Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T07:49:22.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can rotations improve management of herbicide-resistant annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) in lentil production systems of southern Australia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2020

Alicia B. Merriam*
Affiliation:
PhD candidate, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia
Jenna Malone
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia
Gurjeet Gill
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia
Christopher Preston
Affiliation:
Professor, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Alicia Merriam, PhD candidate, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA, 5064 Australia. Email: alicia.merriam@adelaide.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In southern Australia, annual sowthistle and prickly lettuce have become more prevalent following the adoption of reduced tillage cropping systems. They are especially problematic in lentil and other pulse crops, which are weakly competitive and have few herbicide options available for POST control of broadleaf weeds. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of management in a previous cereal crop on weed densities in a subsequent crop. At two field sites, crop seeding density and POST herbicide treatments (a conventional choice that included metsulfuron-methyl and MCPA; and a proactive choice that included bromoxynil, picolinafen, and MCPA) were applied to a wheat crop, and weed density was assessed at the beginning of the following season to measure for a legacy effect of the treatments. Study site populations were also screened for herbicide resistance and were found to have high (≥90% survival) ALS inhibitor resistance. Crop competition treatments had no effect on weed populations, and effects of herbicide treatment were significant at only one of the sites. At this site, both herbicide treatments had lower weed densities than the nontreated in the first year, but the legacy effect was only significant for annual sowthistle density in the proactive treatment. At both sites, even where weeds were extremely sparse or completely controlled following herbicide treatment in the first year, moderate densities were observed the following year, indicating that colonization from the seedbank or adjacent areas could be contributing to weed numbers. Weed density assessments and accurate knowledge of the herbicide resistance status of target weeds should guide herbicide selection to maximize control.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Table 1. Geographic location of the trial sites, growing season rainfall during the trial years and long-term average, dates of treatment application in 2018 and crop rotation in the trial years and the year prior.a

Figure 1

Table 2. Herbicides applied in 2018 in the field trials at KYP and RS2, and in herbicide resistance screening of trial site populations of annual sowthistle and prickly lettuce. Active ingredients, trade names, rates and manufacturers are presented.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Percent survival of annual sowthistle and prickly lettuce populations from the trial sites to herbicides used in resistance screening.a,b

Figure 3

Table 4. Crop establishment, annual sowthistle, and prickly lettuce density at RS2 and KYP during the trial period.a,b

Figure 4

Figure 1. Daily rainfall totals at Roseworthy (RS2) in 2018 (A) and 2019 (B), and at Kulpara (KYP) in 2018 (C) and 2019 (D) (Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology 2019).

Supplementary material: File

Merriam et al. supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Merriam et al. supplementary material(File)
File 21.4 KB