Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:00:59.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective two-pass herbicide programs to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2020

Vipan Kumar Open the ORCID record for Vipan Kumar [Opens in a new window] ,
Rui Liu ,
Dallas E. Peterson  and
Phillip W. Stahlman
Vipan Kumar*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Rui Liu
Affiliation:
Assistant Scientist, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, Manhattan, KS, USA
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Vipan Kumar, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, 1232 240th Avenue, Hays, KS67601. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 at Kansas State University Ashland Bottoms (KSU-AB) research farm near Manhattan, KS, and Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center (KSU-ARC) near Hays, KS, to determine the effectiveness of various PRE-applied herbicide premixes and tank mixtures alone or followed by (fb) an early POST (EPOST) treatment of glyphosate + dicamba for controlling glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant (GDR) soybean. In experiment 1, PRE-applied sulfentrazone + S-metolachlor, saflufenacil + imazethapyr + pyroxasulfone, chlorimuron + flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone, and metribuzin + flumioxazin + imazethapyr provided 85% to 94% end-of-season control of GR Palmer amaranth across both sites. In comparison, Palmer amaranth control ranged from 63% to 87% at final evaluation with PRE-applied pyroxasulfone + sulfentrazone, pyroxasulfone + sulfentrazone plus metribuzin, pyroxasulfone + sulfentrazone plus carfentrazone + sulfentrazone, and sulfentrazone + metribuzin at the KSU-ARC site in experiment 2. All PRE fb EPOST (i.e., two-pass) programs provided near-complete (98% to 100%) control of GR Palmer amaranth at both sites. PRE-alone programs reduced Palmer amaranth shoot biomass by 35% to 76% in experiment 1 at both sites, whereas all two-pass programs prevented Palmer amaranth biomass production. No differences in soybean yields were observed among tested programs in experiment 1 at KSU-ARC site; however, PRE-alone sulfentrazone + S-metolachlor, saflufenacil + imazethapyr + pyroxasulfone, and chlorimuron + flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone had lower grain yield (average, 4,342 kg ha−1) compared with the top yielding (4,832 kg ha−1) treatment at the KSU-AB site. PRE-applied sulfentrazone + metribuzin had a lower soybean yield (1,776 kg ha−1) compared with all other programs in experiment 2 at the KSU-ARC site. These results suggest growers should proactively adopt effective PRE-applied premixes fb EPOST programs evaluated in this study to reduce selection pressure from multiple POST dicamba applications for GR Palmer amaranth control in GDR soybean.

Keywords

Glyphosate resistanceglyphosate/dicamba-resistant soybeanselection pressuresoil-residual premixesCarfentrazone-ethylchlorimurondicambaflumioxazinglyphosateimazethapyrmetribuzinpyroxasulfoneS-metolachlorsulfentrazonePalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. WatsonsoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 128 - 135
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Lawrence E. Steckel, University of Tennessee

References

Chahal, PS, Aulakh, JS, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2015) Herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) in the United States: mechanisms of resistance, impact, and management. Pages 1–29 in Price, A, Kelton, J, Sarunaite, L, eds. Herbicides, Agronomic Crops and Weed Biology . Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Google Scholar
Chahal, PS, Varanasi, VK, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2017) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska: confirmation, EPSPS gene amplification, and response to POST corn and soybean herbicides. Weed Technol 31:80–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107–112 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garetson, R, Singh, V, Singh, S, Dotray, P, Bagavathiannan, M (2019) Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas. Weed Technol 33:355–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, MM, Shoup, DE, Peterson, DE (2019) Herbicide options for control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in double-crop soybean. Weed Technol 33:106–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, IM (2020) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: May 15, 2020Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0347:GAOFAS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, MM, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Brabham, C (2019) Field evaluation of preemergence and postemergence herbicides for control of protoporphyrinogen oxidase-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson). Weed Technol 33: 610–615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK, Riley, MB, Bielenberg, DG, Bridges, W Jr. (2008) Acclimation of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to shading. Weed Sci 56:729–734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Rana, N, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2014) Confirmation and control of triazine and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 28:28–38 10.1614/WT-D-13-00090.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 Google Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Boyer, G, Stahlman, PW (2019) Confirmation of 2,4-D resistance and identification of multiple resistance in a Kansas Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) population. Pest Manag Sci 75:2925–2933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Stahlman, PW (2020) Differential sensitivity of Kansas Palmer amaranth populations to multiple herbicides. Agron J 112:2152–2163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Weed management in conventional- and no-till soybean using flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 28:298–306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT, Spaunhorst, DJ, Butts, TR (2015) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 29:716–729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Res 51:99–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, G, Bowman, D, Burton, M, Rufty, T (2008) Root penetration through a high bulk density soil layer: differential response of a crop and weed species. Plant Soil 307:179–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, JD (1957) Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Stoller, EW, Wax, LM (2004) Temperature effects on germination of nine Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 52:217–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, KL, Hartzler, RG (2000) Effect of seedbank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 14:261–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tehranchian, P, Norsworthy, JK, Powles, S, Bararpour, MT, Bagavathiannan, MV, Barber, T, Scott, RC (2017) Recurrent sublethal-dose selection for reduced susceptibility of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dicamba. Weed Sci 65:206–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2017) Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in grass crops, pasture and turf in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Weed-Survey-2017-05-19.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020Google Scholar
Vencill, WK, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS, Gaines, C, Westra, P (2008) Herbicide-resistance in the Amaranthaceae. J Plant Dis Prot XXI(special issue):41–44 Google Scholar
Vieira, BC, Luck, JD, Amundsen, KL, Werle, R, Gaines, TA, Kruger, GR (2020) Herbicide drift exposure leads to reduced herbicide sensitivity in Amaranthus spp . Sci Rep 10:2146 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2005) Weed survey–southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Pages 291-306 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society Meeting. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, SR, Jennette, MW, Coble, HD, Rufty, TW (1999) Root morphology of young Glycine max, Senna obtusifolia, and Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Sci 47:706–711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar