Project Details:

Title:
Waterhemp Control from Soil Residual Herbicides in Micro-Rate Combinations

Parent Project: This is the first year of this project.
Checkoff Organization:Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council
Categories:Weed control
Organization Project Code:10-15-44-20227
Project Year:2020
Lead Principal Investigator:Andrew Lueck (Next Gen Ag, LLC)
Co-Principal Investigators:
Keywords:

Contributing Organizations

Funding Institutions

Information and Results

Click a section heading to display its contents.

Project Summary

Soybean growers continue to look for ways to decrease input costs, and herbicide resistant weeds continue to affect yield while new resistant biotypes continue to evolve due to limited post-emergent herbicide options. Misapplication and overuse of post-emergent herbicides has led to selection pressure in waterhemp populations. Soil applied residuals are effective as the herbicide is absorbed into the weed at the most vulnerable stage of growth, emergence. A micro-rate soil applied residual herbicide program could significantly reduce cost and soybean injury while providing effective waterhemp control. Increased sites of action in soil residual herbicide use will decrease selection pressure in waterhemp, and likely other troublesome weeds such as palmer amaranth which first appeared in Minnesota in 2017.

Objectives are to 1) build a standard curve for each herbicide tested based on the 0.25X, 0.5X, 1X, and 2X weed control ratings observed in 2019, 2) develop more diverse combinations of herbicides at lower rates while maintaining 90% waterhemp control utilizing tendencies presented in standard curve data, 3) develop treatments with a cost range of $15.00 to $40.00 and average of $30.00 per acre, and 4) use 2020 data to eliminate treatments for 2021 with intent to conduct a reduced treatment trial in 2021 comparing the champion combinations of 2020 with industry recommendations at multiple locations. Ideally, if funding is consistently presented, the 2021 micro-rate comparison data will be very competitive to industry standards in both efficacy and cost with potential to trigger private industry to create new pre-mixes.

Project Objectives

Literature Review
Resistant waterhemp populations are common across Minnesota crop production regions. Eighty percent of Minnesota sugarbeet growers representing 13 counties reported waterhemp as the most troublesome weed in a 2015 survey (Lueck et al. 2015). Renville county, where the research will be conducted, ranked 3rd in soybean production in 2016 and was inclusive of the 13 counties represented in the survey. Waterhemp not controlled significantly reduces yield in soybean by 43-46% (Hagar et al. 2002, Legleiter et al. 2009).
Growers have been faced with low commodity prices lately, so maintaining soybean yield potential is critical. Soybean yield and stand can also be impacted by herbicide applications. No prior publications could be found related to extensive preemergent residual herbicide screening and soybean crop injury, however, experience and grower conversations indicate concern related to products such as sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, and metribuzin.
Combining safe and economical applications will provide the greatest value added to the grower. Ninety percent waterhemp control 60 DAT is attainable while maintaining a competitive cost per acre value (Lueck and Peters 2016, Lueck 2018). Additional modes of action annually can reduce selection pressure on rapidly adaptive weed populations, specifically waterhemp. Micro-rate programs in sugarbeet combined crop safety with weed control (Dexter, Luecke, Bredhoeft 1997). Micro-rate programs decreased crop injury by 27% while maintaining weed control of five economically significant species in sugarbeet. Palmar Amaranth is a “super” weed appearing more regularly in Minnesota the past two years despite efforts to eradicate. Waterhemp and palmer amaranth belong to the same biological family, and similar herbicide programs may be considered to control both species. Micro-rates add herbicide sites of action to herbicide program which can reduce further resistant population development in waterhemp and may potentially reduce input cost.

Project Deliverables

A protocol will be created and results analyzed utilizing ARM data management software (randomization program that allows building of treatments and data entry). A known ALS, PPO, and EPSP resistant waterhemp population will be tested near Renville (Lueck 2019). Soybean will be seeded at 140,000 plants per acre on 30” row spacings with plant dates that align with grower timelines. Trial will be 30 treatments (see table below) and four replications in a randomized complete block design. Plots are 10 feet wide (4 rows) by 40 feet in length. Trial area is 1.4 acres (300L x 200W) with alleys. Pre-emergence herbicide applications will be done utilizing a bike sprayer with a six nozzle 20-inch spaced boom. Treatments will be applied through 110002 AIXR nozzles at 15 GPA volume pressurized by CO2 to the middle 2 rows. Section 3 (Clethodim) will be broadcasted at 4 fl oz/A plus 1.5 pt/A oil adjuvant to control volunteer corn and other biologically similar weeds if necessary. Waterhemp control and soybean injury will be visually rated in comparison to the running checks (untreated rows between plots) at 15, 30, 45, and 60 days after application as a qualitative metric. Soybean yield will be taken as pod counts. The trial will occur near Renville, MN. Project timeline is one year.
Treatments will be structured as one of three categories: 1) evaluated herbicides with a standard curve equation at 50% waterhemp control and application rate of 65% or less, as compared to the 1X rate, were built into 3 and 4 combination treatments (1-14); 2) evaluated herbicides with a standard curve equation at 75% waterhemp control and application rate of 75% or less, as compared to the 1X rate, were built into 2 and 3 combination treatments (15-22); or 3) evaluated herbicides with a standard curve equation at 100% waterhemp control and application rate of 100% or less, as compared to the 1X rate, were built into 2 combination treatments (23-26). Remaining treatments (27-30) are the least expensive treatments from 1 thru 26 that include a single EPOST application of Flexstar at V2.

Progress of Work

Updated March 12, 2021:
Project Title: Soil residual herbicide micro-rate combinations based on standard curve waterhemp control increments at 50%, 75%, and 100%, derived from 2019 herbicide rate screen data.
Private Investigator (P.I.): Next Gen Ag, LLC/Andrew Lueck
Quarter Report: #1 May 2020-July 2020
Objectives: (List project objectives as submitted in final proposal. Describe activity for each during this reporting period.)
1. Build a standard curve for each herbicide tested based on the 0.25X, 0.5X, 1X, and 2X weed control ratings observed in 2019
a. Goal #1: Collect 2019 data (Done).
b. Goal #2: Determine rates required to achieve 70, 90, and 100% waterhemp control based on standard curve equation (Done).
c. Goal #3: Combine 3+ product rates that achieved 70% control alone; 2-3 product rates that achieved 90% control alone; and 2 product rates that achieved 100% control alone in 2019 for the 2020 combinations (Done).
2. Develop more diverse combinations of herbicides at lower rates while maintaining 90% waterhemp control utilizing tendencies presented in standard curve data.
a. Goal #1: Protocol treatment diversity decrease risk of resistance development (Done; 2020 data collected).
b. Goal #2: Lower rates are more affordable while increase diversity compensates for risk of resistance development for lower rates (Done; 2020 data collected).
3. Develop effective treatments with range of $15.00 to $40.00 and average of $30.00 per acre.
a. Goal #1: Develop protocol treatments that meet requirements based off of ND Weed Guide appendum (Done).
b. Goal #2: Determine effectiveness of treatments providing greater than 85% weed control (Done).
4. Use 2020 data to select competitive treatments for 2021 proposal.
a. Determine the “champion treatments” from 2020 (all significantly similar treatments to best treatment) (Done).
b. Communicate with all industry partners including Valent, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, FMC, and Corteva to determine their portfolio “champion” that meets the equivalent criteria for treatment cost and place in a competitive trial setting in 2021 with my “champions” (Not Done).
c. Take yield data from all 2020 “champion” treatments to ensure no yield reductions present (Not Done).
Achievements: (Specific project achievements during this reporting period.)
1. Trial was successfully planted in an area of intense waterhemp pressure.
2. Every plot was planted and sprayed according to plans, NO MISTAKES!
3. No crop injury noted from any treatments.
4. 45 DAA drone picture taken and proves intriguing. 45 and 60 DAA individual plot photos taken.
5. 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAA waterhemp control notes taken (still have some PRE combos holding strong above 90% control).
Challenges: (Challenges encountered. Specific request for assistance from Production AT on any challenges listed above.)
1. None really, this has been a PERFECT year for research in the area and I’m excited about the results!
Publications/Symposium:
1. None yet, per grant obligations I will provide a one or two page “extension formatted” summary of the data and provide outcomes. This will occur in quarter 2
2. If granted the venue and requested by the soybean growers I anticipate presenting a poster of data conclusions.
Tech Transfer: (General audience identification and approximate number attending.)
1. Multiple large companies have had a research representative tour the trial, whether they use the information or transfer it is unknown to me.
2. Anticipate the summarization article of the study in quarter 2 or 3
3. Anticipate a forum to present data and conclusions at this winter (quarter 2, 3, or 4).

View uploaded report PDF file

Updated March 12, 2021:
Project Title: Soil residual herbicide micro-rate combinations based on standard curve waterhemp control increments at 50%, 75%, and 100%, derived from 2019 herbicide rate screen data.
Private Investigator (P.I.): Next Gen Ag, LLC/Andrew Lueck
Quarter Report: #2 August 2020-October 2020
Objectives: (List project objectives as submitted in final proposal. Describe activity for each during this reporting period.)
1. Build a standard curve for each herbicide tested based on the 0.25X, 0.5X, 1X, and 2X weed control ratings observed in 2019
a. Goal #1: Collect 2019 data (Done).
b. Goal #2: Determine rates required to achieve 70, 90, and 100% waterhemp control based on standard curve equation (Done).
c. Goal #3: Combine 3+ product rates that achieved 70% control alone; 2-3 product rates that achieved 90% control alone; and 2 product rates that achieved 100% control alone in 2019 for the 2020 combinations (Done).
2. Develop more diverse combinations of herbicides at lower rates while maintaining 90% waterhemp control utilizing tendencies presented in standard curve data.
a. Goal #1: Protocol treatment diversity decrease risk of resistance development (Done; 2020 data collected).
b. Goal #2: Lower rates are more affordable while increase diversity compensates for risk of resistance development for lower rates (Done; 2020 data collected).
3. Develop effective treatments with range of $15.00 to $40.00 and average of $30.00 per acre.
a. Goal #1: Develop protocol treatments that meet requirements based off of ND Weed Guide appendum (Done).
b. Goal #2: Determine effectiveness of treatments providing greater than 85% weed control (Done).
4. Use 2020 data to select competitive treatments for 2021 proposal.
a. Determine the “champion treatments” from 2020 (all significantly similar treatments to best treatment) (Done).
b. Communicate with all industry partners including Valent, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, FMC, and Corteva to determine their portfolio “champion” that meets the equivalent criteria for treatment cost and place in a competitive trial setting in 2021 with my “champions” (Done…..really great feedback from industry partners).
c. Take yield data from all 2020 “champion” treatments to ensure no yield reductions present (Done).
Achievements: (Specific project achievements during this reporting period.)
1. Trial was successfully planted in an area of intense waterhemp pressure.
2. Every plot was planted and sprayed according to plans, NO MISTAKES!
3. No crop injury noted from any treatments.
4. 45 DAA drone picture taken and proves intriguing. 45 and 60 DAA individual plot photos taken.
5. 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAA waterhemp control notes taken (still have some PRE combos holding strong above 90% control).
6. No yield lose from herbicide injury on any treatments.
Challenges: (Challenges encountered. Specific request for assistance from Production AT on any challenges listed above.)
1. None really, this has been a PERFECT year for research in the area and I’m excited about the results!
Publications/Symposium:
1. I will provide a one or two page “extension formatted” summary of the data and provide outcomes. This will occur in quarter 2. (DONE)
2. If granted the venue and requested by the soybean growers I anticipate presenting a poster of data conclusions. (Pending)
Tech Transfer: (General audience identification and approximate number attending.)
1. Multiple large companies have had a research representative tour the trial and the final summary was sent to them all, whether they use the information or transfer it is unknown to me. (Done)
2. Anticipate the summarization article of the study in quarter 2 (Done)
3. Anticipate a forum to present data and conclusions at this winter (quarter 3?...Pending).

View uploaded report PDF file

View uploaded report 2

Final Project Results

Benefit to Soybean Farmers

Outreach
Outreach is a large component of this grant. Plot tours are welcomed upon individual request. The major contribution to outreach will be a scientific article which includes data introduction, materials and methods, data analysis, date interpretation, and a summarized conclusion. The article may be published or dispersed at the will of the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council (MSR&PC) and Minnesota Soybean Growers Association (MSGA). Secondly, I would be grateful if MSR&PC would allow me to present at a winter meeting. Largely this 2020 trial builds on the 2019 data, and the 2021 competition comparison trials will be based on the 2020 data. The 2021 outreach (assuming data supports this trial type) is anticipated to be more elaborate. Next Gen Ag is gaining traction across industry partners and company representatives from BASF, Corteva, Valent, Bayer, and Syngenta were intrigued by the 2019 trial concept and we anticipate these industry leading companies will tour MSRPC trials while they are out looking at their contracted trials. From my perspective, since the study would be funded by MSR&PC, results should primarily be funneled back through MSR&PC and MSGA audiences. I look forward to conducting and publishing quality research with Minnesota soybean growers needs in mind!

Performance Metrics

Project Years