Translator Disclaimer
1 July 2005 Effect of Herbicides on Field Violet (Viola arvensis) in Four Direct-Seeded Canola Management Systems
RORY F. DEGENHARDT, K. NEIL HARKER, A. KEITH TOPINKA, WILLIAM R. McGREGOR, LINDA M. HALL
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Field violet is a winter or summer annual plant that is a serious weed of canola crops in Europe. It is a weed of increasing concern within reduced tillage fields in central Alberta, where its response to registered herbicides has not been evaluated. Two commercial fields within the Aspen Parkland ecoregion of Alberta were used to evaluate the efficacy of postemergence (POST) herbicides against field violet in conventional, imidazolinone-resistant (IMI-resistant) and glufosinate-resistant canola cultivars, as well as to evaluate the plant's response to various timings and rates of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant canola. Control of field violet was lower in field experiments conducted in 2002 compared with 2003, probably because of abnormally low rainfall in 2002. The POST herbicides evaluated provided inadequate control of field violet in conventional canola. Glufosinate control at 500 g ai/ha was unacceptable unless the crop canopy closed shortly after application. In IMI-resistant canola, thifensulfuron did not significantly reduce plant density and biomass under the extremely dry conditions experienced in 2002, but in 2003, it conferred respective reductions of 79 and 86% relative to nontreated controls. Imazamox plus imazethapyr did not affect plant growth. Field violet was controlled by pre- and postcrop emergence glyphosate at 445 g ae/ha. Postharvest application of glyphosate provided good control throughout the following growing season when spring emergence was minimal. Herbicide activity was also evaluated on two- to four-leaf seedlings in a greenhouse experiment. Dose– response curves reflected the activity observed in field experiments. Strategies for effective field violet control with herbicides are dependent on cultivar selection and the management system, but are improved by timing application to young, actively growing plants.

Nomenclature: Glufosinate; glyphosate; imazamox; imazethapyr; thifensulfuron; field violet, Viola arvensis Murr. #3 VIOAR; canola, Brassica napus L. ‘45A77’, ‘DKL34-55’, ‘Invigor 2663’, ‘Q2’.

Additional index words: Canola management systems, herbicide evaluation, weed control, clopyralid, ethametsulfuron.

Abbreviations: ED50, effective herbicide dose necessary to cause 50% reduction in weed dry weight; ED85, effective herbicide dose necessary to cause 85% reduction in weed dry weight; PH, postharvest, IMI-resistant, imidazolinone-resistant; PREPLANT, precrop emergence; POST, postemergence; WAT, weeks after treatment.

RORY F. DEGENHARDT, K. NEIL HARKER, A. KEITH TOPINKA, WILLIAM R. McGREGOR, and LINDA M. HALL "Effect of Herbicides on Field Violet (Viola arvensis) in Four Direct-Seeded Canola Management Systems," Weed Technology 19(3), 608-622, (1 July 2005). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-154R1.1
Published: 1 July 2005
JOURNAL ARTICLE
15 PAGES


Share
SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top