Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:14:17.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Control in No-Tillage Conventional (Non–genetically engineered) Soybean Using Overlapping Residual Herbicide Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2018

Debalin Sarangi  and
Amit J. Jhala Open the ORCID record for Amit J. Jhala [Opens in a new window]
Debalin Sarangi
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Amit J. Jhala*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Amit J. Jhala, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Due to depressed corn and soybean prices over the last few years in the United States, growers in Nebraska are showing interest in no-tillage (hereafter referred to as no-till) conventional (non–genetically engineered [non-GE]) soybean production. Due to the increasing number of herbicide-resistant weeds in the United States, weed control in no-till non-GE soybean using POST herbicides is a challenge. The objectives of this study were to compare PRE-only, PRE followed by (fb) POST, and PRE fb POST with residual (POST-WR) herbicide programs for Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control and soybean injury and yield, as well as to estimate the gross profit margins and benefit–cost ratio of herbicide programs. A field experiment was conducted in 2016 and 2017 at Clay Center, NE. The PRE herbicides tested in this study resulted in ≥95% Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control at 28 d after PRE (DAPRE). Averaged across the programs, the PRE-only program controlled Palmer amaranth 66%, whereas 86% and 97% control was obtained with the PRE fb POST and PRE fb POST-WR programs, respectively, at 28 d after POST (DAPOST). At 28 DAPOST, the PRE fb POST herbicide programs controlled velvetleaf 94%, whereas the PRE-only program resulted in 85% control. Mixing soil-residual herbicides with foliar-active POST programs did not improve velvetleaf control. Averaged across herbicide programs, PRE fb POST programs increased soybean yield by 10% and 41% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, over the PRE-only programs. Moreover, PRE fb POST-WR programs produced 7% and 40% higher soybean yield in 2016 and 2017, respectively, compared with the PRE fb POST programs. The gross profit margin (US$1,184.3 ha−1) was highest under flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone (PRE) fb fluthiacet-methyl plus S-metolachlor/fomesafen (POST-WR) treatment; however, the benefit–cost ratio was highest (6.1) with the PRE-only program of flumioxazin/chlorimuron-ethyl.

Keywords

Aaron Hager, University of IllinoisChlorimuron-ethylflumioxazinfluthiacet-methylfomesafenpyroxasulfoneS-metolachlorPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watsonvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medikcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrBenefit–cost ratiobest management practiceseconomicsmultiple sites of actionPRE followed by POST
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 95 - 105
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Cite this article: Sarangi D and 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 33:95–105. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.78

References

Anonymous (2016) Zidua® herbicide product label. BASF Corporation Publication No. NVA 2016-04-388-0194. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Babcock, BA, Beghin, JC (1999) Potential Market for Non-GMO Corn and Soybeans. Ames, IA: CARD Briefing Papers. Volume 15Google Scholar
Bain, C, Selfa, T (2017) Non-GMO vs organic labels: purity or process guarantees in a GMO contaminated landscape. Agric Human Values 34:805–818 Google Scholar
Barnes, ER, Knezevic, SZ, Sikkema, PH, Lindquist, JL, Jhala, AJ (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. Front Plant Sci 8:1455, 10.3389/fpls.2017.01455Google Scholar
Battaglin, WA, Meyer, MT, Kuivila, KM, Dietze, JE (2014) Glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely in U.S. soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:275–290 Google Scholar
Belfry, KD, McNaughton, KE, Sikkema, PH (2015) Weed control in soybean using pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone. Can J Plant Sci 95:1199–1204 Google Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.—the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur 24:24, 10.1186/2190-4715-24-24Google Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2016) Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur 28:3, 10.1186/s12302-016-0070-010.1186/s12302-016-0070-0Google Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, 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
Blackman, GE, Templeman, WG (1938) The nature of the competition between cereal crops and annual weeds. J Agric Sci 28:247–271 Google Scholar
Bøhn, T, Cuhra, M, Traavik, T, Sanden, M, Fagan, J, Primicerio, R (2014) Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem 153:207–215 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.054Google Scholar
Buhler, DD (1999) Expanding the context of weed management. J Crop Prod 2:1–7 Google 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 30:355–365 Google Scholar
Carpenter, J, Gianessi, L (1999) Herbicide tolerant soybeans: why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum 2:65–72 Google Scholar
Carpenter, JE (2001) Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Pp 4–6 Google Scholar
Cartwright, W (2016) The Production and Exportation of Arkansas Non GMO vs GMO Soybeans to China. Supply chain management undergraduate honors thesis. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas. 4 pGoogle Scholar
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, Ganie, ZA, Jhala, AJ (2018) Overlapping residual herbicides for control of photosystem (PS) II- and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) in glyphosate-resistant maize. Front Plant Sci 8: 2231, 10.3389/fpls.2017.02231Google 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 Google Scholar
Davison, J (2010) GM plants: science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Sci 178:94–98 Google Scholar
Dill, GM, CaJacob, CA, Padgette, SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64:326–331 Google Scholar
Eaton, BJ, Russ, OG, Feltner, KC (1976) Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida and Venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci 24:224–228 Google Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) Conservation Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7480e.pdf. Accessed: July 10, 2018Google Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Frihauf, JC (2006) KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–626 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Cutts, GS III, Newsome, LJ, Newell, SH III (2014) Comparison of pyroxasulfone to soil residual herbicides for glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth control in glyphosate resistant soybean. Crop Manag 12, 10.1094/CM-2013-0032-RSGoogle Scholar
Hart, C, Zhang, W (2016) Crude Oil Prices and US Crop Exports: Exploring the Secondary Links between the Energy and Ag Markets. Ames, IA: Agricultural Policy Review. Volume 2016, Article 2Google Scholar
Hay, MM (2017) Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Double Crop Soybean and with Very Long Chain Fatty Acid Inhibitor Herbicides. M.Sc thesis. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. Pp 1–39Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018a) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Herbicide Resistant Tall Waterhemp Globally. http://weedscience.org/Summary/Species.aspx?WeedID=219. Accessed: July 24, 2018Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018b) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weeds Resistant to EPSP Synthase Inhibitors. http://weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. Accessed: July 24, 2018Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ (2018) Herbicide-resistant weeds in Nebraska. Pages 18–19 in Knezevic SZ, Creech CF, Jhala AJ, Klein RN, Kruger GR, Proctor CA, Shea PJ, Ogg CL, Thompson C, Lawrence N, Werle R, eds. 2018 Guide for Weed, Disease, and Insect Management in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension EC130 Google 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 Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Sarangi, D, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:32–45 Google Scholar
Jones, T (2008) Conventional Soybeans Offer High Yields at Lower Cost. CropWatch. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/conventional-soybeans-offer-high-yields-lower-cost Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 Google Scholar
Kolpin, DW, Thurman, EM, Lee, EA, Meyer, MT, Furlong, ET, Glassmeyer, ST (2006) Urban contributions of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to streams in the United States. Sci Total Environ 354:191–197 Google Scholar
Lawrence, N (2017) Management of ALS-Resistant Palmer Amaranth and Waterhemp in the Panhandle. CropWatch. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/2017/management-als-resistant-palmer-amaranth-and-waterhemp-panhandle. Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Bradley, KW, Massey, RE (2009) Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control and economic returns with herbicide programs in soybean. Weed Technol 23:54–61 Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Weed management in conventional- and no-till soybean using flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 28:298–306 Google 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 Google Scholar
Muhammad, A (2015) Price risk and exporter competition in China’s soybean market. Agribusiness 31:188–197 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modeling glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 25:335–343 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2003) Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol 17:195–201 Google 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 60:31–62 Google Scholar
Patton, BP (2013) Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) in Soybean in Kentucky Conditions. M.Sc thesis. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. 44 pGoogle Scholar
Peterson, DE, Thompson, C, Minihan, CL (2017) Sequential Weed Control Programs in Liberty Link Soybeans. Manhattan, KS: Kansas Agricultural Station Research Reports. Volume 3Google Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265–275 Google Scholar
Reddy, KN (2003) Impact of rye cover crop and herbicides on weeds, yield, and net return in narrow-row transgenic and conventional soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:28–35 10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0028:IORCCA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Reddy, KN, Whiting, K (2000) Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol 14:204–211 Google Scholar
Riley, EB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timing and glyphosate tank-mix combinations on the survival of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in soybean. Weed Technol 28:1–9 10.1614/WT-D-13-00098.1Google Scholar
Robinson, DE, McNaughton, K, Soltani, N (2008) Weed management in transplanted bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) with pretransplant tank mixes of sulfentrazone, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P. HortSci 43:1492–1494 Google Scholar
Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2015) Tips for identifying postemergence herbicide injury symptoms in soybean. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension Circular 497. Pp 5–8 Google Scholar
Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2018) A statewide survey of stakeholders to assess the problem weeds and weed management practices in Nebraska. Weed Technol. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.35Google Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Knezevic, SZ, Aulakh, JS, Lindquist, JL, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2015a) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 29:82–92 Google Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Knezevic, SZ, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2015b) Season-long control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp as influenced by split-applications of very long chain fatty acid synthesis inhibitors in soybean. Page 29 in Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society and Midwest Invasive Plant Network Symposium. Indianapolis, IN: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2017) Comparison of herbicide programs for season-long control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in soybean. Weed Technol 31:53–66 Google Scholar
Silva, V, Montanarella, L, Jones, A, Fernández-Ugalde, O, Mol, HGJ, Ritsema, CJ, Geissen, V (2018) Distribution of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in agricultural topsoils of the European Union. Sci Total Environ 621:1352–1359 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 Google Scholar
Staniforth, DW, Weber, CR (1956) Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agron J 48:467–471 Google Scholar
Stephens, T, Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2017) Confirmation of a common waterhemp biotype resistant to protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors in Nebraska. Page 89 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663 Google Scholar
Triplett, GB, Dick, WA (2008) No-tillage crop production: a revolution in agriculture! Agron J 100:153–165 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015) USDA Coexistence Fact Sheets Soybeans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf. Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (2017) National Weekly Non-GMO/GE Grain Report. Greeley, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/gl_gr112.txt. Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2018) The Systems Approach for U.S. Soybeans Exported to China. Riverdale, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/!ut/p/z1/fYzBDoIwDIbvPAUXj6ZIjHoFQ4xGY6IX2GUpZMp02cY2DLy9E1FvXvr1b_sVSBCGQQC5h2_G8iEQiQ9-RceVRAE5FGRB98f5epaeI88sjZLstDxk2TberGLYDeLPf334b-SjMZ5_AQW_NQ1JgFRKOtY5yFHX3NIhSkcFLw2afhJZpKo19KKq1g5JC_T7mqFw9TBgnVbG-Vb1JUM5fWcL-k6KJ3JxXaU!. Accessed: April 18, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-FAS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Foreign Agricultural Service (2017) China’s Robust Demand for Oilseeds Continues to Outpace Growth in Domestic Production. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Oilseeds%20and%20Products%20Annual_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_3-16-2017.pdf. Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) Acreage. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2010s/2017/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf. Accessed: December 28, 2017Google Scholar
Wang, N, Houston, JE (2016) The co-movement between non-GM and GM soybean prices in China: evidence from Dalian Futures Market (2004–2014). Appl Econ Financ 3: 37–47.Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 Google Scholar
Weber, CR, Staniforth, DW (1957) Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron J 49:440–444 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 Google Scholar