Baker, 1993; Everitt
and Keeling, 2007; York et al., 2004). Dicamba at 600 g/ha has been
shown to reduce cotton stands when applied 9 days prior to crop
planting (Baker, 1993).
4. Conclusions
Fluometuron, oxyfluorfen, and norflurazon provided effective
residual control of glyphosate-resistant C. canadensis through 8
weeks after treatment. Post-emergence control with glufosinate
alone applied early or late March was usually less than complete,
resulting in C. canadensis regrowth and subsequent seedling
emergence. Based on the cumulative emergence data, it is evident
that dicamba does provide some residual suppression of C. cana-
densis emergence, albeit not a high enough level to exclude addi-
tional residual herbicides or use of in-crop post-emergence
herbicides in fields heavily infested with C. canadensis, similar to
the one at Clarkedale. The additional residual herbicides provide
options for increasing glyphosate-resistant C. canadensis control
over that obtained with glufosinate and dicamba and introduce
alternative modes of action that can be rotated for resistance
management.
 J.K. Norsworthy et al. / Crop Protection 28 (2009) 62–67
Although C. canadensis has developed resistance to some
photosystem II inhibitors, the mode of action of fluometuron,
resistance has not been reported in Arkansas or surrounding states.
Being able to rotate fluometuron (urea family) with oxyfluorfen
(diphenyl ether) and norflurazon (pyridazinone) may make it
possible to avoid resistance of C. canadensis to these herbicide
families.
Acknowledgments
The assistance of Mike Hamilton and Bryan Schmid in estab-
lishing and maintaining the plots at Clarkedale and Crawfordsville
is appreciated.
References
Anonymous, 2008a. Clarity Herbicide Specimen Label. BASF Corporation, Research
Triangle Park, NC. <http://www.cdms.net/Ldat/Id797000.pdf> (accessed
16.01.08).
Anonymous, 2008b. Clarity Herbicide Supplemental Labeling (Missouri). BASF
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC. <http://www.cdms.net/Ldat/
Id797004.pdf> (accessed 16.01.08).
Anonymous, 2008c. Clarity Herbicide Supplemental Labeling (Tennessee). BASF
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC. <http://www.cdms.net/Ldat/
Id797008.pdf> (accessed 16.01.08).
Baker, R.S., 1993. Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to preplant-applied
hormone-type herbicides. Weed Technol. 7, 150–153.
Boydston, R.A., 1995. Effect of tillage level and herbicides on weed control and yield
of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Technol. 9,
768–772.
Brown, S.M., Whitwell, T., 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed (Conyza cana-
densis). Weed Technol. 2, 269–270.
Bruce, J.A., Kells, J.J., 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage
soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed
Technol. 4, 642–647.
Buhler, D.D., Owen, M.D.K., 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza
canadensis). Weed Sci. 45, 98–101.
Comfort, S.D., Inskeep, W.P., Macur, R.E., 1992. Degradation and transport of
dicamba in a clay soil. J. Environ. Qual. 21, 653–658.
Dauer, J.T., Mortensen, D.A., VanGessel, M.J., 2007. Temporal and spatial dynamics of
long-distance Conyza canadensis seed dispersal. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 105–114.
Davis, V.M., Gibson, K.D., Bauman, T.T., Weller, S.C., Johnson, W.G., 2007. Influence of
weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horse-
weed population dynamics and crop yield. Weed Sci. 55, 508–516.
Eubank, T.W., Poston, D.H., Koger, C.H., Nandula, V., Shaw, D.B., Reynolds, D.B., 2006.
Germination and emergence of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and its control
utilizing tillage and herbicides. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 59, 87.
Everitt, J.D., Keeling, J.W., 2007. Weed control and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)
response to preplant applications of dicamba, 2,4-D, and diflufenzopyr plus
dicamba. Weed Technol. 21, 506–510.
Ferguson, B., 1996. Banvel SGF for preplant weed control in cotton. In: Proceedings
of Beltwide Cotton Conference. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis,
TN, pp. 48–49.
Guy, C.B., Ashcraft, R.W., 1996. Horseweed and cutleaf evening primrose control in
no-till cotton. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference. National Cotton
Council of America, Memphis, TN, p. 1557.
Hartzler, B., 2001. Horseweed Emergence Influences Management. <www.weeds.
iastate.edu/mgmt/2001/Horseweed.htm> (accessed 03.09.04).
Hayes, R.M., Mueller, T.C., Craig, C.C., 2003. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) distribution and control in Tennessee. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc.
56, 357.
Heap, I., 2008. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. <www.
weedscience.com> (accessed 10.01.08).
Holloway, J., Black, D., Palmer, E., Foresman, C., Sandoski, C., 2005. Gramoxone tank-
mixtures for glyphosate-resistant horseweed. In: Proceedings of Beltwide
Cotton Conference. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, p. 2937.
67
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., Herberger, J., 1997. World Weeds, Natural
Histories and Distribution. J. Wiley, New York, pp. 226–235.
Kelley, M., Smith, K., Meier, J., Talbert, R., McClelland, M., Matthews, S., 2005.
Glyphosate-resistant horseweed: a growing problem in Arkansas cotton. In:
Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference. National Cotton Council of America,
Memphis, TN, p. 2881.
Krueger, J.P., Butz, R.G., Cork, J.P., 1991. Aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism of
dicamba. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39, 995–999.
Kumaratilake, A.R., Preston, C., 2005. Low temperature reduces glufosinate
activity and translocation in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci.
53, 10–16.
Lee, D.R., Miller, D.K., Kelly, S.T., 2003. Evaluation of Gramoxone Max tankmix
combinations for marestail control in northeast Louisiana. Proc. South. Weed
Sci. Soc. 56, 289.
Loux, M., Stachler, J., Johnson, B., Nice, G., Davis, V., Nordby, D., 2006. The Glyphosate,
Weeds, and Crops Series: Biology and Management of Horseweed. <http://www.
ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-9-W.pdf> (accessed 10.01.08).
Main, C.L., Steckel, L.E., Hayes, R.M., Mueller, T.C., 2006. Biotic and abiotic factors
influence horseweed emergence. Weed Sci. 54, 1101–1105.
Mayhew, T., Altom, J., Carey, F., Cranmer, J., Odle, W., 2004. Beltwide review of
Valor SX weed control in Roundup Ready cotton. In: Proceedings of Belt-
wide Cotton Conference. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN,
p. 2993.
McClelland, M.R., Smith, K.L., Norsworthy, J.K., 2007. Managing glyphosate-resistant
horseweed in conservation-tillage cotton production: final summary and
recommendations. In: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research
Series 552. <http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/552-22.pdf> (accessed 10.01.08).
Nandula, V.K., Poston, D.H., Eubank, T.W., Koger, C.H., 2005. Horseweed control with
glyphosate-, glufosinate-, and paraquat-based herbicide programs. Proc. South.
Weed Sci. Soc. 58, 40.
Nandula, V.K., Eubank, T.W., Poston, D.H., Koger, C.H., Reddy, K.N., 2006. Factors
affecting germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 54,
898–902.
Norsworthy, J.K., Smith, K.L., Scott, R.C., Gbur, E.E., 2007. Consultant perspec-
tives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton. Weed Technol. 21,
825–831.
NPIC (National Pesticide Information Center), 2002. Dicamba (General Fact Sheet).
<npic.orst.edu/factsheets/dicamba_gen.pdf> (accessed 25.01.08).
Poston, D.H., 2005. Strategies for Control of Glyphosate-resistant Horseweed. Project
Summary, Cotton Incorporated. <http://www.cottoninc.com/ProjectSummaries/
detail.asp?Selected Year ¼ 2005&projectID ¼ 2266> (accessed 10.01.08).
SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems), 2000. SAS User’s Guide. Version 8. Statistical
Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.
Saphangthong, T., Witt, W.W., 2006. Germination of horseweed (Conyza canadensis)
under field conditions. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59, 174.
Shields, E.J., Dauer, J.T., VanGessel, M.J., Neumann, G., 2006. Horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) seed collected in the planetary boundary layer. Weed Sci. 54,
1063–1067.
Smisek, A., Doucet, C., Jones, M., Weaver, S., 1998. Paraquat resistance in horseweed
(Conyza canadensis) and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) from Essex
County, Ontario. Weed Sci. 46, 200–204.
Steckel, L.E., Craig, C.C., Brawley, P.A., Hayes, R.M., 2005. Burndown of
glyphosate-resistant horseweed in no-till cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci.
Soc. 58, 9.
Steckel, L.E., Craig, C.C., Hayes, R.M., 2006. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza
canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum). Weed Technol. 20, 1047–1051.
VanGessell, M., Johnson, Q., Scott, B., 2001. Control of Glyphosate-resistant Horse-
weed in Delaware Available from: <http://www.rec.udel.edu/weed_sci/
Research/DSB_01_ERICA_rpt.pdf>.
Vencill, W.K., Banks, P.A., 1994. Dissipation of chlorimuron in southern soils. Weed
Sci. 42, 625–628.
Weaver, S.E., 2001. The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis. Can.
J. Plant Sci. 81, 867–875.
Weaver, S., Downs, M., Neufeld, B., 2004. Response of paraquat-resistant and
-susceptible horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to diquat, linuron, and oxyfluorfen.
Weed Sci. 52, 549–553.
Webster, T.M., Coble, H.D., 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the
southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11, 308–317.
York, A.C., Culpepper, A.S., Stewart, A.M., 2004. Response of strip-tilled cotton to
preplant applications of dicamba and 2,4-D. J. Cotton Sci. 8, 213–222.