Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:20:06.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrated pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) management in glufosinate-resistant soybean with a cover crop, narrow row widths, row-crop cultivation, and herbicide program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Marshall M. Hay Open the ORCID record for Marshall M. Hay [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Anita Dille  and
Dallas E. Peterson
Marshall M. Hay*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
J. Anita Dille
Affiliation:
Professors, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Professors, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Marshall M. Hay, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, 1712 Claflin Road, Manhattan, KS, 66506. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Successful pigweed management requires an integrated strategy to delay the development of resistance to any single control tactic. Field trials were implemented during 2017 and 2018 in three counties in Kansas on dryland (limited rainfall, nonirrigated), glufosinate-resistant soybean. The objective was to assess pigweed control with combinations of a winter wheat cover crop (CC), three soybean row widths (76, 38, and 19 cm), row-crop cultivation 2.5 weeks after planting (WAP), and an herbicide program to develop integrated pigweed management recommendations. All combinations of the four components were assessed by 16 treatments. All treatments with the herbicide program resulted in excellent (>97%) pigweed control and were analyzed separately from the other components. Treatments containing row-crop cultivation reduced pigweed density and biomass 3 and 8 WAP in all locations compared with the 76-cm row width plus no CC treatment. CC impacts were mixed. In Riley County, Palmer amaranth density and biomass were reduced; in Reno County, no additional Palmer amaranth control was observed; in Franklin County, the CC had greater waterhemp density and biomass compared with the treatments containing no CC. Narrow row widths achieved the most consistent results of all cultural components when data were pooled across locations: Decreasing row widths from 76 to 38 cm resulted in a 23% reduction in pigweed biomass 8 WAP and decreasing row width from 38 to 19 cm achieved a 15% reduction. Row-crop cultivation should be incorporated where possible as a mechanical option to manage pigweed, and narrow row widths should be used to suppress late-season pigweed growth when feasible. Inconsistent pigweed control from CC was achieved and should be given special consideration before implementation. The integral use of these components with an herbicide program as a system should be recommended to achieve the best pigweed control and reduce the risk of developing herbicide resistance.

Keywords

Kevin Bradley, University of Missouriglufosinatepigweed, Amaranthus spp., Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watsonwaterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauersoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Integrated weed managementresistance managementlayered residualPRE followed by POSTnarrow row spacingsoil-applied residualpigweed emergence timingwinter wheatcanopy developmentCIPAR
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 710 - 719
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Arguez, A, Durre, I, Applequist, S, Squires, M, Vose, R, Yin, X, Bilotta, R (2010) NOAA’s U.S. climate normals (1981–2010). http://scacis.rcc-acis.org/. Accessed: January 9, 2018Google Scholar
Ball, DF (1964) Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. J. Soil Sci. 15:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, HD, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Popp, M (2015) Effect of row spacing, seeding rate, and herbicide program in glufosinate-resistant soybean on Palmer amaranth management. Weed Technol 3:390–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD (1995) Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:1247–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG (2004) Weed biology and management. Pages 883–918 in Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses. Boerma, HR and Specht, JE eds. Agronomy Monograph 16. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Doll, JD, Proost, RT, Visocky, MR (1995) Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron J 87:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Gunsolus, JL, Ralston, DF (1992) Integrated weed Management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron J 84:973–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Sandell, LD, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Loux, MM, Bradley, KW, Conley, SP, Stoltenberg, DE, Arriaga, FJ, Davis, VM (2016) Management of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean in the Midwest and mid-south. Weed Technol 30:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Ganie, ZA, Jhala, AJ (2018) Overlapping residual herbicides for control of photosystem (PS) II- and 4-hydroxypenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibitor resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) in glyphosate-resistant maize. Front Plant Sci 8:2231, 10.3389/fpls.2017.02231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelius, CD, Bradley, KW (2017) Influence of cover crop species on winter and summer annual weed emergence in soybean. Weed Technol 31:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2009) New and old soybean cultivar responses to plant density and intercepted light. Crop Sci 49:2225–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVore, JD, Norsworthy, JK, Brye, KR (2013) Influence of deep tillage, a rye cover crop, and various soybean production systems on Palmer amaranth emergence in soybean. Weed Technol 27:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Fox, GC, Swanton, CJ (1996) Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1995) Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, JA, Mortensen, DA, Martin, AR (1999). Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J, Calhoun, R, Knori, M, Lollato, R, Cruppe, G (2014) Fall forage production and date of first hollow stem in winter wheat varieties during the 2013–2014 crop year. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Publication No. CR-2141.Google Scholar
Edwards, JT, Purcell, LC, Karcher, DE (2005) Soybean yield and biomass responses to increasing plant population among diverse maturity groups: II. Light interception and utilization. Crop Sci 1770–1777Google Scholar
Elmore, RW (1998) Soybean cultivar responses to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J Prod Agric 11:273–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, JA, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG, Schutte, B, Wu, C, Chatham, LA, Davis, AS (2016) Managing the evolution of herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 72:74–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forcella, F and Lindstrom, MJ (1988) Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed March 1, 2019Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK (2009) Soybean canopy and tillage effects on emergence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from a natural seed bank. Weed Sci 57:644–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, TN, Coble, HD, Wax, LM (1987) Weed control. Pages 429–460 In Wilcox, JR, ed. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. Madison: ASA, CSSA, SSSAGoogle Scholar
Keene, CL, Curran, WS (2016) Optimizing high-residue cultivation timing and frequency in reduced-tillage soybean and corn. Agron J 108:1897–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evan, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, MM, Dobbels, AF, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Young, BG, Spaunhorst, DJ, Norsworthy, JK, Palhano, M, Steckel, LE (2017) Influence of cover crops on management of Amaranthus species in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, CL, Marschner, CA, Caldwell, BA, DiTommaso, A (2016) Weed mortality caused by row-crop cultivation in organic corn-soybean-spelt cropping systems. Weed Technol 30:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, L, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth in cotton. Weed Technol 25:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci Spec 31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, MDK, Beckie, JF, Leeson, JY, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE (2014) Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada. Pest Manag Sci 71:357–376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, EJ, Gebhardt, M, Stritzke, JF (1965) Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, DE (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol 13:632–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J of Soil and Water Conservation 66: doi:10.2480/jwsc.66.4.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, LC (2000) Soybean canopy coverage and light interception measurements using digital imagery. Crop Sci 40:834–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, LC, Bass, RA, Reaper, III JD, Vories, ED (2002) Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in different plant population densities. Crop Sci 42:172–177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Refsell, DE, Hartzler, RG (2009) Effect of tillage on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and vertical distribution of seed in the soil. Weed Technol 23:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, CI (1969) Removal of excess salt in cation exchange capacity determinations. Soil Sci 93:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2018) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in no-tillage conventional (non-genetically engineered) soybean using overlapping residual herbicide programs. Weed Technol 33:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, JL, Myers, DB, Bradley, KW (2015) Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 62:427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shergill, LS, Barlow, BR, Bish, MD, Bradley, KW (2018) Investigations of 2,4-D and multiple herbicide resistance in a Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population. Weed Sci 66:386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibbles, RM, Weber, CR (1966) Interception of solar radiation interception, and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Sci 5:575–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, AN, Reberg-Horton, CS, Place, TG, Meijer, AD, Arellano, C, Mueller, PJ (2011) Rolled rye mulch for weed suppression in organic no-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 59:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in corn (Zea mays) with single preemergence and sequential applications of residual herbicides. Weed Technol 16:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Rosecrance, RC (2003) Mechanical versus herbicidal strategies for killing a hairy vetch cover crop and controlling weeds in minimum-tillage corn production. Am J Alt Agric 18:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2015 Baseline survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Survey Data Set. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015_Weed_Survey_Final.xlsx. Accessed May 22, 2019Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Schweizer, EE, Wilson, RG, Wiles, LJ, Westra, P (1998) Impact of timing and frequency of in-row cultivation for weed control in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 12:548–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Scully, BT, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2013) Winter cover crops influence Amaranthus palmeri establishment. Crop Protection 52:130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, MS, Reberg-Horton, SC, Mirsky, SB (2014) Cultural strategies for managing weeds and soil moisture in cover crop based no-till soybean production. Weed Sci 62:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yelverton, FH, Coble, HD (1991) Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar