William Johnson

Dr. William Johnson

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2012 in Weed Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
WVWilliam K. Vencill
William K. Vencill
RNRobert L. Nichols
Robert L. Nichols
TWTheodore M. Webster
Theodore M. Webster
JSJohn K. Soteres
John K. Soteres
CMCarol Mallory-Smith
Carol Mallory-Smith
MMMarilyn R. McClelland
Marilyn R. McClelland
Development of herbicide-resistant crops has resulted in significant changes to agronomic practices, one of which is the adoption of effective, simple, low-risk, crop-production systems with less dependency on tillage and lower energy requirements. Overall, the changes have had a positive environmental effect by reducing soil erosion, the fuel use for tillage, and the number of herbicides with groundwater advisories as well as a slight reduction in the overall environmental impact quotient of herbicide use. However, herbicides exert a high selection pressure on weed populations, and density and diversity of weed communities change over time in response to herbicides and other control practices imposed on them. Repeated and intensive use of herbicides with the same mechanisms of action (MOA; the mechanism in the plant that the herbicide detrimentally affects so that the plant succumbs to the herbicide; e.g., inhibition of an enzyme that is vital to plant growth or the inability of a plant to metabolize the herbicide before it has done damage) can rapidly select for shifts to tolerant, difficult-to-control weeds and the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, especially in the absence of the concurrent use of herbicides with different mechanisms of action or the use of mechanical or cultural practices or both.

1 December 2011 in Weed Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JMJ. Mithila
J. Mithila
JHJ. Christopher Hall
J. Christopher Hall
WJWilliam Johnson
William Johnson
KKKevin B. Kelley
Kevin B. Kelley
DRDean E. Riechers
Dean E. Riechers
Auxinic herbicides are widely used for control of broadleaf weeds in cereal crops and turfgrass. These herbicides are structurally similar to the natural plant hormone auxin, and induce several of the same physiological and biochemical responses at low concentrations. After several decades of research to understand the auxin signal transduction pathway, the receptors for auxin binding and resultant biochemical and physiological responses have recently been discovered in plants. However, the precise mode of action for the auxinic herbicides is not completely understood despite their extensive use in agriculture for over six decades. Auxinic herbicide-resistant weed biotypes offer excellent model species for uncovering the mode of action as well as resistance to these compounds. Compared with other herbicide families, the incidence of resistance to auxinic herbicides is relatively low, with only 29 auxinic herbicide-resistant weed species discovered to date. The relatively low incidence of resistance to auxinic herbicides has been attributed to the presence of rare alleles imparting resistance in natural weed populations, the potential for fitness penalties due to mutations conferring resistance in weeds, and the complex mode of action of auxinic herbicides in sensitive dicot plants. This review discusses recent advances in the auxin signal transduction pathway and its relation to auxinic herbicide mode of action. Furthermore, comprehensive information about the genetics and inheritance of auxinic herbicide resistance and case studies examining mechanisms of resistance in auxinic herbicide-resistant broadleaf weed biotypes are provided. Within the context of recent findings pertaining to auxin biology and mechanisms of resistance to auxinic herbicides, agronomic implications of the evolution of resistance to these herbicides are discussed in light of new auxinic herbicide-resistant crops that will be commercialized in the near future.

1 October 2009 in European Journal of Agronomy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
WJWilliam Johnson
William Johnson
VDVince M. Davis
Vince M. Davis
GKGreg R. Kruger
Greg R. Kruger
SWStephen C. Weller
Stephen C. Weller

1 March 2009 in Weed Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
WGWade A. Givens
Wade A. Givens
DSDavid R. Shaw
David R. Shaw
GKGreg R. Kruger
Greg R. Kruger
WJWilliam Johnson
William Johnson
SWStephen C. Weller
Stephen C. Weller
DJDavid Jordan
David Jordan
A phone survey was administered to 1,195 growers in six states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina). The survey measured producers' crop history, perception of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, past and present weed pressure, tillage practices, and herbicide use as affected by the adoption of GR crops. This article describes the changes in tillage practice reported in the survey. The adoption of a GR cropping system resulted in a large increase in the percentage of growers using no-till and reduced-till systems. Tillage intensity declined more in continuous GR cotton and GR soybean (45 and 23%, respectively) than in rotations that included GR corn or non-GR crops. Tillage intensity declined more in the states of Mississippi and North Carolina than in the other states, with 33% of the growers in these states shifting to more conservative tillage practices after the adoption of a GR crop. This was primarily due to the lower amount of conservation tillage adoption in these states before GR crop availability. Adoption rates of no-till and reduced-till systems increased as farm size decreased. Overall, producers in a crop rotation that included a GR crop shifted from a relatively more tillage-intense system to reduced-till or no-till systems after implementing a GR crop into their production system.

1 October 2005 in Weed Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KGKevin D. Gibson
Kevin D. Gibson
WJWilliam Johnson
William Johnson
DHDavid E. Hillger
David E. Hillger
Corn and soybean farmers across Indiana were surveyed in 2003 to determine the perceived importance of weeds at the state and district levels. Weeds were considered the primary crop pest by 69 to 84% of farmers, depending on district. Diseases or insects were ranked first by no more than 14% of farmers and nematodes were ranked first by no more than 11%. Giant ragweed, Canada thistle, common lambsquarters, common cocklebur, and velvetleaf were considered the most problematic summer annual and perennial weeds statewide. Chickweed, horseweed, dandelion, and henbit were considered the most problematic winter annual weeds statewide. However, no weed species was listed by more than 41% of farmers statewide suggesting that relatively unique weed management problems may exist on many farms. Also, the perceived importance of most weed species varied substantially among Indiana's nine districts. For example, velvetleaf was not listed as a problematic weed by any farmers in three districts. Burcucumber was not considered a statewide problem but was listed among the top three weeds by 14 and 16% of farmers in two southern districts. This survey supports the idea that educational programs focused on weed management should be tailored to geographic regions within Indiana.Nomenclature: Burcucumber, Sicyos angulatus L. #3 SIYAN; Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. # CIRAR; chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. # STEME; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANTH; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL; dandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers # TAROF; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifidia L. # AMBTR; henbit, Lamium amplexicaule L. # LAMAM; horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. # ERICA; velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti L. # ABUTH; corn, Zea mays L.; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Additional index words: pests, weed rankings, winter annual, summer annual, perennial, Sorghum halepense, Sorghum bicolor, # SORVU, # SORHU.Abbreviations: GDD, growing degree days; IASS, Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service.

2 May 2011 in Pest Management Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DZDanman Zheng
Danman Zheng
GKGreg R Kruger
Greg R Kruger
SSSukhvinder Singh
Sukhvinder Singh
VDVince M Davis
Vince M Davis
PTPatrick Tranel
Patrick Tranel
WJWilliam Johnson
William Johnson