Thomas J. Peters’s research while affiliated with North Dakota State University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (7)


Figure 1. Geographic distribution of Amaranthus tuberculatus populations collected from corn, soybean, and sugar beet fields in Minnesota in 2020 and 2021. Background colors indicate regions of the state of Minnesota.
Figure 3. Amaranthus tuberculatus biomass reduction compared with nontreated control from herbicide application (1× and 3× the labeled doses) in greenhouse experiments at the University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN. The horizontal black line represents the mean biomass reduction from each herbicide application. Individual data points depict the average percent biomass reduction for a population.
Figure 4. Interpolated geographic distribution of survival percentage of Amaranthus tuberculatus populations following the labeled dose (1×) application of (A) 2,4-D, (B) atrazine, (C) dicamba, (D) fomesafen, (E) glufosinate, (F) glyphosate, (G) imazamox, (H) mesotrione in greenhouse experiments conducted at University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
Figure 5. Number of multiple herbicide-resistant Amaranthus tuberculatus populations out of 90 populations evaluated in the experiment. The combination matrix at the bottom identifies interactions between the herbicides, and the bars above intersection specify the size of interaction, that is, the number of populations confirmed to be resistant (moderately and highly) to those herbicides in intersection, where populations with ≥40 % plant survival at 3× the labeled dose of a herbicide were categorized as "highly resistant," and populations with <40% survival at 3× the labeled dose but ≥40% survival at 1× the labeled dose were categorized as "moderately resistant."
Dose, site of action, manufacturer, and adjuvant information for herbicides used in greenhouse experiments at University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN
Profile and extent of herbicide-resistant waterhemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus ) in Minnesota
  • Article
  • Full-text available

October 2024

·

27 Reads

Weed Science

Navjot Singh

·

Thomas J. Peters

·

Ryan P. Miller

·

[...]

·

Information regarding the prevalence and distribution of herbicide-resistant waterhemp [ Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer] in Minnesota is limited. Whole-plant bioassays were conducted in the greenhouse on 90 A. tuberculatus populations collected from 47 counties in Minnesota. Eight postemergence herbicides, 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, fomesafen, glufosinate, glyphosate, imazamox, and mesotrione, were applied at 1× and 3× the labeled doses. Based on their responses, populations were classified into highly resistant (≥40 % survival at 3× the labeled dose), moderately resistant (<40% survival at 3× the labeled dose but ≥40% survival at 1× the labeled dose), less sensitive (10% to 39% survival at 1× the labeled dose), and susceptible (<10% survival at 1× the labeled dose) categories. All 90 populations were resistant to imazamox, while 89% were resistant to glyphosate. Atrazine, fomesafen, and mesotrione resistance was observed in 47%, 31%, and 22% of all populations, respectively. Ten percent of the populations were resistant to 2,4-D, and 2 of 90 populations exhibited >40% survival following dicamba application at the labeled dose. No population was confirmed to be resistant to glufosinate. However, 22% of all populations were classified as less sensitive to glufosinate. Eighty-two populations were found to be multiple-herbicide resistant. Among these, 15 populations exhibited resistance to four different herbicide sites of action (SOAs); 7 and 4 populations were resistant to five and six SOAs, respectively. All six-way-resistant populations were from southwest Minnesota. Two populations, one from Lincoln County and the other from Lyon County, were resistant to 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, fomesafen, glyphosate, imazamox, and mesotrione, leaving only glufosinate as a postemergence control option for these populations in corn ( Zea mays L.) and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Diversified management tactics, including nonchemical control measures along with herbicide applications from effective SOAs, should be implemented to slow down the evolution and spread of herbicide-resistant A. tuberculatus populations.

Download

Ethofumesate Applied at Greater than Labeled Rates Postemergence in Sugarbeet

July 2023

·

27 Reads

·

1 Citation

Weed Technology

Ethofumesate is a broad spectrum, soil-applied herbicide for control of broadleaf and grass weeds in sugarbeet. Ethofumesate is commonly applied preemergence at rates ranging from 1.25 to 4.2 kg ai ha ⁻¹ , or applied postemergence, up to 0.38 kg ai ha ⁻¹ . Generic Crop Science has developed a new Ethofumesate 4SC label that increased ethofumesate postemergence rates up to 4.48 kg ha ⁻¹ in sugarbeet with more than two true leaves per plant. Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance and herbicide efficacy. Field tolerance experiments indicated sugarbeet stature from ethofumesate postemergence at 0.28, 0.56, and 1.12 kg ha ⁻¹ was the same as the non-treated control, but ethofumesate at 2.24 kg ha ⁻¹ reduced sugarbeet stature; however, did not affect yield components. Ethofumesate postemergence at 4.48 kg ha ⁻¹ reduced sugarbeet stature and affected sugarbeet yield components. Ethofumesate alone postemergence provided weed control of up to 85, 76, and 84% on common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and waterhemp, respectively, in field efficacy experiments. Mixing ethofumesate at 1.12 kg ha ⁻¹ with glyphosate does not provide a second effective herbicide for postemergence control of common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed, but does provide residual control of these weeds when at least one-half inch of penetrating rainfall occurs, following application. In greenhouse experiments, ethofumesate alone or ethofumesate plus glyphosate timed to common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, or waterhemp less than 2.5-cm provided the best combination of burndown and soil residual control compared with 2.5- to 5-cm tall weeds. Ethofumesate postemergence at 1.12 kg ha ⁻¹ plus glyphosate provided the best combination of tolerance and efficacy, especially on waterhemp.


Inter-row Cultivation Timing Effects on Waterhemp ( Amaranthus tuberculatus ) Control and Sugarbeet Yield and Quality

February 2021

·

19 Reads

Weed Technology

The invasion of waterhemp into northern sugarbeet growing regions has prompted producers to re-integrate inter-row cultivation into weed management programs as no currently registered herbicides can control glyphosate-resistant waterhemp POST in crop. Inter-row cultivation was a common weed control practice in sugarbeet until the release of glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet cultivars in 2008 made the use of inter-row cultivation unnecessary. In the late 2010s, producers began again to use inter-row cultivation to remove weeds that glyphosate did not control, but producers need information on the effectiveness and safety of inter-row cultivation when used with soil residual herbicide programs. Efficacy and tolerance field experiments were conducted in Minnesota and North Dakota from 2017 to 2019. Results from the efficacy experiment demonstrated cultivation improved waterhemp control 11% and 12%, 14 and 28 DAT, respectively. Waterhemp response to cultivation was dependent on crop canopy and precipitation after cultivation. Cultivation had minimal effect on waterhemp density in three environments, but at one environment, near Galchutt, ND in 2019, waterhemp density increased 600% and 196%, 14 and 28 DAT, respectively. Climate data indicated Galchutt, ND in 2019 received 105 mm of precipitation in the 14 days following cultivation and had an open crop canopy which likely contributed to further weed emergence. Results from the tolerance experiment demonstrated root yield and recoverable sucrose were not affected by cultivation timing or number of cultivations. In one environment, cultivating reduced sucrose content by 0.8% regardless of date or cultivation number, but no differences were found in three environments. In-season cultivation can damage/destroy leaf tissue which is likely responsible for the reduction in sucrose content. Results indicate cultivation can be a valuable tool to control weeds that herbicide cannot, but excessive rainfall and open crop canopy following cultivation can create an environment conducive to further weed emergence.


Interference and management of herbicide-resistant crop volunteers

January 2021

·

499 Reads

·

11 Citations

Weed Science

Since the commercialization of herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, primarily glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, their adoption increased rapidly. Multiple HR traits in crops such as canola ( Brassica napus L.), corn ( Zea mays L.), cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.), and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are available in recent years, and management of their volunteers need attention to prevent interference and yield loss in rotational crops. The objectives of this review were to summarize HR crop traits in barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), canola, corn, cotton, rice ( Oryza sativa L.), soybean, sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris L.), and wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.); assess their potential for volunteerism; and review existing literature on the interference of HR crop volunteers, yield loss, and their management in rotational crops. Herbicide-resistant crop volunteers are problem weeds in agronomic cropping systems, and the impact of volunteerism depends on several factors such as crop grown in rotation, the density of volunteers, management practices, and micro-climate. Interference of imidazolinone-resistant (IR) barley or wheat volunteers can be a problem in rotational crops, particularly when IR crops such as canola or wheat are grown. Herbicide-resistant canola volunteers are abundant in the Northern Great Plains due to high fecundity, seed loss before or during harvest, secondary seed dormancy, and can interfere in crops grown in rotation such as flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.), field peas ( Pisum sativum L.), and soybean. Herbicide-resistant corn volunteers are competitive in crops grown in rotation such as corn, cotton, soybean, and sugarbeet, with yield loss depending on the density of HR corn volunteers. Volunteers of HR cotton, rice, soybean, and sugarbeet are not major concerns and can be controlled with existing herbicides. Herbicide options would be limited if the crop volunteers are multiple HR; therefore, a record-keeping of cultivar planted the previous year and selecting herbicide is important. The increasing use of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate in North American cropping systems requires research on herbicide interactions and alternative herbicides or methods for controlling multiple HR crop volunteers.


Environment influences sugarbeet tolerance to S -metolachlor

February 2020

·

38 Reads

·

4 Citations

Weed Technology

Herbicides used in sugarbeet are commonly adapted from other row crops and may cause injury and yield loss, often associated with environmental and edaphic factors. Glyphosate-resistant (GR) waterhemp in sugarbeet requires PRE herbicide including S -metolachlor for its control. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance to PRE S -metolachlor including air temperature and soil water content interactions with soil series in field and growth chamber experiments. Results from field experiments conducted in 12 environments in 2015, 2016, and 2017 indicated 2.16 or 4.32 kg ai ha ⁻¹S -metolachlor applied PRE reduced sugarbeet density and stature but did not reduce root yield, sucrose content, or recoverable sucrose compared to the untreated control in environments with soils with less than 3.5% organic matter (OM) and receiving greater than 40 mm cumulative rainfall within 14 d after planting. In the growth chamber, sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight following S -metolachlor application was influenced by soil moisture content, air temperature, and soil series but not by S -metolachlor rate. Sugarbeet density was reduced 15% and sugarbeet shoot fresh weight reduced 106% when S -metolachlor was applied to a Glyndon sandy loam (2.6% OM, 9.5% clay) at 100% field capacity (FC) and 14 C compared to S -metolachlor application to a Fargo silty clay (7.7% OM and 54% clay) at 100% FC and 21 C. It is concluded that field selection is an important criterion for managing waterhemp with S -metolachlor applied and tolerance in sugarbeet; more so than S-metolachlor application rate.



Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S -metolachlor

May 2019

·

22 Reads

·

4 Citations

Weed Technology

Sugarbeet growers only recently have combined ethofumesate, S -metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P in a weed control system for waterhemp control. Sugarbeet plant density, visible stature reduction, root yield, percent sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose were measured in field experiments at five environments between 2014 and 2016. Sugarbeet stand density and stature reduction occurred in some but not all environments. Stand density was reduced with PRE application of S -metolachlor at 1.60 kg ai ha –1 and S -metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha –1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha –1 alone or followed by POST applications of dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ai ha –1 . Sugarbeet visible stature was reduced when dimethenamid-P followed PRE treatments. Stature reduction was greatest with ethofumesate at 1.68 or 4.37 kg ha –1 PRE and S -metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha –1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ha –1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha –1 POST. Stature reduction ranged from 0 to 32% 10 d after treatment (DAT), but sugarbeet recovered quickly and visible injury was negligible 23 DAT. Although root yield and recoverable sucrose were similar across herbicide treatments and environments, we caution against the use of S -metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha –1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha –1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha –1 in sugarbeet.

Citations (2)


... Along with direct competition with the crop grown in rotation, volunteer corn has indirect effects by harboring insect pests and impacting insect-resistance strategies (Marquardt et al. 2012;Summers et al. 2004). Yield losses and insect-pest issues in the crop grown in rotation with corn due to volunteer corn infestation are not economical and hence demand a management plan (Jhala et al. 2021). Managing volunteer corn is challenging with some crops, such as corn (Striegel et al. 2020), because preplant tillage or interrow cultivation is largely unfeasible due to the prevalence of no-till practice (Chahal and Jhala 2016). ...

Reference:

Harvest loss in corn and implication for volunteerism
Interference and management of herbicide-resistant crop volunteers

Weed Science

... In addition, Felix et al. (2012) indicated that imidazosulfuron residues in the soil have the potential to injure many rotational specialty crops such as sugar beet for at least two years. Although the effects of residues on sugar beet were dependent on soil properties and environmental characteristics (Lueck et al., 2020), the adverse effects of subsequent crop growth were enhanced (Mehdizadeh and Abadan, 2018). ...

Environment influences sugarbeet tolerance to S -metolachlor
  • Citing Article
  • February 2020

Weed Technology