A field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to determine foliar efficacy of halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D, or dicamba applied alone and in combination with glyphosate at preplant burndown timing. Experiments were conducted near Painter, VA; Rocky Mount, NC; Jackson, NC; and Gates, NC. Control of horseweed, henbit, purple deadnettle, cutleaf evening primrose, curly dock, purple cudweed, and common chickweed were evaluated. Halauxifen-methyl applied at 5 g ae ha−1 controlled small and large horseweed 89% and 79%, respectively, and was similar to control by dicamba applied at 280 g ae ha−1. Both rates of 2,4-D—533 g ae ha−1(low rate [LR]) or 1,066 g ae ha−1 (high rate [HR])—were less effective than halauxifen-methyl and dicamba for controlling horseweed. Halauxifen-methyl was the only auxin herbicide to control henbit (90%) and purple deadnettle (99%). Cutleaf evening primrose was controlled 74% to 85%, 51%, and 4% by 2,4-D, dicamba, and halauxifen-methyl, respectively. Dicamba and 2,4-D controlled curly dock 59% to 70% and were more effective than halauxifen-methyl (5%). Auxin herbicides applied alone controlled purple cudweed and common chickweed 21% or less. With the exception of cutleaf evening primrose (35%) and curly dock (37%), glyphosate alone provided 95% or greater control of all weeds evaluated. These experiments demonstrate halauxifen-methyl effectively (≥79%) controls horseweed, henbit, and purple deadnettle, whereas common chickweed, curly dock, cutleaf evening primrose, and purple cudweed control by the herbicide is inadequate (≤7%).

Auxin herbicides are used in combinations to control glyphosate-resistant horseweed preplant burndown. Herbicide labels for 2,4-D–containing products require a 30-d rotation interval for planting cotton cultivars not resistant to 2,4-D. Dicamba labels require an accumulation of 2.5 cm of rain plus 21 d per 280 g ae ha–1 rotation interval for planting cotton cultivars not resistant to dicamba. Previous research has shown that cotton injury caused by dicamba applied 14 d before planting was transient with little effect on cotton yield, whereas 2,4-D has little effect on cotton when applied 7 d prior to planting. Injury caused by dicamba and 2,4-D is inversely related to rainfall received between herbicide application and cotton planting. Experiments were conducted to evaluate cotton tolerance to halauxifen-methyl, a new Group 4 herbicide, applied at intervals shorter than labeled requirements. Experiments were established near Painter and Suffolk, VA, and Belvidere, Clayton, Eure, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC, during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons. Herbicide treatments included halauxifen, dicamba, and 2,4-D applied 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 wk before planting (WBP). Visible estimates of cotton growth reduction and total injury were collected 1, 2, and 4 wk after cotton emergence (WAE). Cotton stand and percentage of plants with distorted leaves were recorded 2 and 4 WAE. Cotton plant heights were recorded 4 and 8 WAE. Halauxifen was less injurious (9%) than dicamba (26%) or 2,4-D (21%) 2 WAE when herbicides were applied 0 WBP. Cotton stand reduction 2 WAE by halauxifen was less than 2,4-D and dicamba when applied 0 WBP. Injury observed from herbicides applied 1, 2, 3, and 4 WBP was minor, and no significant differences in cotton stand were observed. Early-season cotton injury was transient, and seed cotton yield was unaffected by any treatment.

Precision weed management, an application of precision agriculture, accounts for within-field variability of weed infestation and herbicide damage. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) provide a unique platform for remote sensing of field crops. They are more efficient and flexible than manned agricultural airplanes in acquiring high-resolution images at low altitudes and low speeds. UAVs are more universal than agricultural aircraft, because the latter are used only in specific regions. We have developed and used UAV systems for red–green–blue digital and color–infrared imaging over crop fields to identify weed species, determine crop injury from dicamba at different doses, and detect naturally grown glyphosate-resistant weeds. This article presents remote sensing technologies for weed management and focuses on development and application of UAV-based low-altitude remote sensing technology for precision weed management. In particular, this article futher discusses the potential application of UAV-based plant-sensing systems for mapping the distributions of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible weeds in crop fields.

Glyphosate typically controls Palmer amaranth very well. However, glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes of this weed are present in several southern states, requiring the development of effective alternatives to glyphosate-only management strategies. Field experiments were conducted in seven North Carolina environments to evaluate control of glyphosate-susceptible (GS) and GR Palmer amaranth in narrow-row soybean by glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Conventional systems included either pendimethalin or S-metolachlor applied PRE alone or mixed with flumioxazin, fomesafen, or metribuzin plus chlorimuron followed by fomesafen or no herbicide POST. S-metolachlor was more effective at controlling GR and GS Palmer amaranth than pendimethalin; flumioxazin and fomesafen were generally more effective than metribuzin plus chlorimuron. Fomesafen applied POST following PRE herbicides increased Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield compared with PRE-only herbicide systems. Glyphosate alone applied once POST controlled GS Palmer amaranth 97% late in the season. Glyphosate was more effective than fomesafen plus clethodim applied POST. Control of GS Palmer amaranth when treated with pendimethalin or S-metolachlor plus flumioxazin, fomesafen, or metribuzin plus chlorimuron applied PRE followed by fomesafen POST was equivalent to control achieved by glyphosate applied once POST. In fields with GR Palmer amaranth, greater than 80% late-season control was obtained only with systems of pendimethalin or S-metolachlor plus flumioxazin, fomesafen, or metribuzin plus chlorimuron applied PRE followed by fomesafen POST. Systems of pendimethalin or S-metolachlor plus flumioxazin, fomesafen, or metribuzin plus chlorimuron applied PRE without fomesafen POST controlled GR Palmer amaranth less than 30% late in the season. Systems of pendimethalin or S-metolachlor PRE followed by fomesafen POST controlled GR Palmer amaranth less than 60% late in the season.

Field experiments were conducted in Georgia to evaluate weed control and crop tolerance with glufosinate applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF®’ cotton. This glyphosate-resistant cotton also contains a gene, used as a selectable marker, for glufosinate resistance. Three experiments were maintained weed-free and focused on crop tolerance; a fourth experiment focused on control of pitted morningglory and glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In two experiments, PHY 485 WRF cotton was visibly injured 15 and 20% or less by glufosinate ammonium salt at 430 and 860 g ae/ha, respectively, applied POST two or three times. In a third experiment, glufosinate at 550 g/ha injured cotton up to 36%. Pyrithiobac or glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase injury compared to glufosinate applied alone; S-metolachlor mixed with glufosinate increased injury by six to seven percentage points. Cotton injury was not detectable 14 to 21 d after glufosinate application, and cotton yields were not reduced by glufosinate or glufosinate mixtures. A program of pendimethalin PRE, glyphosate applied POST twice, and diuron plus MSMA POST-directed controlled glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth only 17% late in the season. S-metolachlor included with the initial glyphosate application did not increase control, and pyrithiobac increased late-season control by only 13 percentage points. Palmer amaranth was controlled 90% or more when glufosinate replaced glyphosate in the aforementioned system. Pitted morningglory was controlled 99% by all glufosinate programs and mixtures of glyphosate plus pyrithiobac. Seed cotton yields with glufosinate-based systems were at least 3.3 times greater than yields with glyphosate-based systems because of differences in control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.

Cotton growers rely heavily upon glufosinate and various residual herbicides applied preplant, PRE, and POST to control Palmer amaranth resistant to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Recently deregulated in the United States, cotton resistant to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate (B2XF cotton) offers a new platform for controlling herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth. A field experiment was conducted in North Carolina and Georgia to determine B2XF cotton tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate and to compare Palmer amaranth control by dicamba to a currently used, nondicamba program in both glufosinate- and glyphosate-based systems. Treatments consisted of glyphosate or glufosinate applied early POST (EPOST) and mid-POST (MPOST) in a factorial arrangement of treatments with seven dicamba options (no dicamba, PRE, EPOST, MPOST, PRE followed by [fb] EPOST, PRE fb MPOST, and EPOST fb MPOST) and a nondicamba standard. The nondicamba standard consisted of fomesafen PRE, pyrithiobac EPOST, and acetochlor MPOST. Dicamba caused no injury when applied PRE and only minor, transient injury when applied POST. At time of EPOST application, Palmer amaranth control by dicamba or fomesafen applied PRE, in combination with acetochlor, was similar and 13 to 17% greater than acetochlor alone. Dicamba was generally more effective on Palmer amaranth applied POST rather than PRE, and two applications were usually more effective than one. In glyphosate-based systems, greater Palmer amaranth control and cotton yield were obtained with dicamba applied EPOST, MPOST, or EPOST fb MPOST compared with the standard herbicides in North Carolina. In contrast, dicamba was no more effective than the standard herbicides in the glufosinate-based systems. In Georgia, dicamba was as effective as the standard herbicides in a glyphosate-based system only when dicamba was applied EPOST fb MPOST. In glufosinate-based systems in Georgia, dicamba was as effective as standard herbicides only when dicamba was applied twice.

A survey of soybean fields containing waterhemp infestations was conducted just prior to harvest in 2008 and 2009 to determine the frequency and distribution of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Missouri, and to determine if there are any in-field parameters that may serve as indicators of glyphosate resistance in this species in future crop production systems. Glyphosate resistance was confirmed in 99 out of 144, or 69%, of the total waterhemp populations sampled, which occurred in 41 counties of Missouri. Populations of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp were more likely to occur in fields with no other weed species present at the end of the season, continuous cropping of soybean, exclusive use of glyphosate for several consecutive seasons, and waterhemp plants showing obvious signs of surviving herbicide treatment compared to fields characterized with glyphosate-susceptible waterhemp. Therefore, it is suggested that these four site parameters, and certain combinations of these parameters, serve as predictors of glyphosate resistance in future waterhemp populations.

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth has become a serious pest in parts of the Cotton Belt. Some GR cotton cultivars also contain the WideStrike™ insect resistance trait, which confers tolerance to glufosinate. Use of glufosinate-based management systems in such cultivars could be an option for managing GR Palmer amaranth. The objective of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and weed control with glyphosate-based and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. The North Carolina field experiment compared glyphosate and glufosinate alone and in mixtures applied twice before four- to six-leaf cotton. Additional treatments included glyphosate and glufosinate mixed with S-metolachlor or pyrithiobac applied to one- to two-leaf cotton followed by glyphosate or glufosinate alone on four- to six-leaf cotton. All treatments received a residual lay-by application. Excellent weed control was observed from all treatments on most weed species. Glyphosate was more effective than glufosinate on glyphosate-susceptible (GS) Palmer amaranth and annual grasses, while glufosinate was more effective on GR Palmer amaranth. Annual grass and GS Palmer amaranth control by glyphosate plus glufosinate was often less than control by glyphosate alone but similar to or greater than control by glufosinate alone, while mixtures were more effective than either herbicide alone on GR Palmer amaranth. Glufosinate caused minor and transient injury to the crop, but no differences in cotton yield or fiber quality were noted. This research demonstrates glufosinate can be applied early in the season to PHY 485 WRF cotton without concern for significant adverse effects on the crop. Although glufosinate is often less effective than glyphosate on GS Palmer amaranth, GR Palmer amaranth can be controlled with well-timed applications of glufosinate. Use of glufosinate in cultivars with the WideStrike trait could fill a significant void in current weed management programs for GR Palmer amaranth in cotton.

Corn and soybean growers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina, as well as cotton growers in Mississippi and North Carolina, were surveyed about their views on changes in problematic weeds and weed pressure in cropping systems based on a glyphosate-resistant (GR) crop. No growers using a GR cropping system for more than 5 yr reported heavy weed pressure. Over all cropping systems investigated (continuous GR soybean, continuous GR cotton, GR corn/GR soybean, GR soybean/non-GR crop, and GR corn/non-GR crop), 0 to 7% of survey respondents reported greater weed pressure after implementing rotations using GR crops, whereas 31 to 57% felt weed pressure was similar and 36 to 70% indicated that weed pressure was less. Pigweed, morningglory, johnsongrass, ragweed, foxtail, and velvetleaf were mentioned as their most problematic weeds, depending on the state and cropping system. Systems using GR crops improved weed management compared with the technologies used before the adoption of GR crops. However, the long-term success of managing problematic weeds in GR cropping systems will require the development of multifaceted integrated weed management programs that include glyphosate as well as other weed management tactics.