Soil and weather conditions associated with plant damage from post-emergent metribuzin in lentil (Lens culinaris) in southern Australia
Larn S. McMurray A B D , Christopher Preston A , Albert Vandenberg C , Dili Mao B and Jeffrey G. Paull A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, SA 5064, Australia.
B South Australian Research and Development Institute, PO Box 822, Clare, SA 5453, Australia.
C Department of Plant Sciences/Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
D Corresponding author. Email: lmcmurray@globalgraingenetics.com
Crop and Pasture Science 70(11) 958-968 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP19257
Submitted: 24 June 2019 Accepted: 10 October 2019 Published: 21 November 2019
Abstract
Multiple field experiments and a controlled-environment temperature study were conducted to investigate soil and weather conditions responsible for herbicide phytotoxicity in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) from post-emergent application of metribuzin. A linear relationship was observed between plant injury (% necrosis) and metribuzin rate in all 12 environments, but in only 11 environments for anthesis dry weight and nine environments for both plant density and grain yield. Grain-yield reduction from label metribuzin rates of 135 g a.i. ha–1 for sand and 285 g a.i. ha–1 for clay ranged from 0% to 32% and 0% to 67%, respectively, across all environments. Principal component analysis of soil and weather factors around the time of herbicide application suggested that metribuzin-induced plant damage in lentil was due to a combination of multiple soil and weather factors. However, heavy rainfall within 10 days of herbicide application, particularly on light-textured soils or where soil moisture was low, was most strongly linked to plant damage. Experiments targeting the impact of reductions in temperature post-metribuzin application showed no effect, and of light intensities pre- and post-metribuzin application showed low effects on plant-damage measures. Because rainfall in the 10 days after application is a major determinant of metribuzin damage in winter-grown lentil in southern Australia, a higher level of selective tolerance to metribuzin than that present in commercial cultivars is needed for its safe post-emergent use. Early and late measures of plant damage will be required to assess accurately plant tolerance to post-emergent metribuzin application in lentil.
Additional keywords: environmental conditions, phytotoxicity, plant injury, tolerance, yield loss.
References
ABARES (2018) ‘Australian crop report.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences: Canberra, ACT).Al-Khatib K, Libbey C, Kadir S, Boydston R (1997) Differential varietal response of green pea (Pisum sativum) to metribuzin. Weed Technology 11, 775–781.
| Differential varietal response of green pea (Pisum sativum) to metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Allen R, Walker A (1987) The influence of soil properties on the rates of degradation of metamitron, metazachlor and metribuzin. Pesticide Science 18, 95–111.
| The influence of soil properties on the rates of degradation of metamitron, metazachlor and metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
BoM (2013) Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, ACT. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/?ref=ftr (accessed 19 January 2012 and 11 January 2013)
Boutsalis P, Gill G, Preston C (2016) Risk of addiction to IMIs (Group B imidazolinone herbicides). In ‘2016 Grains Research and Development Corporation grains research update. Informed decisions-driving change’. pp. 241–243. (GRDC: Adelaide, S. Aust.) Available at: https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/grdc-update-papers/tab-content/grdc-update-papers/2016/02/risk-of-addiction-to-imis-group-b-imidazolinone-herbicides (accessed 14 May 2019)
Brand J, Yaduraju NT, Shivakumar BG, McMurray L (2007) Weed management. In ‘Lentil: an ancient crop for modern times’. (Eds SS Yadav, DL McNeil, PC Stevenson) pp. 159–172. (Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands)
Brouwer J-B (2002) History of Australian lentil crop improvement. In ‘Proceedings of Lentil Focus 2002’. (Ed. J-B Brouwer) pp. 8–13. (Pulse Australia: Sydney)
Buman RA, Gealy DR, Ogg AG (1992) Effect of temperature on root absorption of metribuzin and its ethylthio analog by winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Science 40, 517–521.
| Effect of temperature on root absorption of metribuzin and its ethylthio analog by winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), and downy brome (Bromus tectorum).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ (2009) ‘ASReml-R reference manual.’ (Queensland Department of Primary Industries: Brisbane, Qld)
Caldwell CD, O’Sullivan PA (1985) Differential tolerance of two barley cultivars to metribuzin. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 65, 415–421.
| Differential tolerance of two barley cultivars to metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davey C (2014) Exploring herbicide tolerance in lentils. In ‘2014 Grains Research and Development Corporation grains research update. Share knowledge—accelerate adoption’. (GRDC: Adelaide, S. Aust) https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/grdc-update-papers/tab-content/grdc-update-papers/2014/02/exploring-herbicide-tolerance-in-lentils (accessed 14 May 2019)
Erskine W, Muehlbauer FJ, Short RW (1990) Stages of development in lentil. Experimental Agriculture 26, 297–302.
| Stages of development in lentil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fedoruk LK, Shirtliffe SJ (2011) Herbicide choice and timing for weed control in imidazolinone-resistant lentil. Weed Technology 25, 620–625.
| Herbicide choice and timing for weed control in imidazolinone-resistant lentil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fortino J, Splittstoesser WE (1974) Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Science 22, 460–463.
| Response of tomato to metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Friesen GH, Wall DA (1986) Tolerance of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) to herbicides. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 66, 131–139.
| Tolerance of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) to herbicides.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ghosheh HZ, El-Shatnawi MK (2003) Broadleaf weed control in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum), faba beans (Vicia faba) and lentils (Lens culinaris). Acta Agronomica Hungarica 51, 437–444.
| Broadleaf weed control in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum), faba beans (Vicia faba) and lentils (Lens culinaris).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gill GS, Bowran DG (1990) Tolerance of wheat cultivars to metribuzin and implications for the control of Bromus diandrus and B. rigidus in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 30, 373–378.
| Tolerance of wheat cultivars to metribuzin and implications for the control of Bromus diandrus and B. rigidus in Western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
GRDC (2015) Pulse variety response to herbicides in South Australia. National Variety Trials. Available at: https://www.nvtonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SA-Pulses-2015.pdf (accessed 2 October 2017)
Hatzios KK, Penner D (1988) Metribuzin. In ‘Herbicides: their chemistry, degradation and mode of action’. Vol. 3. (Eds PC Kearney, DD Kaufman) pp. 191–243. (Marcel Dekker: New York)
Isbell RF (2016) ‘The Australian Soil Classification.’ 2nd edn (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)
Jensen KIN (1982). The roles of uptake, translocation, and metabolism in the differential intraspecific responses to herbicides. In ‘Herbicide resistance in plants’. (Eds HM LeBaron, J Gressel) pp. 33–162. (Wiley: New York)
Kim J-H, Feagley SE (1998) Adsorption and leaching of trifluralin, metolachlor, and metribuzin in a commerce soil. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part. B, Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 33, 529–546.
| Adsorption and leaching of trifluralin, metolachlor, and metribuzin in a commerce soil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9731306PubMed |
Ladlie JS, Meggitt WF, Penner D (1976) Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Science 24, 505–507.
| Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25, 1–18.
| FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Materne M, Siddique KHM (2009) Agroecology and crop adaptation. In ‘The lentil: botany, production and uses’. (Eds W Erskine, FJ Muehlbauer, A Sarker, B Sharma) pp. 47–63. (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
Materne M, McMurray L, Nitschke S, Regan K, Heuke L, Dean G, Carpenter D (2002) The future of Australian lentil production. In ‘Proceedings of Lentil Focus 2002’. (Ed. J-B Brouwer) pp. 41–49. (Pulse Australia: Sydney)
Materne M, McMurray L, Brouwer J, Bretag T, Brand J, MacLean B, Hawthorne W (2011) Lentil in Australia. Grain Legumes 57, 52–55.
McMurray LS, Preston C, Vandenberg A, Mao D, Oldach KH, Meier KS, Paull JG (2019) Development of high levels of metribuzin tolerance in lentil. Weed Science 67, 83–90.
| Development of high levels of metribuzin tolerance in lentil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Muehlbauer FJ, Kaiser WJ, Clement SL, Summerfield RJ (1995) Production and breeding of lentil. Advances in Agronomy 54, 283–332.
| Production and breeding of lentil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
North Dakota State University (NDSU) (2014) ‘North Dakota weed control guide.’ (North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA)
Peter CJ, Weber JB (1985) Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of metribuzin as influenced by soil properties. Weed Science 33, 868–873.
| Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of metribuzin as influenced by soil properties.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pritchard MK, Warren GF (1980) Effect of light on the response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and two weed species to metribuzin. Weed Science 28, 186–189.
| Effect of light on the response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and two weed species to metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Riethmuller-Haage I, Bastiaans L, Kempenaar C, Smutny V, Kropff MJ (2007) Are pre-spraying growing conditions a major determinant of herbicide efficacy? Weed Research 47, 415–424.
| Are pre-spraying growing conditions a major determinant of herbicide efficacy?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (SMA) (2014) ‘Guide to crop protection.’ (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture: Regina, SK, Canada)
Savage KE (1976) Adsorption and mobility of metribuzin in soil. Weed Science 24, 525–528.
| Adsorption and mobility of metribuzin in soil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schroeder J, Banks PA, Nichols RL (1986) Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar response to metribuzin. Weed Science 34, 66–69.
| Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar response to metribuzin.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sharom MS, Stephenson GR (1976) Behavior and fate of metribuzin in eight Ontario soils. Weed Science 24, 153–160.
| Behavior and fate of metribuzin in eight Ontario soils.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wall DA, McMullan PM (1994) Effectiveness of several new selective herbicides in lentils (Lens culinaris). Crop Protection 13, 553–557.
| Effectiveness of several new selective herbicides in lentils (Lens culinaris).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
White B (2015) ‘Field crop herbicide guide.’ 9th edn (Kondinin Group: Perth, W. Aust.)
