Blackwell Publishing AsiaMelbourne, AustraliaWBMWeed Biology and Management1444-61622006 Weed Science Society of JapanMarch 2006611017Review PaperReduced herbicide doses

in field cropsR.E. Blackshaw

et al.

Weed Biology and Management 6, 10–17 (2006)

REVIEW PAPER

Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: A review

ROBERT E. BLACKSHAW,1* JOHN T. O’DONOVAN,2 K. NEIL HARKER,3 GEORGE W. CLAYTON3
and ROBERT N. STOUGAARD4
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, 2Beaverlodge and 3Lacombe, Canada and 4Montana State University,
1

Kalispell, Montana, USA

Farmers are becoming increasingly interested in more comprehensive weed management pro-
grams that reduce weed populations over time and in the use of reduced herbicide doses that
lower their production costs. Research indicates that there is good potential to reduce the
number of herbicide applications and utilize lower herbicide doses within competitive crop-
ping systems. Diverse crop rotations, competitive cultivars, higher crop seed rates, reduced row
spacing, specific fertilizer placement, and cover crops have been identified as integral com-
ponents of competitive cropping systems. This review paper explores the potential for suc-
cessful use of reduced herbicide doses within competitive cropping systems that have a
multiyear approach to weed management. The utilization of decision support systems or new
methods of assessing active weed growth are discussed in light of further enhancing the suc-
cessful use of reduced herbicide doses and advising farmers on when (and when not) they
might be a viable option.

Keywords: crop competition, decision support system, economic return, reduced herbicide
dose, sustainable weed management, weed suppression.

INTRODUCTION Successful long-term weed management will require a

shift away from simply controlling problem weeds to
Farmers must continuously deal with weed infestations in systems that restrict weed reproduction, reduce weed
crops and their importance is reflected in the amount of emergence, and minimize weed competition with crops.
manual labor, tillage, and herbicides used to control them Research has shown that competitive crop production
(Eue 1986). The advent of herbicides has been hailed as practises can contribute to the development of more sus-
one of the most important advances in agriculture (Pike tainable weed management systems (Mohler 2001). This
et al. 1991). Herbicides now comprise 20–30% of input paper will explore the potential for the successful use of
costs in North American cropping systems (Derksen et al. herbicides at lower doses within an integrated approach
2002). Despite widespread farmer adoption of herbi- to weed management.
cides, there is ever-increasing interest in reducing her-
bicide doses and overall herbicide use. Growers cite low
commodity prices, crop injury, and herbicide carryover POTENTIAL FOR REDUCED
concerns, the escalating problem of herbicide-resistant HERBICIDE DOSES
weeds, and rising unease with the environmental and Considerable research has examined the potential use
human health effects of pesticides as issues forcing them of lower-than-labeled herbicide doses (Zoschke 1994;
to reconsider how they manage weeds. Zhang et al. 2000). The results have been somewhat
mixed and there is a wide range of opinions on the ben-
efits and risks associated with such use.
*Correspondence to: Robert E. Blackshaw, Agriculture and Agri- Zhang et al. (2000) state a few reasons for the potential
Food Canada, PO Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, successful use of reduced herbicide doses: (i) registered
Canada. doses are set to ensure adequate control over a wide
Email: blackshaw@agr.gc.ca
spectrum of weed species, weed densities, growth stages,
Accepted 5 December 2005 and environmental conditions; (ii) maximum weed

© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd


control is not always necessary for optimal crop yields;
and (iii) combining reduced doses of herbicides with
other management practices, such as tillage or compet-
itive crops, can markedly increase the odds of successful
weed control.
Several studies have demonstrated good weed control
with reduced herbicide doses (Devlin et al. 1991; Spandl
et al. 1997; Stougaard et al. 1997; Brain et al. 1999; Bos-
tröm & Fogelfors 2002; Hamill et al. 2004). For example,
Belles et al. (2000) reported that a 50% dose of tralkox-
ydim consistently gave > 85% wild oat (Avena fatua L.)
control in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). O’Donovan et al.
(2001) similarly documented that tralkoxydim at below-
label doses often gave good control of wild oat. An
Australian study found that clodinafop and tralkoxydim
efficacy on wild oat (Avena ludoviciana Durieu.) and par-
adoxa grass (Phalaris paradoxa L.) remained high at 50–
75% of the recommended doses (Walker et al. 2002).
Despite studies demonstrating the merits of reduced
herbicide doses, there are risks associated with adopting
such practises. Roggenkamp et al. (2000) reported that
velvetleaf (Abution theophrasti Medik.) and green foxtail
(Setaria viridis [L.] Beauv.) control with reduced doses of
alachlor and atrazine in maize (Zea mays L.) was quite
variable and any economic benefit was small. Studies in
western Canada evaluating the reduced doses of several
wild oat herbicides found that control was variable over
locations and years and that the use of reduced herbicide
doses was not without economic risk (Kirkland et al.
2000; O’Donovan et al. 2003a,b). These authors con-
cluded that the risk associated with reduced herbicide
doses increased in the absence of other weed manage-
ment practises such as higher crop seed rates or compet-
itive cultivars.
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
Doyle and Stypa (2004) recently summarized the views
of the crop protection industry on reduced herbicide
doses. They point out that much research is conducted
with a new herbicide to identify doses that will maxi-
mize product value and minimize the required use rate.
Selecting too high a dose would lead to widespread dose
reductions, market devaluation, and effectively destroy
or dramatically reduce the product’s life cycle.
Recommended herbicide doses are selected to ensure a
high level of weed control over a wide range of envi-
ronmental conditions, weed growth stages, and weed
species with differing degrees of susceptibility. Doses are
selected to provide grower satisfaction and thus repeat
Reduced herbicide doses in field crops 11
sales. The industry recognizes that there are situations
where high herbicide efficacy can be maintained at
reduced doses, but these situations are difficult to predict
and problematic to put on herbicide labels. If a specific-
use dose were provided for every possible combination
of conditions where reduced doses might be efficacious,
product labels would become extremely complex and
difficult to use.
Another industry concern revolves around weed resis-
tance development. If reduced herbicide doses lead to
weed escapes and increased weed populations over the
years, then the gene pool from which resistance may be
selected increases. Another theory is that reduced her-
bicide doses have the potential to select for polygenic
resistance based on the gradual accumulation of several
genes, each encoding for a small increase in resistance
(Gressel 1995). However, this has never been docu-
mented in resistant weed biotypes and reduced doses of
herbicides are likely to have a neutral effect on weed
resistance development, especially if used within an inte-
grated weed management system (Beckie & Kirkland
2003).
Industry and growers alike have concerns about reduced
herbicide doses allowing increases in the weed seed bank
over time that will lead to greater weed problems in
future years.
INTEGRATION OF REDUCED HERBICIDE
DOSES WITH COMPETITIVE CROPPING
SYSTEMS
Numerous research studies have indicated the impor-
tance of competitive cropping systems to attain long-
term weed management (Mohler 2001; Nazarko et al.
2005). Diverse crop rotations, competitive crop cultivars,
higher crop seed rates, reduced row spacing, specific fer-
tilizer placement, and the use of green manure and cover
crops have been identified as integral components of
competitive cropping systems (Lemerle et al. 2001; Lie-
bman & Staver 2001; Sarrantonio & Gallandt 2003;
Blackshaw et al. 2004).
Weed infestations reflect the ecological consequences of
crop management practices in previous years (Thomas &
Dale 1991). Research indicates that there is good poten-
tial to reduce both herbicide dose and the number of
herbicide applications when they are utilized within
competitive cropping systems. Weed populations are
reduced over time and existing weeds are suppressed in
those systems employing good agronomic practises and
competitive crops.
© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
12 R.E. Blackshaw et al.

Herbicide coverage, uptake, and efficacy can be greater (2000) reported that good crop yields and the highest net
with low weed densities compared with high weed den- returns could be attained with a 50% herbicide dose in
sities (Winkle et al. 1981). Indeed, reduced doses of barley but that a 100% herbicide dose was required to
tralkoxydim (Table 1; Belles et al. 2000) or imazametha- attain the highest yields and net returns in lentil (Lens
benz (Wille et al. 1998) were more efficacious at low culinaris L.) (Table 2). They attributed these results
wild oat densities than at high wild oat densities. Diele- largely to differences in the competitive abilities of the
man et al. (1999) also reported that herbicide efficacy on two crops. A Danish study similarly found that the
velvetleaf and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) potential to reduce herbicide dose was related to crop
was greater at low than at high weed densities. Thus, any competitiveness (winter rye [Secale cereale L.] > winter
crop production practise that reduces weed populations barley > winter wheat [Triticum aestivum L.]; Christensen
over time is important to the successful use of reduced 1994). In Finland, reduced herbicide doses were found
herbicide doses. to be more efficacious in spring barley than in spring
wheat (Salonen 1992).
Some crops are likely to be more amenable than others
to the use of reduced herbicide doses. Kirkland et al. Within crop species, competitive cultivars enhance the
likelihood of success with reduced herbicide doses.
Diclofop at reduced doses more effectively controlled
Table 1. Interaction between wild oat density and rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaudin) in competitive
tralkoxydim dose on wild oat seed production (tall, leafy) than in non-competitive (short, small leaf )
wheat cultivars (Table 3; Lemerle et al. 1996). Diclofop
Tralkoxydim dose Wild oat seeds m−2† at 130 g ha−1 in “Katunga” wheat was as efficacious as
(g ha−1) 280 or 560 g ha−1 in the other wheat cultivars. Other
Wild oat plants m−2
studies have similarly reported the merits of choosing
42 62 113 138 competitive cereal cultivars when using reduced herbi-
cide doses (Salonen 1992; Christensen 1994).
0 2742 4491 4271 4203
25 1574 2769 3515 4211 In row crops, such as soybean or maize, timely inter-row
50 233 606 165 823 cultivation can markedly improve the efficacy of reduced
100 29 288 19 57 herbicide doses (Steckel et al. 1990; Buhler et al. 1993).
150 0 7 6 56 Alternatively, the adoption of narrow-row production
200 8 25 4 26 practises in these crops also can improve the likelihood of
the successful use of lower herbicide doses (Mickelson &
† LSD (0.05) = 1050. Renner 1997; Heatherly et al. 2001).

Table 2. Interaction between crop species and herbicide dose on weed biomass, crop yield, and net return

Herbicide dose† log weed biomass (g m−2) Crop yield Net return‡
(% of recommended) (kg ha−1) ($Can ha−1)
Broadleaves Grasses

Barley
0 3.5 4.5 3320 365
50 2.2 3.3 3850 410
75 1.6 2.2 3900 385
100 1.7 2.3 3950 375
Lentil
0 4.9 5.4 550 150
50 4.2 5.2 650 220
75 4.1 4.1 800 270
100 3.8 4.4 950 310
SE 0.3 0.3 110 22

† Tralkoxyim, tank-mixed with bromoxynil/MCPA, was applied to barley while sequential applications of metribuzin and fluazifop-P were applied to
lentil; ‡ net return equals gross income minus combined herbicide and seed costs.

© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

 Reduced herbicide doses in field crops 13

Table 3. Interaction between wheat cultivar and diclofop Table 4. Interaction between barley seed rate and
dose on rigid ryegrass biomass tralkoxydim dose on wild oat seed production

Cultivar Height Leaf Ryegrass biomass Tralkoxydim Wild oat seeds m−2
(cm) area (g m−2)† dose (g ha−1)
Barley seed rate (kg ha−1)
−1
Diclofop rate (g ha )
75 125 175
0 130 280 560
0 3950 (275)† 2258 (575) 1994 (820)
Dollarbird 120 High 544 358 230 112 50 450 (175) 219 (177) 31 (17)
Katunga 105 High 550 200 12 15 100 48 (36) 44 (36) 32 (28)
Shrike 100 Low 992 379 291 163 150 6 (6) 1 (1) 0 (0)
Rosella 95 Low 1085 446 226 140 200 4 (6) 2 (3) 1 (2)

† LSD = 141. † Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean.

Increasing the crop seed rate can be a dependable means
of improving the efficacy of herbicides applied at
reduced doses. O’Donovan et al. (2001) found that wild
oat seed production with lower doses of tralkoxydim
progressively decreased as the barley seed rate was
increased from 75–175 kg ha−1 (Table 4). Walker et al.
(2002) reported similar control of wild oat and paradoxa
grass with a 50% dose of clodinafop and a spring wheat
density of 150 plants m−2 compared with a 100% dose of
clodinafop and a wheat density of 80 plants m−2. The
weed control was markedly improved with increased
crop seed rates in a canola (Brassica napus L.)–barley rota-
tion when a reduced rate of herbicides was utilized
(O’Donovan et al. 2004).
A multiyear study at three sites assessed the merits of
combining several crop production practises to manage
weeds in the context of full or reduced doses of herbi-
cides in wheat, barley, canola, and field pea (Pisum sati-
vum L.) (Blackshaw et al. 2005a,b). Factors included in
the study were crop rotation, seed date, seed rate, fertil-
izer timing, and herbicide dose. There was a significant
interaction between the crop seed rate and the herbicide
dose; higher seed rates usually improved the efficacy of
reduced herbicide doses in all crops. It is notable that the
weed seed bank was not greater after four continuous
years of using 50% herbicide doses within a competitive
cropping system (early seed date, higher crop seed rate,
spring-applied banded fertilizer) at two of the three sites.
Other research has similarly reported no increase in
weed densities with reduced herbicide doses used for
three continuous years (Salonen 1992; Hamill et al.
2004).
Herbicide-injured and late-emerging weeds have greatly
reduced fecundity compared with healthy weeds emerg-
ing early in the growing season (Hartzler et al. 2004;
Clay et al. 2005). Studies have documented that even if
there are small increases in weed seed production in
reduced-herbicide-dose or integrated weed manage-
ment systems, these do not necessarily translate into
greater weed populations in subsequent years (Williams
& Harvey 2002; Swanton & Booth 2004). Weed seed
mortality can be high from one growing season to the
next, especially when seeds remain on the soil surface in
a zero-tillage system (Yenish et al. 1992; Hoffman et al.
1998). This might be related to greater predation by
rodents and birds, attack by fungi and bacteria, or des-
sication when not protected by burial in the soil (Kre-
mer 1993; Westerman et al. 2003; Gallandt et al. 2005).
Jordan et al. (1995) suggested that management aimed at
increasing seed mortality can be more effective than
management aimed solely at killing weed seedlings.
ENHANCING THE SUCCESSFUL USE OF
REDUCED HERBICIDE DOSES
The establishment of competitive cropping systems will
facilitate the use of lower herbicide doses. Nevertheless,
other factors need to be considered in the decision to use
reduced herbicide doses.
Progress continues to be made on maintaining high effi-
cacy levels at lower herbicide doses through the use of
improved adjuvants that increase solubility in the spray
tank and aid in herbicide uptake and translocation (de
Ruiter et al. 1996; Green & Cahill 2003; Ramsey et al.
2005). Additionally, advances in spray nozzle technology
might further increase the efficacy of herbicides applied
at lower doses (Wolf et al. 2000; Milne et al. 2004).
Air temperature, soil moisture, and relative humidity
all have been reported to affect herbicide efficacy
(Akesson & Yates 1987; Kudsk & Kristensen 1992); the

© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

14 R.E. Blackshaw et al.

importance of these factors only increases with reduced

herbicide doses (Medd et al. 2001). Indeed, many her-
bicide labels indicate the importance of “favorable envi-
ronmental conditions” or “actively growing weeds”
when applying herbicides (Ali 2004). These terms are
somewhat subjective and are not always helpful in assess-
ing the risk of reduced herbicide doses. A recent study
measured the leaf extension rate of wild oat as an indi-
cator of “active growth” and found that the efficacy of
reduced doses of tralkoxydim and imazamethabenz was
correlated with greater wild oat leaf growth (Fig. 1;
Harker & Blackshaw 2003). Perhaps farmers could uti-
lize this simple method of assessing weed growth in their
decision-making process when considering reduced her-
bicide doses.
Precision farming might have a role to play in enabling
reduced herbicide doses. Identifying where weeds occur
in a field and the density of those weeds should aid in
any decision on the most appropriate herbicide dose
(Shaw 2005; Wiles 2005). Reduced herbicide doses
would not be considered for dense weed patches or for
large weeds.
The concept of “factor-adjusted doses” has been intro-
duced to facilitate the successful use of reduced herbi-
cide doses in Denmark (Kudsk & Kristensen 1992;
Kudsk 1999). This decision support system incorpo-
rates variables, such as weed species, weed growth
stage, competitiveness of crop cultivar, and environ-
mental conditions around the time of application, to
predict the appropriate herbicide dose to achieve con-
sistent weed control. Farmers have maintained good
levels of weed control, economic return is often
higher, and the pesticide load on the environment has Fig. 1. The effect of wild oat growth rates on wild oat
been reduced. control with reduced doses of those applied to barley (25%
of labeled) of (a) tralkoxydim and (b) imazamethabenz. The
A decision support program (HERBIRATE) was devel- labeled doses of tralkoxydim and imazamethabenz are 200
oped in Australia to facilitate reduced doses of several and 400 g ai ha−1, respectively. Data were collected for
herbicides according to the environmental conditions three seed dates at two sites each year and the study was
around spraying time, with the goal of maintaining conducted over three years. Best-fit linear regression equa-
> 90% weed control (Minkey & Moore 1998). Nord- tions are presented: C, percentage wild oat control; R, wild
blom et al. (2003) examined the economics of fixed rec- oat growth rate (mm day−1).
ommended herbicide doses compared with a flexible
“best efficacy-targeting strategy” (BETS), which is fac-
tor-adjusted to weed density and environmental condi- SUMMARY
tions. Using BETS, the probability of herbicide efficacy
falling < 90% was ≈ 10% for a 50% dose, 30% for a 25% Sustainable weed management is irretrievably linked to
dose, and 70–80% for a 12.5% dose. It is noteworthy the development of competitive cropping systems that
that recommended doses also fail occasionally; there reduce weed populations over time. Herbicides applied
remained a 5–10% chance that weed control was unac- at lower doses will have a fit in specific situations as they
ceptable at the labeled dose.This decision support model might allow increased profits to be realized by growers,
potentially could increase economic returns without reduce potential injury to current and succeeding sus-
increasing the risk to the farmer (Table 5). ceptible crops, and minimize risk to the environment.

© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd


Table 5. Mean gross margin values in wheat simulated for
four wild oat densities at four clodinafop doses with the
environmental conditions present in Australia from 1950−
1996
Weed density Gross margin ($A ha−1)
(plants m−2)
Clodinafop dose (%)
100 50 25 12.5
128 368 379 366 331
32 377 398 403 395
8 379 403 413 416
2 380 404 416 421
Zhang et al. (2000), in their discussion on the reliability
and risks associated with the use of reduced herbicide
doses, stressed the importance of cropping systems that
keep weed populations at low levels. Only then will the
benefits outweigh the risks when results are considered
over many years.
Many agronomic practises contribute to competitive
cropping systems and research indicates that the benefits
become much greater when several competitive crop-
ping practises are utilized in combination (Blackshaw
et al. 1999; Anderson 2003; Harker et al. 2003; Black-
shaw et al. 2005a,b). Once competitive cropping systems
have been implemented, farmers can then consider the
more immediate issues of choice of herbicide, weed size,
and whether favorable environmental conditions exist.
Legislation in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA
allows the use of lower herbicide doses than those on the
label, except when a label explicitly prohibits it (Pannell
1989; Nordblom & Medd 1999). However, reduced
doses nullify the manufacturer’s guarantee of herbicide
efficacy (Duchesne et al. 2004) and, thus, should be used
with caution. A primary question is how best to provide
farmers with information that helps them to select
the most appropriate herbicide dose for their specific
conditions.
Olson and Eidman (1992) state that variability in weed
control and the associated economic returns can lead
farmers to use herbicides when they are unnecessary.
Clearly, the riskiness of using reduced herbicide doses
needs to be minimized by providing farmers with
information on when (and when not) reduced doses
are a viable option (Hoverstad et al. 2004). Decision
support systems might have a critical role to play in this
regard (Minkey & Moore 1998; Kudsk 1999; Nord-
blom et al. 2003). Additionally, more informative herbi-
cide labels and technology transfer publications could
Reduced herbicide doses in field crops 15
be of value to users, allowing them to utilize the appro-
priate herbicide dose.
Popp et al. (2000) reported that the use of reduced her-
bicide doses in soybean production in Arkansas, USA,
resulted in higher economic returns with lower financial
risk. Clearly, this should be the ultimate goal of further
research on this topic.
REFERENCES
Akesson N.B. and Yates W.E. 1987. Effect of weather factors on the
application of herbicides. In: Methods of Applying Herbicides (ed. by
McWhorter C.G. and Gebhardt M.R.). Weed Science Society of
America, Champaign, IL, USA, 335–344.
Ali S. 2004. Crop Protection 2004. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development, Edmonton, Canada.
Anderson R.L. 2003. An ecological approach to strengthen weed
management in the semiarid Great Plains. Adv. Agron. 80, 33–62.
Beckie H.J. and Kirkland K.J. 2003. Implication of reduced herbicide
rates on resistance enrichment in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Technol.
17, 138–148.
Belles D.S., Thill D.C. and Shafi B. 2000. PP-604 rate and Avena fatua
density effects on seed production and viability in Hordeum vulgare. Weed
Sci. 48, 378–384.
Blackshaw R.E., Beckie H.J., Molnar L.J., Entz T. and Moyer J.R. 2005a.
Combining agronomic practices and herbicides improves weed
management in wheat–canola rotations within zero-tillage production
systems. Weed Sci. 53, 528–535.
Blackshaw R.E., Molnar L.J. and Janzen H.H. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer
timing and application method affect weed growth and competition
with spring wheat. Weed Sci. 52, 614–622.
Blackshaw R.E., Moyer J.R., Harker K.N. and Clayton G.W. 2005b.
Integration of agronomic practices and herbicides for sustainable weed
management in a zero-till barley field pea rotation. Weed Technol. 19,
190–196.
Blackshaw R.E., Semach G., Li X., O’Donovan J.T. and Harker K.N.
1999. An integrated weed management approach to managing foxtail
barley (Hordeum jubatum) in conservation tillage systems. Weed Technol.
13, 347–353.
Boström U. and Fogelfors H. 2002. Long-term effects of herbicide-
application strategies on weeds and yield in spring-sown cereals. Weed
Sci. 50, 196–203.
Brain P., Wilson B.J., Wright K.J., Seavers G.P. and Caseley J.C. 1999.
Modelling the effect of crop and weed on herbicide efficacy in wheat.
Weed Res. 39, 21–35.
Buhler D.D., Gunsolus J.L. and Ralston D.E. 1993. Common cocklebur
(Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced
bentazon rates and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41, 447–453.
Christensen S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance
in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34, 29–36.
Clay S.A., Kleinjan J., Clay D.E., Forcella F. and Batchelor W. 2005.
Growth and fecundity of several weed species in corn and soybean.
Agron. J. 97, 294–302.
Derksen D.A., Anderson R.L., Blackshaw R.E. and Maxwell B. 2002.
Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the
northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94, 174–185.
Devlin D.L., Long J.H. and Maddux L.D. 1991. Using reduced rates of
postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5,
834–840.
Dieleman J.A., Mortensen D.A. and Martin A.R. 1999. Influence of
velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus
annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47,
81–89.
© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
16 R.E. Blackshaw et al.
Doyle P. and Stypa M. 2004. Reduced herbicide rates – a Canadian
perspective. Weed Technol. 18, 1157–1165.
Duchesne R., Lachance P. and Letendre M. 2004. Reduced Herbicide Rates
in Field Crops. Lower-than-Label-Rate Working Group, Stratégie
Phytosanitaire, Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pecheries, et de
l’Ailmentation, Quebec City, Canada.
Eue L. 1986. World challenges in weed science. Weed Sci. 34, 155–160.
Gallandt E.R., Molloy T., Lynch R.P. and Drummond F.A. 2005. Effect
of cover-cropping systems on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci. 53,
69–76.
Green J.M. and Cahill W.R. 2003. Enhancing the biological activity of
nicosulfuron with pH adjusters. Weed Technol. 17, 338–345.
Gressel J. 1995. Creeping resistance: the outcome of using marginally
effective or reduced rate of herbicides. In: Brighton Crop Protection
Conference – Weeds (Brighton, UK, 20–23 November 1995). BCPC,
Hampshire, 87–90.
Hamill A.S., Weaver S.E., Sikkema P.H., Swanton C.J., Tardif F.J. and
Ferguson G.M. 2004. Benefits and risks of economic vs. efficacious
approaches to weed management in corn and soybean. Weed Technol. 18,
723–732.
Harker K.N. and Blackshaw R.E. 2003a. Leaf extension rate may help
determine when low wild oat herbicide rates will be effective. Weed
Technol. 17, 829–835.
Harker K.N., Clayton G.W., Blackshaw R.E., O’Donovan J.T. and
Stevenson F.C. 2003b. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive
hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica
napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83, 433–440.
Hartzler R.G., Battles B.A. and Nordby D. 2004. Effect of common
waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity
in soybean. Weed Sci. 52, 242–245.
Heatherly L.G., Spurlock S.R. and Elmore C.D. 2001. Row width and
weed management systems for conventional soybean plantings in the
midsouthern USA. Agron. J. 93, 1210–1220.
Hoffman M.L., Owen M.D.K. and Buhler D.D. 1998. Effects of crop and
weed management density and vertical distribution of weed seed in soil.
Agron. J. 90, 793–799.
Hoverstad T.R., Gunsolus J.L., Johnson G.A. and King R.P. 2004. Risk-
efficiency criteria for evaluating economics of herbicide-based weed
management systems in corn. Weed Technol. 18, 687–697.
Jordan N., Mortensen D.A., Prenzlow D.M. and Cox K.C. 1995.
Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks. Am. J.
Bot. 82, 390–398.
Kirkland K.J., Holm F.A. and Stevenson F.C. 2000. Appropriate crop
seeding rate when herbicide rate is reduced. Weed Technol. 14, 692–
698.
Kremer R.J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with
microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3, 42–52.
Kudsk P. 1999. Optimising herbicide use – the driving force behind the
development of the Danish decision support system. In: Brighton Crop
Protection Conference – Weeds (Brighton, UK, 22–25 November 1999).
BCPC, Hampshire, 737–746.
Kudsk P. and Kristensen J.L. 1992. Effect of environmental factors on
herbicide performance. In: Combellack J.H., Levich K.J., Richardson
R.G., eds. First International Weed Control Congress (Melbourne,
Australia, 17–21 February 1992). Weed Science Society of Victoria,
Melbourne, 173–186.
Lemerle D., Gill G.S., Murphy C.E., Walker S.R., Cousens R.D.,
Mokhtari S. et al. 2001. Genetic improvement and agronomy for
enhanced wheat competitiveness with weeds. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52,
527–548.
Lemerle D., Verbeek B. and Coombes N.E. 1996. Interaction between
wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual
ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44, 634–639.
Liebman M. and Staver C.P. 2001. Crop diversification for weed
management. In: Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds (ed. by
Liebman M., Mohler C.L. and Staver C.P.). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 322–374.
© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Medd R.W., Van de Den J., Pickering D.I. and Nordblom T. 2001.
Determination of environment-specific dose–response relationships for
clodinafop-propargyl on Avena spp. Weed Res. 41, 351–368.
Mickelson J.A. and Renner K.A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates
of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod.
Agric. 10, 431–437.
Milne A.E., Finnan A.P., Miller P.C.H. and Mayes J.A. 2004. A spray
nozzle selection support system for herbicide applications. Aspects Appl.
Biol. 71, 201–206.
Minkey D.M. and Moore J.H. 1998. HERBIRATE: a model that
predicts the performance of four herbicides with respect to
environmental interactions. In: Precision Weed Management in Crops and
Pastures (ed. by Medd R.W. and Pratley J.E.). CRC, Adelaide,
Australia, 123–127.
Mohler C.L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. In:
Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds (ed. by Liebman M., Mohler
C.L. and Staver C.P.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 269–
322.
Nazarko O.M., Van Acker R.C. and Entz M.H. 2005. Strategies and
tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: a review.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 85, 457–479.
Nordblom T.L., Jones R.E. and Medd R.W. 2003. Economics of factor
adjusted herbicide doses: a simulation analysis of best efficacy targeting
strategies (BETS). Agric. Syst. 76, 863–882.
Nordblom T.L. and Medd R.W. 1999. Review of state legislative controls
on herbicide use with respect to dose rates. In: Bishop A.C., Boersma
M., Barnes C.D., eds. Twelfth Australian Weeds Conference (Hobart,
Australia, 12–16 September 1999). Tasmanian Weed Society,
Devonport, TAS, Australia, 418–422.
O’Donovan J.T., Harker K.N., Blackshaw R.E. and Stougaard R.N.
2003a. Influence of variable rates of imazamethabenz and difenzoquat
on wild oat (Avena fatua) seed production, and wheat (Triticum aestivum)
yield and profitability. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83, 977–985.
O’Donovan J.T., Harker K.N., Blackshaw R.E. and Stougaard R.N.
2003b. Effect of variable tralkoxydim rates on wild oat (Avena fatua)
seed production, wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield, and economic return.
Weed Technol. 17, 149–156.
O’Donovan J.T., Harker K.N., Clayton G.W., Newman J.C.,
Robinson D. and Hall L.M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences
the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49,
746–754.
O’Donovan J.T., Newman J.C., Harker K.N. and Clayton G.W. 2004.
Crop seeding rate influences the performance of variable herbicide rates
in a canola-barley-canola rotation. Weed Technol. 18, 733–741.
Olson K.D. and Eidman V.R. 1992. A farmer’s choice of weed control
method and the impacts of policy and risk. Rev. Agric. Econ. 14, 125–
137.
Pannell D.J. 1989. Economics and the law relating to flexibility of
chemical rates. Plant Prot. Q. 4, 104–106.
Pike D.R., McGlamery M.D. and Knake E.L. 1991. A case study of
herbicide use. Weed Technol. 5, 639–646.
Popp M.P., Oliver L.R., Dillon C.R., Keisling T.C. and Manning P.M.
2000. Evaluation of seedbed preparation, planting method, and
herbicide alternatives for dryland soybean production. Agron. J. 92,
1149–1155.
Ramsey R.J.L., Stephenson G.R. and Hall J.C. 2005. A review of the
effects of humidity, humectants, and surfactant composition on the
absorption and efficacy of highly water-soluable herbicides. Pestic.
Biochem. Physiol. 82, 162–175.
Roggenkamp G.J., Mason S.C. and Martin A.R. 2000. Velvetleaf
(Abutilon theophrasti) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) response to corn
(Zea mays) hybrid. Weed Technol. 14, 304–311.
de Ruiter H., Uffing A.J.M. and Meinen E. 1996. Influence of surfactants
and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate phytotoxicity to quackgrass
(Elytriga repens). Weed Technol. 10, 803–808.
Salonen J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of
different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32, 483–491.

Sarrantonio M. and Gallandt E.R. 2003. The role of cover crops in North
American cropping systems. J. Crop Prod. 8, 53–74.
Shaw D.R. 2005. Translation of remote sensing data into weed
management decisions. Weed Sci. 53, 264–273.
Spandl E.B., Durgan R. and Miller D.W. 1997. Wild oat (Avena fatua)
control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare)
with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11, 591–
597.
Steckel L.E., DeFelice M.S. and Sims B.D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates
of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control
in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38, 541–545.
Stougaard R.N., Maxwell B.D. and Harris J.D. 1997. Influence of
application timing on the efficacy of reduced rate postemergence
herbicides for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring barley (Hordeum
vulgare). Weed Technol. 11, 283–289.
Swanton C.J. and Booth B.D. 2004. Management of weed seedbanks in
the context of populations and communities. Weed Technol. 18, 1496–
1502.
Thomas A.G. and Dale M.R.T. 1991. Weed community structure in
spring-seeded crops in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71, 1069–1080.
Walker S.R., Medd R.W., Robinson G.R. and Cullis B.R. 2002.
Improved management of Avena ludoviciana and Phalaris paradoxa with
more densely sown wheat and less herbicide. Weed Res. 42, 257–270.
Reduced herbicide doses in field crops 17
Westerman P.R., Hofman A., Vet L.E.M. and Van der Werf W. 2003.
Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed
seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 417–
425.
Wiles L.J. 2005. Sampling to make maps for site-specific weed
management. Weed Sci. 53, 228–235.
Wille M.J., Thill D.C. and Price W.J. 1998. Wild oat (Avena fatua) seed
production in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) is affected by the
interaction of wild oat density and herbicide rate. Weed Sci. 46, 336–
343.
Williams B.J. and Harvey R.G. 2002. Influence of simulated seed rain on
the seed bank of wild proso millet. Weed Sci. 50, 340–343.
Winkle M.E., Leavitt J.R.C. and Burnside O.C. 1981. Effects of weed
density on herbicide absorption and bioactivity. Weed Sci. 29, 405–409.
Wolf T.M., Harrison S.K., Hall F.R. and Cooper J. 2000. Optimizing
postemergence herbicide deposition and efficacy through applicator
variables in no-till systems. Weed Sci. 48, 761–768.
Yenish J.P., Doll J.D. and Buhler D.D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical
distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40, 429–433.
Zhang J., Weaver S.E. and Hamill A.S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using
herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol. 14, 106–115.
Zoschke A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed
management. Weed Technol. 8, 376–386.
© 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd