Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:22:57.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Options for Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Double-Crop Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

Marshall M. Hay Open the ORCID record for Marshall M. Hay [Opens in a new window] ,
Douglas E. Shoup  and
Dallas E. Peterson
Marshall M. Hay*
Affiliation:
Graduate student and Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Douglas E. Shoup
Affiliation:
Area agronomist and Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Parsons, KS 67357
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Graduate student and Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Author for correspondence: Marshall M. Hay, Kansas State University, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Science Center, 1712 Claflin Road, Manhattan, KS 66506. (Email: mmhay@ksu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Double-crop soybean after winter wheat is a component of many cropping systems across eastern and central Kansas. Until recently, control of Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp has been both easy and economical with the use of sequential applications of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Many populations of Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp have become resistant to glyphosate. During 2015 and 2016, a total of five field experiments were conducted near Manhattan, Hutchinson, and Ottawa, KS, to assess various non-glyphosate herbicide programs at three different application timings for the control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp in double-crop soybean after winter wheat. Spring-POST treatments of pyroxasulfone (119 g ai ha–1) and pendimethalin (1065 g ai ha–1) were applied to winter wheat to evaluate residual control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp. Less than 40% control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp was observed in both treatments 2 wk after planting (WAP) double-crop soybean. Preharvest treatments of 2,4-D (561 g ae ha–1) and flumioxazin (107 g ai ha–1) were also applied to the winter wheat to assess control of emerged Palmer amaranth and waterhemp. 2,4-D resulted in highly variable Palmer amaranth and waterhemp control, whereas flumioxazin resulted in control similar to PRE treatments that contained paraquat (841 g ai ha–1) plus residual herbicide(s). Excellent control of both species was observed 2 WAP with a PRE paraquat application; however, reduced control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp was noted 8 WAP due to subsequent emergence. Results indicate that Palmer amaranth and waterhemp control was 85% or greater 8 WAP for PRE treatments that included a combination of paraquat plus residual herbicide(s). PRE treatments that did not include both paraquat and residual herbicide(s) did not provide acceptable control.

Keywords

Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri2,4-Dflumioxazinglyphosateparaquatpendimethalinpyroxasulfonecommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis J. D. Sauer. AMATAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson AMAPAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrwheat, Triticum aestivum LApplication timingglyphosate resistantresidual herbicideweed heightwinter wheat
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 106 - 114
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.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: 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 33:123–127. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.86

References

Abendroth, JA, Martin, AR, Roeth, FW (2006) Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20:267–274Google Scholar
Anonymous (2006). Shredder™ herbicide product label. Winfield Solutions LLC. St. Paul, MN: Winfield. p 8Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016a) Flexstar® herbicide product label. Publication No. SCP 1101A-L1G 0316. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. p 15Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016b) Gramoxone SL 2.0® herbicide product label. Publication No. SCP 1431A-L1E 1115. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. p 9Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016c) Prowl H2O® herbicide product label. BASF Publication No. NVA 2016-04-195-0117. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. pp 5, 34Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016d) Valor SX™ herbicide product label. Valor Publication No. 2016-VSX-0001. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Corporation. p 30Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016e) Zidua® herbicide product label. BASF Publication No. NVA 2016-04-388-0194. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. pp 5, 15Google Scholar
Arguez, A, Durre, I, Applequist, S, Squires, M, Vose, R, Yin, X, Bilotta, R (2010) NOAA’s U.S. Climate Normals (1981–2010). Daily. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. DOI:10.7289/V5PN93Google Scholar
Armstrong, J (2009) Harvest aid weed control in wheat. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Extension. PT 2009-2Google Scholar
Ball, DF (1964) Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. J Soil Sci 15:84–92Google Scholar
Bell, HD, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, JK (2015) Effect of drill-seeded soybean density and residual herbicide on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) emergence. Weed Technol 29:697–706Google Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO IV (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892Google Scholar
Busi, R, Gaines, TA, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2012) Understanding the potential for resistance evolution to the new herbicide pyroxasulfone: field selection at high doses versus recurrent selection at low doses. Weed Res 52:489–499Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672Google Scholar
Challet, R, Ogren, WL (1975) Regulation of photorespiration in C3 and C4 species. Botanical Review 41:137–179Google Scholar
Ciampitti, IA, Ruiz Diaz, D, Jardine, DJ, Peterson, DE, Whitworth, RJ, Rogers, DH, Shoup, DE (2016) Kansas soybean management 2016. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service MF3154Google 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 44:126–132Google Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1995) Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran Desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107–112Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J and Forseth, I (1980) Solar tracking by plants. Science 210:1094–1098Google Scholar
Gaeddert, JW, Peterson, DE, Horak, MJ (1997) Control and cross-resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol 11:132–137Google Scholar
Gianessi, LP (2008) Economic impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 64:346–352Google Scholar
Gossett, BJ, Murdock, EC, Toler, JE (1992) Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol 6:587–591Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Bollero, GA, Stoller, EW (2003) Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:14–20Google Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Battles, BA, Nordby, D (2004) Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and vertical distribution of seed in the soil. Weed Technol 23:129–133Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 2, 2017Google Scholar
Horak, MJ and Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Ibendahl, G, O’Brien, DM, Shoup, DE (2015) Double-crop soybean cost-return budget in central and eastern Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service MF2537.Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK, Riley, MB, Bielenberg, DG, Bridges, W Jr. (2008) Acclimation of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to shading. Weed Sci 56:729–734Google Scholar
Johnson, DB, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC (2014) Herbicide programs for controlling glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 28:10–18Google Scholar
Krausz, RF and Young, BG (2001) Response of double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol 15:300–305Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Weed management in conventional- and no-till soybean using flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 28:298–306Google Scholar
McHarry, MJ and Kapusta, G (1979) Herbicide applications in tillered winter wheat for doublecrop soybean weed control. Agron. J 71:1051–1055Google 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 (2016) Weed Technol 30:67–75Google Scholar
Morichetti, S, Ferrell, J, MacDonald, G, Sellers, B, Rowland, D (2012) Weed management and peanut response from applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol 26:261–266Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) USDA Quick Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: October 26, 2018Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2003) Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol 17:195–201Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Scott, RC, Gbur, EE (2007) Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton. Weed Technol 21:825–831Google 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 62 (SI I):31–62Google Scholar
Pearcy, RW and Ehleringer, J (1984) Comparative ecophysiology of C3 and C4 plants. Plant Cell Environ 7:1–13Google Scholar
Rich, CI (1969) Removal of excess salt in cation exchange capacity determinations. Soil Sci 93:87–93Google Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE, Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284–290Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. p 396Google Scholar
Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145–150Google Scholar
Steckel, LE (2007) The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technol 21:567–570Google 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 16:755–761Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG, Simmons, FW, Bollero, GA (2003) Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci 51:898–903Google Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Bond, JA, Walker, ER, Bararpour, MT, Oliver, LR (2004a) Evaluation of mesotrione in Mississippi delta corn production. Weed Technol 18:1111–1116Google Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Patterson, MG, Faircloth, WH, Lunsford, JN (2004b) Weed management with fomesafen preemergence in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 18:680–686Google Scholar
Stoller, EW and Myers, RA (1989) Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci 37:570–574Google Scholar
Triplett, GB Jr (1978) Weed control for doublecrop soybeans planted with the no-tillage method following small grain harvest. Agron J 70:577–581Google Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–220Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Ayeni, AO, Majek, BA (2001) Glyphosate in double-crop no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol 15:703–713Google 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: January 1, 2017Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27Google Scholar
Webster, TM and Grey, TL (2015) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) morphology, growth, and seed production in Georgia. Weed Sci 63:264–272Google 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 24:403–410Google Scholar
Wilson, RG, Young, BG, Matthews, JL, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG, Jordan, DL, Owen, MDK, Dixon, PM, Shaw, DR (2011) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 4: Weed management practices and effects on weed populations and soil seedbanks. Pest Manag 67:771–780Google Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Leon, CT (2005) Response of rice cultivars to V-10029. Weed Technol 19:307–311Google Scholar