Changes in Herbicide Use Patterns and Production Practices Resulting from

Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Author(s): BRYAN G. YOUNG
Source: Weed Technology, 20(2):301-307. 2006.
Published By: Weed Science Society of America
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-189.1
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1614/WT-04-189.1

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Weed Technology. 2006. Volume 20:301–307

Changes in Herbicide Use Patterns and Production Practices Resulting from

Glyphosate-Resistant Crops1

BRYAN G. YOUNG2

Abstract: Recent shifts in herbicide use patterns can be attributed to rapid, large-scale adoption of
glyphosate-resistant soybean and cotton. A dramatic increase in glyphosate use is the most obvious
change associated with the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops. Consequently, the diversity of
herbicides used for weed management in these crops has declined, particularly in soybean. To date,
the availability of glyphosate-resistant corn has limited the use of glyphosate in corn. While exploit-
ing the benefits of glyphosate-resistant crops, many growers have abandoned the principles of sound
weed and herbicide-resistance management. Instead of incorporating glyphosate into a resistance
management strategy utilizing multiple herbicide sites of action, many growers rely exclusively upon
glyphosate for weed control. Although it is difficult to establish a clear relationship between the
adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops and changes in other crop production practices, the increase
in no-till and strip-till production of cotton and soybean between 1995 and 2002 may have been
facilitated by glyphosate-resistant crops.
Nomenclature: Glyphosate; corn, Zea mays L.; cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.; soybean, Glycine
max L.
Additional key words: Application timing, herbicide-resistance management, mode of action, site
of action, tank mixtures, tillage, weed management strategies.

INTRODUCTION ance on tillage, reduced herbicide costs, and less com-

Herbicide-resistant crops have the potential to increase
weed control efficiency (Burnside 1992; Radosevich et
al. 1992), simplify weed management (Martinez-Ghersa
et al. 2003), and increase the diversity of herbicide sites
of action used on a given crop to benefit efforts in re-
sistance management (Radosevich et al. 1992). Herbi-
cide-resistant crops also may facilitate the adoption of
conservation tillage practices by increasing grower con-
fidence in weed control (CTIC 2004). Conversely, the
use of herbicide-resistant crops could increase grower
dependence upon chemical weed control and result in an
herbicide-crop monoculture that increases the risk of de-
veloping herbicide-resistant weeds (Radosevich et al.
1992).
The introduction of glyphosate-resistant soybean, cot-
ton, and corn in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively, has
dramatically altered crop production in the United States.
Growers have been keen to capitalize on the benefits of
glyphosate-resistant crops, which may include improved
weed control, reduced time and labor inputs, less reli-
1
Received for publication June 1, 2004, and in revised form November 4,
2004.
2
Associate Professor, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems,
Southern Illinois University, 1205 Lincoln Drive, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL
62901. Corresponding author’s E-mail: bgyoung@siu.edu.
plicated weed management compared with previous
weed control practices (Bradley et al. 2004; CTIC 2004;
Johnson et al. 2000; Reddy and Whiting 2000). There-
fore, the purpose of this article is to describe changes in
herbicide use patterns and production practices that are
associated with the adoption of glyphosate-resistant
crops.
CHANGES IN GLYPHOSATE USE
The most obvious consequence of the rapid and large-
scale adoption of glyphosate-resistant soybean has been
a dramatic increase in glyphosate use. Prior to the intro-
duction of glyphosate-resistant soybean in 1996, less
than 3 million kg of glyphosate was used in soybean
each year, with the majority of glyphosate used for weed
control prior to crop planting (Figure 1a). From 1995 to
2002, glyphosate use in soybean increased from 2.5 to
30 million kg/yr (Figure 1a), and the average number of
glyphosate applications per year in soybean increased
from 1 to 1.4 (Figure 1b). The increase in the average
number of glyphosate applications per year reflects the
use of additional applications after crop emergence.
Glyphosate use in cotton has increased from 700,000
to 3,870,000 kg/yr since the introduction of glyphosate-

301
 YOUNG: CHANGES IN HERBICIDE USE PATTERNS

resistant cotton in 1997 (Figure 1a). As is the case with

soybean, the average number of glyphosate applications
increased from one per year in 1996 to 1.8 per year in
2001 (Figure 1b) as growers added postemergence ap-
plications of glyphosate as part of their weed control
strategy in glyphosate-resistant cotton. The introduction
of the next generation of glyphosate-resistant cotton is
expected in 2006. This new cotton technology will allow
growers to use higher rates of glyphosate and will also
likely increase the number of glyphosate applications
made per season.
Glyphosate-resistant corn has been adopted on a lim-
ited number of hectares since its introduction in 1998.
Limited availability of high-performing glyphosate-re-
sistant hybrids and grower concerns about potential ex-
port restrictions may have been the predominant reasons
for such low adoption. Thus, there has been only a mod-
est increase in the amount of glyphosate used and num-
ber of applications in corn over the past several years
(Figure 1). Significant improvements in glyphosate-re-
sistant corn hybrids have recently occurred, and this will
likely facilitate grower adoption of this technology in the Figure 1. Glyphosate use (a) and average number of applications per year (b)
from 1990 to 2002 in soybean, cotton, and corn. Data adapted from the U.S.
future. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricul-
tural Chemical Use Database (USDA 2004).

CHANGES IN USE OF OTHER HERBICIDES

Soybean. The soybean herbicide market was dominated
by dinitroanaline and imidazolinone herbicides from
1992 to 1996 (Table 1). Glyphosate first entered the top
three herbicides used in soybean in 1995 as a result of
the need for control of vegetation prior to planting in no-
till production. Glyphosate use has continued to increase
since 1995, with the largest increase (18%) occurring
from 1997 to 1998. In 2002, glyphosate was used on
nearly twice as many hectares (79%) as imazethapyr dur-
ing its peak use (44%) in 1995.
Ideally, the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops
should have increased the diversity of herbicide active
ingredients and sites of action used postemergence in
soybean, since no other herbicide shares the same site
of action as glyphosate. This added diversity could ben-
efit efforts in weed-resistance management, as glyphos-
ate could be combined with other herbicides in a tank
mixture or as part of a sequential herbicide program.
Indeed, glyphosate has been an integral component of
management strategies to control weed biotypes resistant
to other herbicides (Shoup and Al-Khatib 2004; Smeda
et al. 1997). However, the use of tank mixtures and se-
quential applications of more than one herbicide has de-
clined as many growers have elected to rely exclusively
on glyphosate for weed control in soybean, which may
increase the risk of selecting for glyphosate-resistant
weeds. The number of active ingredients used on at least
10% of the treated soybean hectares has declined from
11 in 1995 to only one (glyphosate) in 2002 (Figure 2a).
Likewise, the number of active ingredients used on at
least 5% of the treated soybean hectares has declined
from 14 in 1990 to only 9 in 2002 (data not shown;
USDA 2004). Hence, glyphosate has become the domi-
nant weed management tool in soybean, with only a
small percent of soybean hectares treated with other her-
bicides.
Logically, the number of different herbicide sites of
action has decreased along with the reduction in use of
alternative herbicide active ingredients. The number of
different herbicide sites of action (represented by an her-
bicide used on 10% or more of soybean hectares) de-
clined from seven in 1995 to one in 2002 (Figure 2a).
Furthermore, the average number of herbicide active in-
gredients applied to a treated area of soybean has de-
clined from 2.5 in 1994 to 1.6 in 2002 (Figure 3). A
conservative estimate, given 1.6 active ingredients per
hectare, would indicate that approximately 40%
(;12,000,000 ha) of the soybean hectares received only
glyphosate in 2002. Therefore, the selection pressure for
glyphosate-resistant weeds is extraordinary, as many

302 Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006

 WEED TECHNOLOGY

Table 1. A listing of the five herbicide active ingredients applied to the greatest percentage of soybean hectares from 1992 to 2002.a
Ranking
Crop/yr 1 2 3 4 5

Soybean
1992 Trifluralin (35)b Imazethapyr (29) Pendimethalin (21) Imazaquin (18) Chlorimuron (17)
1993 Imazethapyr (32) Trifluralin (25) Pendimethalin (22) Imazaquin (17) Chlorimuron (17)
1994 Imazethapyr (42) Pendimethalin (25) Trifluralin (24) Imazaquin (18) Chlorimuron/glyphosate (15)
1995 Imazethapyr (44) Pendimethalin (24) Glyphosate (21) Trifluralin (20) Chlorimuron (16)
1996 Imazethapyr (43) Pendimethalin (27) Glyphosate (25) Trifluralin (22) Imazaquin (15)
1997 Imazethapyr (38) Glyphosate (29) Pendimethalin (25) Trifluralin (21) Chlorimuron/imazaquin (13)
1998 Glyphosate (47) Pendimethalin (18) Imazethapyr (17) Trifluralin (16) Chlorimuron (12)
1999 Glyphosate (62) Imazethapyr (16) Pendimethalin (14) Trifluralin (14) Chlorimuron (12)
2000 Glyphosate (66) Trifluralin (14) Imazethapyr (12) Pendimethalin (11) Chlorimuron (10)
2001 Glyphosate (76) Pendimethalin (10) Imazethapyr (9) Fomesafen (7) Trifluralin (7)
2002 Glyphosate (79) Pendimethalin (9) Imazethapyr (9) Trifluralin (7) Chlorimuron/sulfentrazone (6)
Cotton
1992 Trifluralin (57) Fluometuron (29) Prometryn (25) MSMA (21) Cyanazine (20)
1993 Trifluralin (61) Fluometuron (29) Prometryn (25) MSMA (24) Paraquat (22)
1994 Trifluralin (61) Fluometuron (30) Prometryn (26) MSMA (22) Paraquat (21)
1995 Trifluralin (60) Fluometuron (33) Prometryn (30) MSMA (22) Pendimethalin (21)
1996 Trifluralin (57) Fluometuron (39) MSMA (24) Pendimethalin (22) Cyanazine (20)
1997 Trifluralin (55) Fluometuron (44) MSMA (29) Pendimethalin (28) Paraquat (24)
1998 Trifluralin (57) Fluometuron (32) Glyphosate (30) Pendimethalin (24) Diuron/MSMA (20)
1999 Trifluralin (52) Glyphosate (36) Fluometuron (27) Pendimethalin (24) Diuron (24)
2000 Glyphosate (56) Trifluralin (39) Pendimethalin (22) Diuron (20) Fluometuron (20)
2001 Glyphosate (57) Trifluralin (30) Diuron (26) Pendimethalin (16) Paraquat (16)
Corn
1992 Atrazine (69) Metolachlor (30) Alachlor (27) Dicamba (21) Cyanazine (20)
1993 Atrazine (69) Metolachlor (32) Alachlor (24) Dicamba (21) Cyanazine (20)
1994 Atrazine (68) Metolachlor (32) Dicamba (29) Cyanazine (21) Alachlor (17)
1995 Atrazine (65) Metolachlor (29) Dicamba (27) Acetochlor (18) Cyanazine (17)
1996 Atrazine (71) Metolachlor (30) Dicamba (25) Acetochlor (22) Cyanazine (13)
1997 Atrazine (69) Metolachlor (35) Dicamba (29) Acetochlor (24) Cyanazine (14)
1998 Atrazine (69) Metolachlor (32) Acetochlor (25) Dicamba (15) 2,4-D (12)
1999 Atrazine (70) Metolachlor (29) Acetochlor (27) Nicosulfuron (15) Dicamba (14)
2000 Atrazine (68) Metolachlor (28) Acetochlor (25) Dicamba (21) Nicosulfuron (15)
2001 Atrazine (75) Acetochlor (26) Metolachlor (25) Dicamba (15) Nicosulfuron (14)
2002 Atrazine (62) Acetochlor (25) Metolachlor (24) Nicosulfuron (13) Flumetsulam (12)

a
Data adapted from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Chemical Use Database (Online). Available
at http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/apppusage.cfm (Verified 5/23/04).
b
Number in parentheses indicates the percent of area treated.

growers are simplifying their herbicide strategy in soy-
bean by utilizing only glyphosate.
The increasing use of glyphosate for weed control has
also influenced the application timing of herbicides in
soybean, with a growing trend toward total postemer-
gence weed control. From 1992 through 1997, the soil-
applied herbicides trifluralin and pendimethalin were
each applied to at least 20% of soybean hectares (Table
1). However, as glyphosate use increased from 1997 to
2002, the percentage of hectares treated with trifluralin
and pendimethalin decreased to less than 10%. One of
the most significant changes in no-till soybean produc-
tion since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant soy-
bean is the timing of burndown applications. Since gly-
phosate can be applied over a relatively wide time period
with regard to weed size, and since the risk of glyphos-
ate-resistant soybean injury from glyphosate is minimal,
some growers are electing to delay the traditional burn-
down application until planting or several weeks after
planting (C. M. Boerboom, A. S. Culpepper, J. L. Grif-
fin, et al., personal communication). This strategy allows
the grower to control some early-emerging summer an-
nual weeds along with winter annual weeds present at,
or shortly after, planting.
Glyphosate controls seedling and juvenile weeds but
is not effective on weeds germinating after application.
Therefore, growers often seek to delay the postemer-
gence application of glyphosate to reduce the likelihood
that new weed emergence will warrant a subsequent her-
bicide application. It is becoming increasingly common
in some regions for growers to delay the application of
glyphosate until weeds are up to 30 cm in height or more
in an attempt to reduce herbicide and application costs
by eliminating the need for multiple herbicide applica-

Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006 303

 YOUNG: CHANGES IN HERBICIDE USE PATTERNS
Figure 2. Number of different herbicide active ingredients and herbicide sites
of action used on at least 10% of hectares from 1990 to 2002 in soybean (a),
cotton (b), and corn (c). Data adapted from the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Chemical Use Da-
tabase (USDA 2004).
tions (Boerboom et al. 2003). Glyphosate has improved
weed control and simplified weed management in soy-
bean to a level rarely experienced prior to glyphosate-
resistant soybean. However, these benefits have arguably
come at the expense of sound agronomics, as weeds are
not being managed in a timely fashion in relation to crop
competition, and complete reliance on glyphosate is ex-
erting high selection pressure for glyphosate-resistant
weeds.
Cotton. Weed control in cotton was dominated by soil
residual herbicides prior to the large-scale adoption of
304
Figure 3. Number of different herbicide active ingredients used per hectare
from 1990 to 2002 in soybean, cotton, and corn. Data adapted from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricul-
tural Chemical Use Database (USDA 2004).
glyphosate-resistant cotton. Trifluralin and fluometuron
were applied to over 50 and 25% of treated cotton hect-
ares, respectively, from 1992 to 1999 (Table 1). How-
ever, glyphosate use started to increase rapidly in 1998,
the year after the commercial introduction of glyphosate-
resistant cotton. Glyphosate had replaced trifluralin as
the herbicide applied to the greatest percentage of cotton
hectares by 2000. In 2001, glyphosate was applied on
almost twice as many hectares as any other herbicide in
cotton. The extent of glyphosate use in 2000 and 2001
was similar to the percent of hectares treated with triflu-
ralin throughout the 1990s.
Although glyphosate use has increased dramatically in
cotton production since 1997, there has been only a
small decline in the number of different active ingredi-
ents and sites of action used on 10% or more of treated
cotton hectares (Figure 2b). Likewise, the number of ac-
tive ingredients used on at least 5% of treated cotton
hectares declined only slightly from 14 in 1995 to 11 in
2001 (data not shown; USDA 2004). Thus, even though
glyphosate is the predominant herbicide used for weed
control in cotton, several other herbicides are used to
compliment glyphosate. In contrast to soybean, the num-
ber of unique herbicide sites of action (represented by
an herbicide used on 10% or more of cotton hectares)
declined only marginally, from eight in 1997 to seven in
2001 (Figure 2b). Data on herbicide diversity indicates
that the average number of active ingredients used per
treated cotton area declined from 3.1 in 1997 to 2.1 in
2001 (Figure 3).
Foliar applications of glyphosate should be made to
glyphosate-resistant cotton from cracking until the four-
leaf stage of cotton development to avoid the risk of boll
loss, delayed maturity, and/or yield loss (Anonymous
2004). After the fifth-leaf stage of glyphosate-resistant
Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006
 WEED TECHNOLOGY
cotton development, glyphosate must be precisely di-
rected with special equipment, which is a very time-con-
suming and tedious operation. Because glyphosate-resis-
tant cotton has such a short period of reproductive re-
sistance to foliar glyphosate applications, growers often
continue to use other herbicide chemistries to accomplish
adequate season-long weed control. Use of these other
herbicides has slightly limited the amount of glyphosate
used in cotton. However, once the next generation of
glyphosate-resistant cotton is released, glyphosate use
will increase. Although weed scientists in cotton grow-
ing regions report trends toward slightly later postemer-
gence application timings and reduced use of soil-ap-
plied herbicides, herbicide application patterns in cotton
have been affected to a lesser extent by glyphosate-re-
sistant cotton than have those in soybean (Boerboom et
al. 2003).
Corn. Atrazine and acetamide herbicides comprised the
top two herbicides used in corn from 1992 through 2002
(Table 1). In contrast to the rapid increase in glyphosate
use associated with the introduction of glyphosate-resis-
tant soybean and cotton, glyphosate use in corn has not
increased substantially since the introduction of gly-
phosate-resistant corn in 1998 (Figure 1).
Atrazine continues to dominate the corn herbicide
market as the active ingredient applied on twice as many
corn hectares than any other herbicide (Table 1). Unlike
soybean and cotton, glyphosate use in corn did not even
rank among the top five herbicides as of 2002. Further-
more, no significant changes in the number of active
ingredients or sites of action for herbicides used on 10%
or more of the treated corn hectares can be attributed to
the introduction of glyphosate-resistant corn (Figure 2c).
To date, the negligible impact of glyphosate-resistant
corn on herbicide use patterns may also be explained by
the tendency for glyphosate to be used in combination
with one or more other herbicides in glyphosate-resistant
corn (as opposed to relying on glyphosate as the only
herbicide, as is typical in soybean) (Boerboom et al.
2003). From 1995 to 2002, the number of herbicide ac-
tive ingredients applied to 5% or greater of the corn hect-
ares increased from 9 to 17 (data not shown; USDA
2004). Despite this apparent increase in herbicide diver-
sity in corn, chemical weed control only relied on four
herbicide modes of action in 2002 (Figure 2c). The in-
crease in active ingredients has largely been a result of
existing market opportunities for corn herbicides in con-
cert with the devaluation of the herbicide market in soy-
bean. The introduction of glyphosate-resistant corn has
not clearly influenced the average number of active in-
Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006
gredients applied per treated hectare (Figure 3). It is im-
portant to note that in 2002, a greater diversity of active
ingredients was used in corn than in either soybean or
cotton (data not shown; USDA 2004).
CHANGES IN HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS
Glyphosate applied alone in glyphosate-resistant soy-
bean is used on the majority of hectares (Boerboom et
al. 2003; USDA 2004). However, this is rarely true in
glyphosate-resistant cotton or corn. A reduction in the
use of herbicide tank mixtures for weed control prior to
planting glyphosate-resistant soybean in no-till (Boer-
boom et al. 2003) is likely a contributing factor for the
development of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Van-
Gessel 2001). In addition to the lack of herbicide diver-
sity for vegetation management prior to planting, the
timing of these applications has changed dramatically in
some regions. The most common change has been to
delay the initial herbicide application in no-till produc-
tion systems until after crop planting (Boerboom et al.
2003). This practice may contribute to early-season weed
interference with the crop and increased seed production
from winter annual weed species. Winter annual weed
populations have increased in recent years as a result of
a reduction in the use of soil-residual herbicides in soy-
bean and the lack of winter annual weed control prior to
seed production in the spring (Boerboom et al. 2003).
Subsequently, application of herbicides in the fall for
control of these species has increased in the Midwest.
The timing of weed removal (as measured by weed
height) with postemergence herbicide applications has
been delayed in all three glyphosate-resistant crops since
the introduction of each glyphosate-resistant crop (Boer-
boom et al. 2003). Scientists have suggested that the
most substantial increase has occurred in soybean, with
an increase in weed height at the time of application
from approximately 12 cm in 1995 to 21 cm in 2003
(Boerboom et al. 2003). This trend toward later weed
removal timings obviously has serious implications for
soybean yield loss due to the extended period of weed
competition (Dalley et al. 2004; Gower et al. 2003).
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION PRACTICES
Establishing a relationship between the introduction of
glyphosate-resistant crops and other production practices
is difficult because of concurrent changes in farm size,
application technology, and farm equipment, as well as
advances in crop genetics and other management factors.
Utilizing glyphosate for weed control in glyphosate-re-
305
 YOUNG: CHANGES IN HERBICIDE USE PATTERNS
Figure 4. No-till production of corn, cotton, and soybean from 1990 to 2002.
Data adapted from Conservation Technology Information Center, National
Crop Residue Management Survey Data (CTIC 2004).
sistant soybean would be conducive to an increase in
applications performed by growers, since glyphosate can
be applied over a relatively wide time period and is rel-
atively easy to handle and apply. However, as average
farm size increases with greater demand on skilled labor,
growers may become increasingly dependent upon cus-
tom herbicide application to control weeds in a timely
manner. Some scientists suggest the adoption of gly-
phosate-resistant crops has had little to no influence on
the ratio of grower vs. custom applications (Boerboom
et al. 2003).
The introduction of glyphosate-resistant soybean and
cotton has likely contributed to recent increases in no-
tillage and strip-tillage production of these crops. No-
tillage soybean production increased from 27 to 33% of
soybean hectares between 1996 and 2002 (Figure 4).
However, a much greater increase in no-till soybean pro-
duction occurred from 1990 to 1995, which indicates
that factors other than glyphosate-resistant soybean were
more important in the overall adoption of no-till pro-
duction. More significantly, there was a 276% increase
in no-tillage and strip-tillage cotton production between
1997 and 2002 (Figure 4), which weed scientists in cot-
ton-producing regions believe is largely due to the intro-
duction of glyphosate-resistant cotton (Boerboom et al.
2003).
Variations in environmental conditions and changes in
farm equipment and crop genetics likely have a greater
influence on grower selection of crop planting dates,
seeding rates, and row spacing than the use of a gly-
phosate-resistant variety. Earlier crop planting dates may
be facilitated in no-till and strip-till production by a gly-
phosate-resistant variety, since existing weeds could be
controlled with glyphosate after planting. Arguably, gly-
phosate-resistant crops perpetuated a reduction in crop
row spacing, which is more favorable in no-till produc-
306
tion and promotes rapid crop canopy closure to prevent
survival of weeds emerging following the application of
a nonresidual herbicide such as glyphosate. Likewise, the
increased seed costs associated with glyphosate-resistant
crops may have prompted growers to scrutinize and po-
tentially reduce seeding rates to manage costs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Over the next few years it is likely that glyphosate use
will continue to increase with the growing adoption of
glyphosate-resistant corn as well as increases in gly-
phosate use rates. A continuation of the trend toward
delaying glyphosate application will likely prompt a shift
to weeds species that are more tolerant to glyphosate.
Hilgenfeld et al. (2004) projected seedbank increases in
ivyleaf morningglory [Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.]
when glyphosate is applied mid-postemergence as a re-
sult of a size-induced increase in ivyleaf morningglory
tolerance to glyphosate. This species shift, coupled with
reductions in the cost of glyphosate, favors increases in
glyphosate use rates over time. Furthermore, the selec-
tion pressure imposed by extensive and exclusive gly-
phosate use will undoubtedly result in an increasing fre-
quency of reports of glyphosate-resistant weed biotypes.
Recent reports of horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.)
Cronq.] resistant to glyphosate may be an indication of
the potential weed-resistance problems that may result
from exclusive glyphosate use (Main et al. 2004;
VanGessel 2001). Glyphosate-resistant horseweed was
first reported in Delaware in 2000 (VanGessel 2001).
Horseweed seed collected in 2002 and 2003 indicated
that glyphosate-resistant horseweed biotypes were pre-
sent in Mississippi, Ohio, and western Tennessee (Main
et al. 2004). Past experience has indicated that growers
may initially respond to weed control failures with gly-
phosate by increasing the use rate or number of gly-
phosate applications. Some scientists argue that weed
management will continue to improve as a result of gly-
phosate use in glyphosate-resistant crops (Boerboom et
al. 2003). Other scientists suggest the level of weed con-
trol with glyphosate has plateaued and that a slight de-
crease in glyphosate effectiveness has already been ob-
served, compared with that observed during the first few
years of adopting glyphosate-resistant crops (Boerboom
et al. 2003). Future changes in herbicide use patterns will
likely be driven by reductions in the effectiveness of
glyphosate due to weed shifts and weed resistance that
will motivate growers to utilize other herbicides in com-
bination with glyphosate.
Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006
 WEED TECHNOLOGY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Drs. John Wilcut and Dale Shaner for the in-
vitation to participate in the symposium. I also thank the
following individuals who participated in the survey on
herbicide use: Chris Boerboom, Stanley Culpepper,
James Griffin, Aaron Hager, Robert Hayes, William
Johnson, Andrew Kendig, James Martin, Case Medlin,
Stephen Miller, Micheal Owen, Dallad Peterson, Ronald
Ritter, David Shaw, Reid Smeda, Mark VanGessel, and
Leon Wrage.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 2004. Roundup WeatherMax product label. St. Louis, MO: Mon-
santo. 19 p.
Bradley, K. W., E. S. Hagood, and P. H. Davis. 2004. Trumpetcreeper (Camp-
sis radicans) control in double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean with
glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 18:298–
303.
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops.
Weed Technol. 6:621–625.
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center. 2004. Conservation
Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve
the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow: Web page: http://
www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/Biotech.html. Accessed: May 25, 2004.
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center. 2004. National Crop
Residue Management Survey Data: Web page: http://
www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/CT/CT.html. Accessed: May 23, 2004.
Dalley, C. D., J. J. Kells, and K. A. Renner. 2004. Effect of glyphosate ap-
Volume 20, Issue 2 (April–June) 2006
plication timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Gly-
cine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.
Gower, S. A., M. M. Loux, J. Cardina, et al. 2003. Effect of postemergence
glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in gly-
phosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol.
17:821–828.
Hilgenfeld, K. L., A. R. Martin, D. A. Mortensen, and S. C. Mason. 2004.
Weed management in a glyphosate-resistant soybean system: weed spe-
cies shifts. Weed Technol. 18:284–291.
Johnson, W. G., P. R. Bradley, S. E. Hart, M. L. Buesinger, and R. E. Massey.
2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resis-
tant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.
Main, C. L., T. C. Mueller, R. M. Hayes, and J. B. Wilkerson. 2004. Response
of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to
glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., C. A. Worster, and S. R. Radosevich. 2003. Concerns
a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: a revisitation.
Weed Technol. 17:202–210.
Radosevich, S. R., C. M. Ghersa, and G. Comstock. 1992. Concerns a weed
scientist might have about herbicide tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6:
635–639.
Reddy, K. N. and K. Whiting. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons
of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean
(Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.
Shoup, D. E. and K. Al-Khatib. 2004. Control of protoporphyrinogen oxidase
inhibitor–resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in corn and
soybean. Weed Technol. 18:332–340.
Smeda, R. J., C. E. Snipes, and W. L. Barrentine. 1997. Identification of
graminicide-resistant johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol.
45:132–137.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. National Agricultural
Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Use Database: Web page: http://
www.pestmanagement.info/nass/apppuseage.cfm. Accessed: May 23,
2004.
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed
Sci. 49:703–705.
307