Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:08:16.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Glyphosate Timing and Row Width on Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Pusley (Richardia spp.) Demographics in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Prashant Jha ,
Jason K. Norsworthy ,
William Bridges Jr.  and
Melissa B. Riley
Prashant Jha*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
William Bridges Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, Clemson University, 243 Barre Hall, Clemson, SC 29634
Melissa B. Riley
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, 120 Long Hall, Clemson, SC 29634
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of soybean row width and glyphosate application timing was determined on survival, biomass, and seed production of cohorts from a mixed population of Palmer amaranth and pusley species (Florida and Brazil pusley) along with soybean seed yield. The first Palmer amaranth and pusley cohort comprised plants that emerged from soybean planting through the V3 (3 wk after soybean emergence [WAE]) soybean stage (cohort 1). The second cohort comprised plants that emerged between the V3 to V6 (5 WAE) soybean stages (cohort 2), and the third cohort emerged after the V6 through the R2 soybean stage (cohort 3). Glyphosate at 840 g ae ha−1 was applied at V3; V6; V3 and V6; and V3, V6, and R2 in rows either 19 or 97 cm wide. A nontreated control was included for comparison in each row width. Sequential glyphosate applications at V3 and V6 or at V3, V6, and R2 soybean stages resulted in 1 to 3% survival of cohort 1 compared with 23 to 28% survival after a single glyphosate application. Vegetative biomass production by cohort 1 accounted for 71% of the total pusley biomass produced in the nontreated plots. Cohort 1, 2, and 3 contributed 68, 31, and 1%, respectively, of the total 37,900 seeds m−2 produced by pusley plants in nontreated plots. Delaying a glyphosate application to the V6 stage resulted in higher biomass and more than twice the seed produced from cohort 1 when compared with cohort 2. Glyphosate applied at V3 and V6 stages prevented pusley seed production from cohort 1, and an additional glyphosate application at the R2 stage prevented seed production from cohorts 2 and 3. No Palmer amaranth emergence occurred after the V6 soybean stage in either row width. A single glyphosate application at the V3 or V6 stage eliminated cohort 1 of Palmer amaranth in narrow rows. Palmer amaranth plants from cohort 1 in wide rows that survived the V3 glyphosate application produced 3.3 g m−2 biomass and 600 seeds m−2. Averaged over years and row widths, soybean yields after sequential glyphosate applications were 2,490 to 2,640 kg ha−1 compared with 1,850 to 2,020 kg ha−1 after a single glyphosate application at the V3 or V6 stage. This research confirms that sequential glyphosate applications are superior to a single application for minimizing pusley and Palmer amaranth survival, biomass, and seed production along with an improvement in soybean yields.

Keywords

GlyphosateBrazil pusley, Richardia brasiliensis (Moq.) Gomez RCHBRFlorida pusley, Richardia scabra L. RCHSCPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCohort, demographics, population dynamics
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 408 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Biswas, P. K., Bell, P. D., Crayton, J. L., and Paul, K. B. 1975. Germination behavior of Florida pusley seeds. I. Effects of storage, light, temperature and planting depths on germination. Weed Sci. 23:400–403.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Oliver, L. R., and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 2006. Response of Palmer amranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 20:885–892.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1974. Weed survey—southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 27:215–249.Google Scholar
Buehring, N. W., Nice, G. R. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control and soybean (Glycine max) response to soybean row spacing and population in three weed management systems. Weed Technol. 16:131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2000. Response of Setaria faberi demographic processes to herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 48:445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandran, R. S. and Singh, M. 2003. Survey and control of Brazil pusley (Richardia brasiliensis) in Florida citrus. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 116:211–214.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:177–182.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1997. Weed survey—southern states—grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:227–246.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. Iowa State University of Science and Technology Special Rep. 80. 12.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.Google Scholar
Guo, P. and Al-Khatib, K. 2003. Temperature effects on germination and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci. 51:869–875.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Corvalis, OR Weed Science Society of America/Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (WSSA/HRAC) Weed Smart annual report. 3.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughlin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Jha, P., Norsworthy, J. K., and Malik, M. S. 2007. Effect of tillage and soybean canopy formation on temporal emergence of Palmer amaranth from a natural seed bank. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:11.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and competition of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. L. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. F., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., and Trooien, T. P. 2003. Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci. 51:523–531.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Steckel, L. E., McElroy, J. S., and Teuton, T. C. 2006. An update on herbicide resistance in Tennessee. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:133.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C. and Sherrick, S. 1999. Florida pusley (Richardia scabra) control in Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:57–58.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. R., Colvin, D. L., Dickens, R., Everest, J. W., Hall, D., and McCarty, L. B. 1996. Weeds of Southern Turfgrasses. Gainesville, FL University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service IFAS. 179–181.Google Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., VanGessel, M. J., Calvin, D. D., Mortensen, D. A., Majek, B. A., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2004. Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci. 52:913–919.Google Scholar
Nordby, D. E. and Hartzler, R. G. 2004. Influence of corn on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and fecundity. Weed Sci. 52:255–259.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2003. Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol. 17:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2004. Broadleaved weed control in wide-row soybean (Glycine max) using conventional and glyphosate herbicide programmes. Crop Prot. 23:1229–1235.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2005. Optimizing glyphosate timing in a mixed stand of glyphosate-resistant/conventional, drill seeded soybean. Weed Technol. 19:942–946.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Griffith, G. M., Scott, R. C., Smith, K. L., and Oliver, L. R. 2008. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 22:108–113.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Jha, P., and Bridges, W. Jr. 2007. Sicklepod survival and fecundity in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 55:252–259.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol. 15:284–292.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol. 14:413–422.Google Scholar
Puricelli, E., Orioli, G., and Sabbatini, M. R. 2002. Demography of Anoda cristata in wide- and narrow-row soybean. Weed Res. 42:456–463.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Singh, M. 1992. Organosilicone adjuvants increased the efficacy of glyphosate for control of weeds in citrus (Citrus spp.). Hortic. Sci. 27:1003–1005.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:191–198.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2001. Surfactants increase toxicity of glyphosate and 2,4-D to Brazil pusley. Hortic. Sci. 36:726–728.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004. Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol. 18:947–952.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Simmons, F. W., Bollero, G., Hager, A., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Tillage and cropping effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and seed bank distribution over four years. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:321.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci. 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. powellii and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, A. C., Whitaker, J. R., Culpepper, A. S., and Main, C. L. 2007. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the southeastern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:225.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Young, J. M., Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Kapusta, G. 2001. Weed management in narrow- and wide-row glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:112–121.Google Scholar