Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Protox-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to herbicides applied at different growth stages

  • Jeanne S. Falk (a1), Douglas E. Shoup (a2), Kassim Al-Khatib and Dallas E. Peterson (a3)
Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted with a population of common waterhemp resistant to POST protoporphyrinogen oxidase (protox)-inhibiting herbicides to compare its response to PRE and POST applications of selected herbicides. In the greenhouse, a dose–response study of PRE applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, or lactofen was conducted on protox-susceptible and -resistant common waterhemp. The protox-resistant biotype was approximately 6.3, 2.5, and 2.6 times more resistant than the susceptible biotype to acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen, respectively. In a separate study under field conditions, protox-resistant common waterhemp were treated with PRE and POST applications of acifluorfen, azafenidin, flumioxazin, fomesafen, lactofen, oxyfluorfen, or sulfentrazone. At 14 and 28 d after POST treatment (DAPT) in 2002 and 2004, all PRE applications of herbicides gave greater control than did POST applications. At 14 DAPT, oxyfluorfen had the greatest difference in PRE and POST control, with 85 and 10% control in 2002, respectively. An additional field study was conducted to determine the stage of growth at which resistance to protox-inhibiting herbicides becomes most prevalent. Protox-resistant common waterhemp were treated with herbicides at the 2-leaf, 4- to 6-leaf, and 8- to 10-leaf growth stage. Acifluorfen and fomesafen at 420 g ha−1 gave greater than 90% control at the 2-leaf stage and 4- to 6-leaf stage, except in 2003 when control was 85% with acifluorfen. In 2003 and 2004, common waterhemp control at the 8- to 10-leaf stage ranged between 54 and 75% with acifluorfen or fomesafen. Results indicate that common waterhemp resistance to customary rates of POST protox-inhibiting herbicides becomes prevalent after the 4- to 6-leaf growth stage.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author. Department of Agronomy, 3108 Throckmorton Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506; khatib@ksu.edu
References
Hide All
AmsellemZ., JansenM. A. K., DriesenaarA. R. J., and GresselJ. 1993. Developmental variability of photooxidative stress tolerance in paraquat-resistant Conyza . Plant Physiol 103:10971106.
AndersonD. D., RoethF. W., and MartinA. R. 1996. Occurrence and control of triazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:570575.
AndersonW. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Pp. 108124.
BenschC. N., HorakM. J., and PetersonD. E. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:3743.
FeltnerK. C., HurstH. R., and AndersonL. E. 1969. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 17:214216.
HartzlerR. G., BattlesB. A., and NordbyD. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci 52:242245.
HartzlerR. G., BuhlerD. D., and StoltenbergD. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578584.
HassanG., Mueller-WarrantG., and GriffithS. 2002. Differential sensitivity of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) cultivars to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci 50:567575.
HeapI. M. 2004. International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.com.
HorakM. J. and LoughinT. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347355.
LeeS. D. and OliverL. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci 30:520526.
LiJ., SmedaR. J., NelsonK. A., and DayanF. E. 2004. Physiological basis for resistance to diphenyl ether herbicides in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci 52:333338.
MagerH. J., YoungB. G., and Al-KhatibK. 2002. Management of common waterhemp resistant to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides in soybean. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society. [Abstract 70, CD ROM].
MassingaR. A., Al-KhatibK., St. AmandP., and MillerJ. F. 2003. Gene flow from imidazolinone-resistant domesticated sunflower to wild relatives. Weed Sci 51:854862.
MatsumotoH., LeeJ. J., and IshizukaK. 1994. Variation in crop response to protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors. Pages 120132 in DukeS. O. and RebeizC. A. eds. Porphyric Pesticides: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Applications. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
PatzoldtW. L., HagerA. G., and TranelP. J. 2003. Molecular characterization of the gene encoding protoporphyrinogen oxidase from waterhemp. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 58:30.
PatzoldtW. L., TranelP. J., and HagerA. G. 2005. A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci 53:3036.
SauerJ. D. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:1131.
SeefeldtS. S., JensenJ. E., and FuerstE. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218227.
ShermanT. D., BecerrilJ. M., MatsumotoH., DukeM. V., JacobsJ. M., JacobsN. J., and DukeS. O. 1991. Physiological basis for differential sensitivities of plant species to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Plant Physiol 97:280287.
ShoupD. E. and Al-KhatibK. 2004. Control of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in corn and soybean. Weed Technol 18:332340.
ShoupD. E., Al-KhatibK., and PetersonD. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145150.
SteckelL. E. and SpragueC. L. 2004. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in corn. Weed Sci 52:359364.
VasilakoglouI. B., EleftherohorinosI. G., and DhimaK. V. 2000. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) biotypes found in Greece. Weed Technol 14:524529.
VencillW. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 477.
ZawieruchaJ. E. and PennerD. 2001. The relationship of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) stage of growth to quinclorac tolerance. Weed Technol 15:216219.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Science
  • ISSN: 0043-1745
  • EISSN: 1550-2759
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 38 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.