Vol.3, No.5, 755-758 (2012) Agricultural Sciences
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2012.35091
Response of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to
autumn applied saflufenacil
Lynette R. Brown, Nader Soltani*, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema
University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Canada; *Corresponding Author:
Received 29 May 2012; revised 30 June 2012; accepted 16 July 2012
ABSTRACT
There is limited information on the effect of
saflufenacil application timing when applied in
autumn to winter wheat. Five field experiments
were conducted over a three-year period (2007-
2009) at two locations (Ridgetown and Exeter,
Ontario) to evaluate the tolerance of winter
wheat to autumn applications of saflufenacil
applied pre-plant (PP), pre-emergence (PRE), or
post-emergence (POST) at 25, 50, 100 and 200 g
a.i. ha−1. As the dose of saflufenacil increased,
the amount of injury observed also increased.
By May of the following spring, injury ranged
from 11% to 20% at the 25 to 200 g a.i. ha−1 doses
of saflufenacil. Saflufenacil applied PP and PRE
caused little to no injury in winter wheat. Saf-
lufenacil applied POST and POST + Merge in the
autumn caused up to 41% injury with the POST +
Merge application being the most injurious.
However, this injury was transient with no effect
on winter wheat height or yield the following
summer.
Keywords: Cereals; Injury; Height; Herbicide;
Tolerance; Yield
1. INTRODUCTION
Herbicide application timing is influenced by tillage
system (no-tillage, reduced tillage, conventional tillage),
weed species (annual, biennial or perennial) and type of
crop (wheat, maize or soybean). Spring is a very busy
time of the year for many growers. Consequently, poste-
mergence (POST) herbicide application in winter wheat
may be delayed beyond the optimum application timing
resulting in yield losses due to early weed interference.
Most growers apply herbicides for broadleaf weed con-
trol in winter wheat in the spring, however, by exploring
autumn applied herbicides, growers may be able to 1)
spread out their work load; 2) obtain improved control of
winter annual, biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds;
and 3) increase winter wheat yield due to reduced weed
interference.
Saflufenacil is a herbicide used for broadleaf weed
control that is being investigated in a number of different
crops including maize, soybean, cereal and pulse crops
[1-5]. It has a different mode of action from other com-
monly used herbicides for weed control in winter wheat.
As a result, there have been a number of recent studies
looking at the tolerance of saflufenacil in cereal crops.
However, there is minimal research that has studied the
effect of saflufenacil application timing [pre-plant (PP),
pre-emergence (PRE) and POST] in the autumn.
Research has shown that saflufenacil can be used as an
effective tool to control winter annual weeds such as
Chorispora tenella Pallas (blue mustard), Descurainia
Sophia L. (flixweed), Capsella bursa-pastoris L. (shep-
herd’s purse), Thlaspi arvense L. (field pennycress), La-
mium amplexicaule L. (henbit) and perennials such as
Convolvulus arvensis L. (field bindweed) and Taraxacum
officinale Weber (dandelion) [6-8]. There is potential for
saflufenacil to be used with glyphosate as an enhanced
burndown prior to planting wheat as well as providing
residual control of annual broadleaf weeds the following
spring. Since glyphosate-resistant weeds have been docu-
mented in some areas of Ontario, growers will need her-
bicide options other than glyphosate for burndown in
winter wheat. If there is adequate tolerance in winter
wheat to autumn applications of saflufenacil, it may eli-
minate the need for broadleaf herbicides in the spring.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine
the sensitivity of winter wheat to autumn applications
(PP, PRE and POST) of saflufenacil at various doses.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of five field trials were established over a
three-year period (2007-2009) at the Huron Research
Station near Exeter, ON and the University of Guelph
Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON. The soil character-
ristics for each field trial are presented in Table 1.
The experiments were established as a 2-way factorial
and plots were arranged in n RCBD with four replica- a

L. R. Brown et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 755-758
756
Table 1. Soil characteristics at Exeter and Ridgetown, ON in 2007-2009.
Location Year Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) OMa (%) pH CEC
Ridgetown 2007 45 29 26 4.9 7.0 11
Exeter 2008 39 37 24 4.3 7.9 38
Ridgetown 2008 52 28 20 5.9 6.4 21
Exeter 2009 28 38 34 4.1 7.9 36
Ridgetown 2009 41 34 25 6.5 6.7 22
aAbbreviation: OM, Organic matter.
tions. Factor one was saflufenacil dose (25, 50, 100 and
200 g a.i. ha−1) and factor two was application timing [PP,
PRE, POST (without adjuvant) and POST plus adjuvant
(Merge; 1.0% v/v)]. Winter wheat “Pioneer 25R47” was
seeded in the autumn at both locations at a rate of 140 -
170 kg·ha−1 in rows that were 17.5 or 19 cm apart in
plots that were 2 m wide by 8 or 10 m long. Pre-plant
herbicides were applied 1 day before planting, Pre-emer-
gence herbicides were applied 3 days after planting and
post-emergence herbicides were applied at 2 - 3 leaf
stage with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped
with 120-02 ultra low drift nozzles (Hypro, New Brigh-
ton, MN) calibrated to deliver 200 L·ha−1 at 207 or 241
kPa. A cover spray of bromoxynil/MCPA (560 g a.i. ha−1)
was applied in the spring to maintain the entire experi-
mental area weed free.
Crop injury was evaluated visually 1 and 2 weeks after
treatment (WAT) in the autumn and at the beginning of
May and July of the following year. Crop injury was
evaluated on a scale of 0 (no injury) to 100% (complete
death). Wheat height was measured before harvest from
10 randomly selected plants per plot. Yield was measured
at crop maturity by harvesting the middle 1.5 m of each
plot with a plot combine. Yields were adjusted to 14.5%
moisture.
All data were subjected to analysis of variance using
the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS (software Ver. 9.1,
SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The assumptions of the
variance analyses (random, homogeneous, normal dis-
tribution of error) were confirmed using residual plots
and the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. To meet the as-
sumptions of variance analyses, the July injury rating
was log transformed. Data were converted back to origi-
nal scale for presentation of results. Injury 1 and 2 WAT
as well as May injury, height and yield data met the as-
sumptions of normality, therefore no transformations
were necessary. Crop injury was not observed at any of
the Ridgetown sites therefore was excluded from analy-
sis and are not shown. Data were combined and analyzed
over environments when possible (i.e. environment by
timing by dose interactions were not significant).
Means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD.
Type I error was set at 0.05 for all statistical compari-
sons.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
There was no effect of saflufenacil dose at the PP and
PRE application timings on winter wheat injury 1 WAT
and in May of the following spring (Table 2 ). These re-
sults are consistent with a recent study conducted by
Knezevic et al. [8] that also showed no injury on winter
wheat when saflufenacil (at doses up to 400 g a.i. ha−1)
was applied PRE. There was however, a dose effect
when saflufenacil was applied POST with and without
the adjuvant Merge. At 1 WAT, the POST application of
saflufenacil applied at 100 and 200 g a.i. ha−1 caused 7%
and 10% injury. This injury was transient with 5% injury
observed at the 200 g a.i. ha−1 in the following May.
There was greater injury when saflufenacil was ap-
plied POST + Merge. At 1 WAT, injury from saflufenacil
(25 to 200 g a.i. ha−1) applied POST with Merge was
12% - 18% higher than the POST application without an
adjuvant (Table 2). Similarly, winter wheat injury the
following May from saflufenacil (25 to 200 g a.i. ha−1)
applied POST with Merge was 2% - 9% higher than the
POST application without an adjuvant. Saflufenacil ap-
plied POST with Merge consistently had the greatest
injury at all the doses evaluated.
Other research has also shown that POST applications
of saflufenacil can cause significant injury in cereals.
Frihauf et al. [2] showed that a POST application of
saflufenacil + non-ionic surfactant at 25 to 50 g a.i. ha−1
caused 27% - 38% injury in winter wheat at 1 WAT. In
another experiment, Frihauf et al. [6] showed that in-
creasing saflufenacil doses caused winter wheat injury to
be as high as 30% at 3 - 6 days after treatment. Similarly,
Sikkema et al. [4] showed injury from a POST applica-
tion of saflufenacil at 50 g a.i. ha−1 on spring cereals to
be as high as 67% at 3 days after treatment.
When data were combined for all application timings
(Table 3), saflufenacil applied at 25 to 200 g a.i. ha−1,
caused 4% to 11% injury in winter wheat 2 WAT with the
POST + Merge application ausing the greatest injury c

L. R. Brown et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 755-758 757
Table 2. Winter wheat injury as a function of saflufenacil application timing and dose. Means followed by the same letter within a
column (a-e) or row (X-Z) for each section are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD at P < 0.05a.
Injury at various application timings %
Saflufenacil dose (g a.i. ha−1)
PP PRE POST POST + Merge
SE
1 WAT injuryb
0 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
25 0 a Z 0 a Z 4 a Z 16 b Y 1
50 0 a Z 0 a Z 5 ab Z 19 c Y 2
100 2 a Z 1 a Z 7 bc Z 24 d Y 2
200 1 a Z 2 a Z 10 c Z 28 e Y 2
SE 0 0 1 1
May injuryc
0 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
25 0 a Z 2 a Z 1 a Z 3 b Z 1
50 1 a Z 1 a Z 1 a Z 9 c Y 1
100 0 a Z 1 a Z 2 ab Z 7 c Y 1
200 1 a Z 2 a YZ 5 b Y 14 d X 1
SE 0 1 1 1
aAbbreviations: Merge added at 1% v/v; WAT: Weeks after treatment; PP: Pre-plant; PRE: Pre-emergence; POST: Post-emergence; bData averaged for Exeter in
2008 & 2009; cExeter 2008.
Table 3. Winter wheat injury, height and yield as a function of saflufenacil dose and application timing. Means followed by the same
letter within a column are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD at P < 0.05a.
Injury%
2 WATb Mayc Julyb Heightd cm Yieldd MT ha−1
Saflufenacil dose (g a.i. ha−1)
0 0 a 0 a 0 a 79.9 a 6.87 a
25 4 b 11 b 1 a 79.6 a 6.68 a
50 5 b 11 b 1 a 80.0 a 6.73 a
100 8 c 18 c 1 a 79.5 a 6.60 a
200 11 d 20 c 1 a 79.8 a 6.55 a
SE 1 2 0 0.2 0.05
Application timing
Untreated 0 a 0 a 0 a 79.9 a 6.87 a
PP 1 a 1 a 0 a 80.2 a 6.87 a
PRE 1 a 2 a 0 a 80.2 a 6.85 a
POST 6 a 16 b 1 a 79.6 a 6.68 a
POST + Merge 20 b 41 c 1 a 79.1 a 6.35 a
SE 1 2 0 0.2 0.05
aAbbreviations: Merge added at 1% v/v; WAT, week after treatment; PP, pre-plant; PRE, pre-emergence; POST, post-emergence; bData averaged for Exeter in
008 & 2009; cExeter 2009; dData averaged for Exeter and Ridgetown in 2007-2009. 2

L. R. Brown et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 755-758
758
(20%). Saflufenacil caused 11% (25 and 50 g a.i. ha−1),
18% (100 g a.i. ha−1) and 20% (200 g a.i. ha−1) injury in
May of the following spring in winter wheat with the
greatest injury occurring with the POST (16%) and
POST + Merge (41%) applications (Table 3). As the
season progressed into July, there was little to no injury
from saflufenacil application the previous autumn.
There was no effect of saflufenacil on winter wheat
height or yield (Table 3). Even though saflufenacil ap-
plied POST and POST + Merge caused up to 16% and
41% injury respectively, this injury was transient with no
effect on winter wheat height or yield. These results dif-
fer from studies conducted by Knezevic et al. [8] who
reported a significant yield reduction (up to 66%) with
autumn POST applications of saflufenacil and up to 67%
with spring POST applications in winter wheat.
4. CONCLUSION
This study concludes that there is an acceptable mar-
gin of crop safety in winter wheat to PP and PRE appli-
cations of saflufenacil. The POST applications caused
injury that would be unacceptable to growers even
though in this study it did not result in a yield loss. There
was greater injury when saflufenacil was applied POST +
Merge. Injury was the greatest at higher doses. Since this
research has shown that saflufenacil can be applied
safely to winter wheat either PP or PRE future research
should focus on the control of winter annual, biennial
and perennial broadleaf weeds. The autumn application
of saflufenacil may eliminate the need for spring applied
herbicides for broadleaf weed control.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Todd Cowan for his exper-
tise and technical assistance in these studies. Funding for this project
was provided in part by the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) and
BASF.
REFERENCES
[1] Frihauf, J.C., Stahlman, P.W. and Geier, R.W. (2010)
Winter wheat and weed response to postemergence saflu-
fenacil alone and in mixtures. Weed Science Society of
America, 24, 262-268. doi:10.1614/WT-D-09-00020.1
[2] Lyon, D.J. and Kniss, A.R. (2010) Proso millet tolerance
to saflufenacil. Weed Science Society of America, 24, 349-
355. doi:10.1614/WT-D-10-00001.1
[3] Moran, M.E. (2010) Preemergence and postemergence
interactions of saflufenacil in corn (Zea mays L.). MSc
thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph.
[4] Sikkema, P.H., Shropshire, C. and Soltani, N. (2008)
Tolerance of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oats
(Avena sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to
saflufenacil. Crop Protection, 27, 1495-1497.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.07.009
[5] Soltani, N., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P.H. (2010) Sen-
sitivity of leguminous crops to saflufenacil. Weed Science
Society of America, 24, 143-146.
doi:10.1614/WT-09-029.1
[6] Frihauf, J.C., Stahlman, P.W., Geier, P.W. and Peterson,
D.E. (2010) Winter annual broadleaf weeds and winter
wheat response to post emergence application of two sa-
flufenacil formulations. Weed Science Society of America,
24, 416-424. doi:10.1614/WT-D-09-00049.1
[7] Geier, P.W., Stahlman, P.W. and Charvat, L.D. (2009)
Dose responses of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil.
Weed Science Society of America, 23, 313-316.
doi:10.1614/WT-08-085.1
[8] Knezevic, S.Z., Datta, A., Scott, J. and Charvat, L.D.
(2010) Tolerance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
to pre-emergence and post-emergence application of sa-
flufenacil. Crop Protection, 29, 148-152.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2009.08.017